7 ms·

>I guess I trust the Supreme Court more than I trust Congress It's quite a damning indictment of US-style democracy that people trust a small cabal of unelecte

>I guess I trust the Supreme Court more than I trust Congress It's quite a damning indictment of US-style democracy that people trust a small cabal of unelected lifetime appointees without any meaningful oversight, over a larger pool of democratically elected officials.

Bud 6y ago
A "cabal" is by definition a secret political clique or faction which is unknown to the outside world. It's therefore a big reach to call the Supreme Court a "cabal".
- labster 6y ago
  Public knowledge of doesn't define a cabal, only the secrecy of its decisions and who it benefits. The Supreme Court hears arguments with no recordings allowed, then makes its decisions in secret. What do they have to hide? And the only thing we ever get from the Court is the hundreds of pages in reasoning as to why they made the decision.
  - cvoss 6y ago
    > The Supreme Court hears arguments with no recordings allowed This could not be further from the truth. Complete audio recordings and transcripts dating back to 1955 are available on oyez.org, the more recent of which are likewise available on the Court's own website. During non-pandemic operation, the Court hearings are open to the public. For the cases argued during the pandemic shutdown, the hearings were, in fact, livestreamed. You can hear the justices trying on different lines of reasoning for size during these arguments. So in a very real sense, we get to see a lot of their decision-making process. Yes, they hold a private conference at which some discussion and the vote takes place. I wouldn't have it any other way. I don't want any of the justices to face social pressure in that moment. > hundreds of pages in reasoning as to why they made the decision This reads as an argument against the position that the Court is secretive.
lr4444lr 6y ago
The court is supposed to be exactly as you describe as a counterweight to legislators affected by vicissitudes of an electorate every 2 or 6 years. This is a feature, not a bug, of the American republic.
Imnimo 6y ago
Yeah, but on the other hand, Congress voted to confirm those Supreme Court justices, so maybe I trust Congress more than I think! Really what I meant was that I trust the supreme court more specifically on the question of whether a body might use a loophole to achieve a political end. I trust Congress less on that because they're a political body and so will naturally pursue political ends. The Supreme Court is at least nominally apolitical, so I trust them to have a bit more restraint on that particular front. The job of a Congressperson is to fight for what they believe should be the law, and I trust them to do that. But that also means I don't trust them to avoid using a loophole to win that fight.
dTal 6y ago
Not just US-style. The House of Lords in the UK, a cabal of unelected lifetime appointees without any meaningful oversight, is consistently saner than its elected counterpart. Political parties, and being constantly afraid for one's job, seemingly have quite the detrimental effect.
- mcv 6y ago
  The House of Lords sane? I admit I don't really follow it in any detail, but my impression from various reports was that it was a mess of scandals and corruption. Though I admit that being saner than the House of Commons sounds like a fairly low bar.
  - tialaramex 6y ago
    The Lords are a mix of: * Inherited peers who were supposed to be abolished or at least phased out but then weren't either, just statistically they'll tend to be older and have also inherited riches so while a few are knowledgeable and add value most aren't even decorative. Some of these are just a drain on the purse, they show up to collect "expenses" but don't actually do anything whatsoever. But others insist on having their say even if they nothing to offer. * Politicians sent there. No better than they were when (or if, some had previously been in high ranking unelected positions) elected. Some of these serve as Ministers. Unlike the US the British cabinet must be selected from Parliament, all the Great Offices (most important) must by tradition comes from the Commons and thus elected MPs. But it's normal (and when your talent pool is a bit empty necessary) to have a bunch of Cabinet Ministers from the Lords. You can deliberately "elevate" people there because you want them for this purpose but as it's a lifetime deal they are still there until they die. The alternative, if someone seems electable, is to "parachute them in" to replace a retiring or dead MP from your party in a by-election, but this is a less certain way and usually much slower. * Rich people who thought this sounded interesting. In principle you can't buy a place in the Lords. In practice if you are rich enough it's definitely possible though you may look very desperate in the process, particularly if you're in such a hurry that you must be lobby different groups as power shifts from one year to the next. * Do Gooders. These people at least didn't really set out to be in the Lords and thus could be the voice of the ordinary person. Except they tend to be pretty exceptional - for example the 1980s children's TV presenter Floella Benjamin was made a Baroness, but that's after not only being probably one of the few black women lots of very white children in England saw (on TV) from one week to the next in their childhood but also a lifetime of charitable work. The best of the Lords are when some expert (say, a person who worked as a General Practitioner seeing NHS patients for four decades before arriving in the Lords) tells the rest of the Lords how things are, and they realise they've just been schooled and vote accordingly. Lords are not required to have a party affiliation (technically neither are the Commons but you're basically useless without one there). So-called "Cross benchers" are common, and relatively powerful. * A bunch of actual Bishops. They probably shouldn't be there these days, and they mostly stay out of the way because they know that too, but for now they still are. When the Lords was created it made sense to have Bishops. There also used to be Judges, but those are now across the road in the independent Supreme Court. The Lords often end up doing a lot of the "good" stuff you see the Senate doing. Dragging powerful people in to explain themselves on camera; actually reading the paperwork that the Commons was in too much of a hurry to get out the door and noticing all the horrible technical mistakes. "Did you mean to miss six year olds out for some reason? Or is this age mismatch between paragraphs 16b and 16c a typo?". That sort of thing.
kelnos 6y ago
The root of the problem (and this isn't unique to US-style democracy) is that any body that has to deal with re-election every few years is going to focus more on things that get them re-elected, not necessarily things that are good or sustainable for the state as a whole. That's just human nature, and I don't think there's a way to fix that problem without fundamentally changing how with think of elections and terms in office, and I'm not sure what that would look like. One thing that makes SCOTUS interesting is that they have no enforcement mechanism. It's mainly only tradition and respect for the institution that causes people to follow Supreme Court rulings. If the executive branch suddenly decided to do whatever it wanted, as long as they had support within their own ranks, including the military, there'd be no one to stop them. On the flip side, this means that SCOTUS has a huge incentive to do their best to figure out what the actual right thing is, and rule that way. Because if too many people think SCOTUS is a shady group of individuals whose rulings are arbitrary and don't deserve respect, that's it for their power. And that's why even when I believe one of their rulings to be counter to my values, I can usually understand why they came to the decision they made, and at least respect the process.
- rgbrgb 6y ago
  Very interesting points regarding enforcement mechanism. > I'm not sure what that would look like. Just iterating a few possibilities: 1) Lifetime terms (like Roman senate or SCOTUS) 2) Term limits (like US Pres) Honestly really naive about political theory and I wonder what the case is for each and what the process for changing would look like (guessing it is something congress would have to do, so hard to do).
  - webmaven 6y ago
    3) Randomly selecting citizens to serve (like jury duty).
  - foota 6y ago
    The typical argument I've heard against term limits is that you limit the experience your lawmakers have.
exclusiv 6y ago
From my perspective, I would simply restate it as such: "It's quite a damning indictment of US-style democracy that people distrust a larger pool of democratically elected officials over a small cabal of unelected lifetime appointees without any meaningful oversight" You're framing it like Congress is elected by the people and are thus more worthy of their trust and the fact that doesn't happen is the damning part. But that's one-sided. In reality there's a TON of special interests driving who gets in front of the population to even be elected to Congress and then what the agenda is for them after being elected. That erodes the public's trust, not to mention all the Congressional scandals over the years and the cutthroat tactics politicians will do to simply get re-elected. So I see the same conclusion as you but in reverse.
- astrange 6y ago
  > In reality there's a TON of special interests driving who gets in front of the population to even be elected to Congress and then what the agenda is for them after being elected. There aren't really. In other countries yes, the party can kick you out if they don't like you. In the US the parties don't really exist, there are just people. There have been tons of primary upsets just this week and none of them are because of "special interests". No elite wants Jamaal Bowman or Lauren Boebert elected, but they'll be on the ballot. Afterwards the control is mostly because we don't fund elections properly, so everyone except AOC has to spend all day calling donors.
  - sjy 6y ago
    Needing to spend all day calling donors in order to stay in office sounds a lot like “special interests driving ... what the agenda is” to me.
    - exclusiv 6y ago
      Precisely. Big donors provide money to get a return. In fact, its one of the best investments you can make. "Corporations Lobbying Government Reap 76,000% Return On Investment. Between 2007 and 2012, 200 of America’s most politically active corporations spent a combined $5.8 billion on federal lobbying and campaign contributions." [1] "How The Fortune 100 Turned $2 Billion in Lobbying Spend Into $400 Billion of Taxpayer Cash" [2] [1] https://www.mintpressnews.com/corporations-lobbying-government-reap-76000-return-on-investment/203447/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/corporations-lobbying-governme... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2019/05/14/how-the-fortune-100-turned-2-billion-in-lobbying-spend-into-400-billion-of-taxpayer-cash/#147e9ef454ff https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2019/05/14/how...
arkis22 6y ago
The court is actually meant to be more trusted than congress. They don't pass laws, they just interpret them. That's why there's only 9 members and why supreme court appointments are taken so seriously. There was a contentious period during the great depression where FDR threatened to pack the court. A serious infringement on what is supposed to be an impartial court.

