Interesting SCOTUS article

Forums:

Long and interesting article, even thought provoking...  thought I'd give it it's own thread (so I can come back and finish reading it, LOL)

https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/how-to-reduce-the-destructive-political...

 

<<How to reduce the destructive political power of the Supreme Court — and save Democracy

 

<<

With the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the nomination of a polar opposite replacement, only one response that makes any sense: Expand the Supreme Court. The only real question is by how much. There are other responses that can do some good — perhaps even more good. But without court expansion, the existing court can, and almost certainly will, strike them down. 

Yes, some call it an extreme step. But there's a more extreme step: Simply ignore the court's decisions — as some Republicans argued in the 1850s, in response to the Dred Scott decision. More to the point, this is an extreme situation that demands extreme responses. As Boston College law professor Kent Greenfield tweeted on Sept. 21:

Some #SCOTUS facts: 

15 of the last 19 appointments were made by GOP Presidents. (16/20 if #Trump gets another.)

The last year a majority of the justices were Dem appointees: 1969. Meanwhile, the GOP won the popular vote in the presidential election once in 30 years (2004).

It's also been more than 20 years since Republicans represented a majority of voters in the Senate, making the condition of minority rule even more extreme. It's also self-reinforcing: As Greg Sargent notes, a 6-3 conservative majority could strike down a new version of HR 1, the pro-democracy reforms that House Democrats passed in 2019, including wildly popular nonpartisan redistricting commissions.

The same fate awaits virtually everything else Democrats have campaigned on, as The Nation's justice correspondent, Elie Mystal, argued last February in an article bluntly titled, "If We Don't Reform the Supreme Court, Nothing Else Will Matter":

Not a single significant policy or initiative proposed by the candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination is likely to survive a Supreme Court review. Nothing on guns, nothing on climate, nothing on health care — nothing survives the conservative majority on today's court. >>

  Very  interesting

i am open to the idea of expanding the number of justices 

It is sad how much power the minority has (republicans ) and how many justices have been appointed by the minority 

"At bottom, conservatives are driven by a "restoration fantasy" of a world that never existed, and the Supreme Court is their way of getting there. Some sign onto a 19th-century fantasy of utterly unregulated capitalism, some to a Christian nationalist fantasy of America as a biblical nation — or, more radically, to a Christian Reconstructionist fantasy chillingly similar to "The Handmaid's Tale." In the legal arena there are the dual fantasies of "textualism" and "originalism," which is now incoherently collapsing into a bewildering array of forms — "Originalism is a 'They' not an 'It,'" as Segall describes."

 

Some #SCOTUS facts: 

15 of the last 19 appointments were made by GOP Presidents. (16/20 if #Trump gets another.)

The last year a majority of the justices were Dem appointees: 1969. Meanwhile, the GOP won the popular vote in the presidential election once in 30 years (2004).

 

The electoral college as another fascinating discussion

balance  of power.    Or minority rule?

Also - the Senate. Non-democratic in principal. Do we really need it?

Also - number of people rep. by each House member - can vary by almost 50 %.

Also - districting decided by party in power.

Also - election rules decided by party in power.

Projections are that by 2040, some 60-70% of us will live in 15 states.

 

65% (multiracial, urban, paying all the taxes for the entire nation)  -   get 30 senators

35% (white, rural, gun-loving evangelicals that do not pay taxes*) -   get 70 Senators.

 

This is un-good.

Might be time to secede?  https://newrepublic.com/article/140948/bluexit-blue-states-exit-trump-re...

*e.g., West Virginia

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2011/08/01/the-red-and-the-black

"SOME American states receive more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes; others receive less. Over twenty years these fiscal transfers can add up to a sizeable sum. From 1990 to 2009, the federal government spent $1.44 trillion in Virginia but collected less than $850 billion in taxes, a gap of over $590 billion. But relative to the size of its economy, Virginia derived a smaller benefit from America's fiscal union than states like New Mexico, Mississippi and West Virginia, where the 20-year transfer exceeded 200% of their annual GDP. Transfers to Puerto Rico, which is a US territory not a fully incorporated state, exceeded 290%. Where did these transfers come from? New York transferred over $950 billion to the rest of America's fiscal union from 1990 to 2009. But relative to the size of its economy, Delaware made the biggest contribution, equivalent to more than twice its 2009 GDP. 

