6 ms·

The supreme court is unelected, and are the supreme authority in this nation, above president and congress. the solution is simple - make the supreme court sta

The supreme court is unelected, and are the supreme authority in this nation, above president and congress. the solution is simple - make the supreme court stand up to elections. America has had atrocious decisions from the supreme court. In Dred Scott, they said black people have no rights because they are black. In Roe v Wade, the abortion laws of 47 states were struck down by 5 oligarchs. No matter what you believe about black people or abortion, it isn't right that 5 unelected people should determine the fate of a nation, able to overrule every state and federal law with no consequences.

hackuser 10y ago
I don't see U.S. (or any) elected officials, including Congress and the White House, making better decisions. All have made atrocious decisions. The argument in the parent is well-worn, but it fails serious consideration if it ignores the facts that the U.S. courts interpret laws made by the elected officials, that the judges are appointed by elected officials, that their unelected status is established by elected officials and a national referendum (i.e., the votes that established the Constitution), and the reasons for their unelected status.
- bobbington 10y ago
  Power corrupts. Unelected officials in office for life are at particular risk. i still think the people should be supreme. Right now, there is no legal way for the people to fight an outrageous decision. They can't elect somebody new in 4 years. Thomas Jefferson was adamantly opposed to said judiciary, because it made the constitution a "thing of wax" The whole reason behind federalism was that states would have different ideas of what is good and should implement that. that way you could get away from states with bad laws. Today the Supreme Court and other judges completely ignores the constitution. If they say the sky is green, nobody can correct them save Death itself.
downrightmike 10y ago
Checks and balances
- RangerScience 10y ago
  Yes! Diversity. All systems have failure modes (current fav: utility monsters). By combining multiple systems, you limit the severity of a failure of any one system. All participating systems must be in a failure mode for the overall systems to be in a failure mode. If the Supreme Court were elected, it would suffer from basically the same failure modes as other elected offices, and would be able to provide a systemic durability against those failure modes.
Steko 10y ago
If 47 states still wanted abortion to be illegal, they could certainly have made a constitutional amendment through their elected representatives in Congress and state legislatures. The fact is the restrictions were quickly eroding at the time of Roe and 20 states had already passed laws making specific exceptions including 3 where it was legal.
- bobbington 10y ago
  Yeah but in Dredd Scott the Supreme Court did a massive backpedal on blacks rights, overturning state law that favored them. The question is the same. Back then they argued Over whether a black person is a person. Today they argue over whether a foetus is a person. My question is why should 5 unelected people decide the answer for a nation? I say let states decide for themselves. The reason is people feel very strongly about their opinions, and I think forcing your opinion of what is right on many people is a bad place to be.
lazyasciiart 10y ago
Yes, letting the American people elect Donald Trump to the Supreme Court would obviously improve their decisions.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
michaelmrose 10y ago
The supreme courts and indeed the judicial branches role is spelled out in the constitution they aren't given unlimited discretion to rule by fiat they are given the power within the boundaries written into law by the legislative and enacted by the executive to interpret the law. Don't like their interpretation? The other branches have the power to change the underlying law. Your statement is the sour grapes of those whose wishes are too unpopular to become the law of the land.
int_19h 10y ago
I agree that the sheer power and reach of SCOTUS today, and increased partisanship in practice (even though everyone pretends it's a non-partisan body), does necessitate some reform. But electing judges makes no sense - you might as well then just give the fullness of power to Congress, a la UK's parliamentary sovereignty. What I think we should do is revisit what exactly SCOTUS does, and why. Right now they basically have the final say in any question of constitutionality, and the outcomes are either "it's constitutional" or "it's unconstitutional". I think that's wrong - the third possible outcome should be "Constitution is ambiguous on this". Currently this gets folded into one of the other options, depending on the majority of the court, but I think it's a poor model - if Constitution really is ambiguous, I don't want a simple majority of a few unelected people, many of whom are quite partisan, to make that decision. Instead, I think this option (ambiguity) should be explicit. The way it would work is something like this - if the court decision is unanimous (or maybe with at most one dissenter) one way or the other, then it's assumed that the Constitution is really unambiguous on the subject, and that's the ruling - same as now. But if you get a bigger split, then the ruling is automatically "ambiguous". At that point all the disagreeing parties on the court should have to sit down and write a short opinion on what changes to the Constitution they would require to make the other side's opinion unambiguously correct (if there are more than two sides - which can be the case if different judges rule the same way for different and unrelated reasons - then such opinions should be written for all parties other than the one in question). Then, those opinions are automatically submitted as proposed constitutional amendments to the states for ratification, per usual procedure, except that each state can only ratify one at a time, and there's a reasonable time limit. If one of the amendments wins, then (since all judges have already stated under oath that this is what is required to remove any ambiguity) the ruling is in favor of the corresponding opinion. If none of the amendments get the requisite majority of state ratifications, then court decides based on simple majority, just like today - but the resulting decision is not considered binding precedent, and only applies to that one case. If the same ambiguity arises in future cases, the process has to be repeated. Ideally, this should be combined with a lower bar for constitutional amendments - 3/4 of states is really quite ridiculous, given the sheer number of them, and population differences. Something like 2/3 would be more sensible. Although ideally it should incorporate direct popular vote in a referendum as well, in a series of cascading vetoes to check each other - e.g. 2/3 of popular vote is enough to amend, but a simple majority of states can veto that, but 3/4 of popular vote can override the veto.
umanwizard 10y ago
Democracy isn't an end in itself. The Supreme Court has consistently made better decisions than the democratically elected branches of government.