Bud 6y ago

A "cabal" is by definition a secret political clique or faction which is unknown to the outside world. It's therefore a big reach to call the Supreme Court a "cabal".

labster 6y ago
Public knowledge of doesn't define a cabal, only the secrecy of its decisions and who it benefits. The Supreme Court hears arguments with no recordings allowed, then makes its decisions in secret. What do they have to hide? And the only thing we ever get from the Court is the hundreds of pages in reasoning as to why they made the decision.
- cvoss 6y ago
  > The Supreme Court hears arguments with no recordings allowed This could not be further from the truth. Complete audio recordings and transcripts dating back to 1955 are available on oyez.org, the more recent of which are likewise available on the Court's own website. During non-pandemic operation, the Court hearings are open to the public. For the cases argued during the pandemic shutdown, the hearings were, in fact, livestreamed. You can hear the justices trying on different lines of reasoning for size during these arguments. So in a very real sense, we get to see a lot of their decision-making process. Yes, they hold a private conference at which some discussion and the vote takes place. I wouldn't have it any other way. I don't want any of the justices to face social pressure in that moment. > hundreds of pages in reasoning as to why they made the decision This reads as an argument against the position that the Court is secretive.

lr4444lr 6y ago

The court is supposed to be exactly as you describe as a counterweight to legislators affected by vicissitudes of an electorate every 2 or 6 years. This is a feature, not a bug, of the American republic.

Imnimo 6y ago

Yeah, but on the other hand, Congress voted to confirm those Supreme Court justices, so maybe I trust Congress more than I think! Really what I meant was that I trust the supreme court more specifically on the question of whether a body might use a loophole to achieve a political end. I trust Congress less on that because they're a political body and so will naturally pursue political ends. The Supreme Court is at least nominally apolitical, so I trust them to have a bit more restraint on that particular front. The job of a Congressperson is to fight for what they believe should be the law, and I trust them to do that. But that also means I don't trust them to avoid using a loophole to win that fight.

dTal 6y ago

Not just US-style. The House of Lords in the UK, a cabal of unelected lifetime appointees without any meaningful oversight, is consistently saner than its elected counterpart. Political parties, and being constantly afraid for one's job, seemingly have quite the detrimental effect.