..."

I'm still mulling this idea over, but I'm starting to think expansion is a must, lest our progress be decided (or held back) by the McConnell/Trump legacy of judicial appointments.

I know the pendulum swings both ways (remember the "Warren" Court"), but for those two to have such a powerful effect on our society so far into the future would be just wrong. This is hardball, and it may be time for a high heater from the mound. I heard at least 50 of the 200 judges approved to the federal bench by McConnell and company were actually deemed unqualified. We need to protect the country from their stupidity. SCOTUS is that protection.      

Using 2019 #s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_Unit...

 

Population of 4 largest states = 110 million

Population of 4 smallest states < 3 million

Population of all 50 states = 325 million.

 

4 biggest states:   > 33% of the population, get 8% of the Senators.

4 smallest states  (WY, ND, AK, VT)  <  1% of the population, get 8% of the Senators

 

Top 10 states:  > 52% of the population, get 20% of the Senators

 

Our founding fathers fucked up.

When the Supreme Court is picked by the Senate, we have permanent minority rule.

Which was probably the way the rich white men who founded this country wanted it.

Time to give DC and Puerto Rico statehoods!   

<<<>>>I'm still mulling this idea over, but I'm starting to think expansion is a must, lest our progress be decided (or held back) by the McConnell/Trump legacy of judicial appointments.

the judicial appointments that dems keep approving. non stop. no questions asked. 

strange. 

Term limits. All federal judges. No grandfathering for sitting occupants. Senators too. Representatives? Perhaps.

This is the straightforward and far more democratic path for congress than packing courts.

and yes, statehood for district and territories provided their voting populations pass referendum.

Term limits for positions that are filled by a vote of the people are undemocratic. However, I would def. be open to limiting SCOTUS terms.

Disagree. Term limits are a prerequisite to a healthy democracy, not an impediment.

 

Examples..... 

probably not even necessary

 

Sorry, not buying it. I like my Senators, relatively speaking - I want to maintain my right to vote for them if I so desire.

Also, term limits reduce the institutional memory of the Senate, or any other body where they are used. They result in most of the legislators' time being taken up with re-inventing the wheel.

Fair enough. I like our senators too. One of them has been in office since last century.

Now, don't you think a responsible senator should be consciously mentoring and grooming their potential future replacement?
I mean - that's what leadership demands. But without term limits, why bother? Right? What's the incentive? (A: re-election)

 

Institutional memory = the status quo
 

when an "institutional" politician drops dead, or gets caught in bed with his wife's co-worker, or flies his airplane into a mountain, or whatever, their "institutional memory" disappears right along with their career.  So the question is who is Ron Wyden's likely replacement? 
 

the reason we don't know the answer to this question is because no term limits.

term limits for justices is the answer

if we expand the court, how do we fairly decide who gets to appoint a large chunk of extra justices? how do we prevent future expansions of the court to prevent every president from expanding it to get their 3 or 4 justices like the last guy did? how do we limit frivolous partisan expansions while leaving the door open to future expansions done out of a legitimate need like we might have today?

i dont see any reasonable answer to these questions. if you think the answer is "well biden will apoint all libs lol" thats wildly short sighted.

term limits seem much simpler and very effective. biden should man up and answer the court packing questions with a single word - "no"

Agree.
 

the reasonable answer to any and all of those questions is term limits for senators, is it not?

yes, this definitely requires the breaking of institutional politics.

which seems to be pretty much the Y where neo-liberals and progressives diverge

 

"Biden would appoint all libs" is at best like a fifteen year exploding strategy.

Term limits: yes mandatory perhaps 16 years or 12-14

 

I also think that the Repulsiveicans lie constantly znd never answer questions 

dems?

joe could say no, yet mean yes (or change his mind later)

 

what does  the term neoliberals mean to you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

I do not have a good feel for the definition .. are all forms of capitalism bad?  (I expect Javs to provide a well written response : perspective 

i see it tossed around here often

With strong derogatory connotations

 

While I'm here (and admittedly quite angry most of the time) Watching politics too much

and I can barely stand listening to most conservatives / republicans

given that I am an opinionated asshole, I do think that most of them are stupid lackeys (and now skip through some of the bs commentary as they ramble on / repeat  / lie)

any studies if IQ by political party?

 

how are intellectuals distributed?