hackuser 10y ago

I don't see U.S. (or any) elected officials, including Congress and the White House, making better decisions. All have made atrocious decisions. The argument in the parent is well-worn, but it fails serious consideration if it ignores the facts that the U.S. courts interpret laws made by the elected officials, that the judges are appointed by elected officials, that their unelected status is established by elected officials and a national referendum (i.e., the votes that established the Constitution), and the reasons for their unelected status.

bobbington 10y ago
Power corrupts. Unelected officials in office for life are at particular risk. i still think the people should be supreme. Right now, there is no legal way for the people to fight an outrageous decision. They can't elect somebody new in 4 years. Thomas Jefferson was adamantly opposed to said judiciary, because it made the constitution a "thing of wax" The whole reason behind federalism was that states would have different ideas of what is good and should implement that. that way you could get away from states with bad laws. Today the Supreme Court and other judges completely ignores the constitution. If they say the sky is green, nobody can correct them save Death itself.

downrightmike 10y ago

Checks and balances

RangerScience 10y ago
Yes! Diversity. All systems have failure modes (current fav: utility monsters). By combining multiple systems, you limit the severity of a failure of any one system. All participating systems must be in a failure mode for the overall systems to be in a failure mode. If the Supreme Court were elected, it would suffer from basically the same failure modes as other elected offices, and would be able to provide a systemic durability against those failure modes.

Steko 10y ago

If 47 states still wanted abortion to be illegal, they could certainly have made a constitutional amendment through their elected representatives in Congress and state legislatures. The fact is the restrictions were quickly eroding at the time of Roe and 20 states had already passed laws making specific exceptions including 3 where it was legal.

bobbington 10y ago
Yeah but in Dredd Scott the Supreme Court did a massive backpedal on blacks rights, overturning state law that favored them. The question is the same. Back then they argued Over whether a black person is a person. Today they argue over whether a foetus is a person. My question is why should 5 unelected people decide the answer for a nation? I say let states decide for themselves. The reason is people feel very strongly about their opinions, and I think forcing your opinion of what is right on many people is a bad place to be.

lazyasciiart 10y ago

Yes, letting the American people elect Donald Trump to the Supreme Court would obviously improve their decisions.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

michaelmrose 10y ago

The supreme courts and indeed the judicial branches role is spelled out in the constitution they aren't given unlimited discretion to rule by fiat they are given the power within the boundaries written into law by the legislative and enacted by the executive to interpret the law. Don't like their interpretation? The other branches have the power to change the underlying law. Your statement is the sour grapes of those whose wishes are too unpopular to become the law of the land.

int_19h 10y ago

I agree that the sheer power and reach of SCOTUS today, and increased partisanship in practice (even though everyone pretends it's a non-partisan body), does necessitate some reform. But electing judges makes no sense - you might as well then just give the fullness of power to Congress, a la UK's parliamentary sovereignty. What I think we should do is revisit what exactly SCOTUS does, and why. Right now they basically have the final say in any question of constitutionality, and the outcomes are either "it's constitutional" or "it's unconstitutional". I think that's wrong - the third possible outcome should be "Constitution is ambiguous on this". Currently this gets folded into one of the other options, depending on the majority of the court, but I think it's a poor model - if Constitution really is ambiguous, I don't want a simple majority of a few unelected people, many of whom are quite partisan, to make that decision. Instead, I think this option (ambiguity) should be explicit. The way it would work is something like this - if the court decision is unanimous (or maybe with at most one dissenter) one way or the other, then it's assumed that the Constitution is really unambiguous on the subject, and that's the ruling - same as now. But if you get a bigger split, then the ruling is automatically "ambiguous". At that point all the disagreeing parties on the court should have to sit down and write a short opinion on what changes to the Constitution they would require to make the other side's opinion unambiguously correct (if there are more than two sides - which can be the case if different judges rule the same way for different and unrelated reasons - then such opinions should be written for all parties other than the one in question). Then, those opinions are automatically submitted as proposed constitutional amendments to the states for ratification, per usual procedure, except that each state can only ratify one at a time, and there's a reasonable time limit. If one of the amendments wins, then (since all judges have already stated under oath that this is what is required to remove any ambiguity) the ruling is in favor of the corresponding opinion. If none of the amendments get the requisite majority of state ratifications, then court decides based on simple majority, just like today - but the resulting decision is not considered binding precedent, and only applies to that one case. If the same ambiguity arises in future cases, the process has to be repeated. Ideally, this should be combined with a lower bar for constitutional amendments - 3/4 of states is really quite ridiculous, given the sheer number of them, and population differences. Something like 2/3 would be more sensible. Although ideally it should incorporate direct popular vote in a referendum as well, in a series of cascading vetoes to check each other - e.g. 2/3 of popular vote is enough to amend, but a simple majority of states can veto that, but 3/4 of popular vote can override the veto.

umanwizard 10y ago

Democracy isn't an end in itself. The Supreme Court has consistently made better decisions than the democratically elected branches of government.