mcv 6y ago
The House of Lords sane? I admit I don't really follow it in any detail, but my impression from various reports was that it was a mess of scandals and corruption. Though I admit that being saner than the House of Commons sounds like a fairly low bar.
- tialaramex 6y ago
  The Lords are a mix of: * Inherited peers who were supposed to be abolished or at least phased out but then weren't either, just statistically they'll tend to be older and have also inherited riches so while a few are knowledgeable and add value most aren't even decorative. Some of these are just a drain on the purse, they show up to collect "expenses" but don't actually do anything whatsoever. But others insist on having their say even if they nothing to offer. * Politicians sent there. No better than they were when (or if, some had previously been in high ranking unelected positions) elected. Some of these serve as Ministers. Unlike the US the British cabinet must be selected from Parliament, all the Great Offices (most important) must by tradition comes from the Commons and thus elected MPs. But it's normal (and when your talent pool is a bit empty necessary) to have a bunch of Cabinet Ministers from the Lords. You can deliberately "elevate" people there because you want them for this purpose but as it's a lifetime deal they are still there until they die. The alternative, if someone seems electable, is to "parachute them in" to replace a retiring or dead MP from your party in a by-election, but this is a less certain way and usually much slower. * Rich people who thought this sounded interesting. In principle you can't buy a place in the Lords. In practice if you are rich enough it's definitely possible though you may look very desperate in the process, particularly if you're in such a hurry that you must be lobby different groups as power shifts from one year to the next. * Do Gooders. These people at least didn't really set out to be in the Lords and thus could be the voice of the ordinary person. Except they tend to be pretty exceptional - for example the 1980s children's TV presenter Floella Benjamin was made a Baroness, but that's after not only being probably one of the few black women lots of very white children in England saw (on TV) from one week to the next in their childhood but also a lifetime of charitable work. The best of the Lords are when some expert (say, a person who worked as a General Practitioner seeing NHS patients for four decades before arriving in the Lords) tells the rest of the Lords how things are, and they realise they've just been schooled and vote accordingly. Lords are not required to have a party affiliation (technically neither are the Commons but you're basically useless without one there). So-called "Cross benchers" are common, and relatively powerful. * A bunch of actual Bishops. They probably shouldn't be there these days, and they mostly stay out of the way because they know that too, but for now they still are. When the Lords was created it made sense to have Bishops. There also used to be Judges, but those are now across the road in the independent Supreme Court. The Lords often end up doing a lot of the "good" stuff you see the Senate doing. Dragging powerful people in to explain themselves on camera; actually reading the paperwork that the Commons was in too much of a hurry to get out the door and noticing all the horrible technical mistakes. "Did you mean to miss six year olds out for some reason? Or is this age mismatch between paragraphs 16b and 16c a typo?". That sort of thing.

kelnos 6y ago

The root of the problem (and this isn't unique to US-style democracy) is that any body that has to deal with re-election every few years is going to focus more on things that get them re-elected, not necessarily things that are good or sustainable for the state as a whole. That's just human nature, and I don't think there's a way to fix that problem without fundamentally changing how with think of elections and terms in office, and I'm not sure what that would look like. One thing that makes SCOTUS interesting is that they have no enforcement mechanism. It's mainly only tradition and respect for the institution that causes people to follow Supreme Court rulings. If the executive branch suddenly decided to do whatever it wanted, as long as they had support within their own ranks, including the military, there'd be no one to stop them. On the flip side, this means that SCOTUS has a huge incentive to do their best to figure out what the actual right thing is, and rule that way. Because if too many people think SCOTUS is a shady group of individuals whose rulings are arbitrary and don't deserve respect, that's it for their power. And that's why even when I believe one of their rulings to be counter to my values, I can usually understand why they came to the decision they made, and at least respect the process.

rgbrgb 6y ago
Very interesting points regarding enforcement mechanism. > I'm not sure what that would look like. Just iterating a few possibilities: 1) Lifetime terms (like Roman senate or SCOTUS) 2) Term limits (like US Pres) Honestly really naive about political theory and I wonder what the case is for each and what the process for changing would look like (guessing it is something congress would have to do, so hard to do).
- webmaven 6y ago
  3) Randomly selecting citizens to serve (like jury duty).
- foota 6y ago
  The typical argument I've heard against term limits is that you limit the experience your lawmakers have.

exclusiv 6y ago

From my perspective, I would simply restate it as such: "It's quite a damning indictment of US-style democracy that people distrust a larger pool of democratically elected officials over a small cabal of unelected lifetime appointees without any meaningful oversight" You're framing it like Congress is elected by the people and are thus more worthy of their trust and the fact that doesn't happen is the damning part. But that's one-sided. In reality there's a TON of special interests driving who gets in front of the population to even be elected to Congress and then what the agenda is for them after being elected. That erodes the public's trust, not to mention all the Congressional scandals over the years and the cutthroat tactics politicians will do to simply get re-elected. So I see the same conclusion as you but in reverse.

astrange 6y ago
> In reality there's a TON of special interests driving who gets in front of the population to even be elected to Congress and then what the agenda is for them after being elected. There aren't really. In other countries yes, the party can kick you out if they don't like you. In the US the parties don't really exist, there are just people. There have been tons of primary upsets just this week and none of them are because of "special interests". No elite wants Jamaal Bowman or Lauren Boebert elected, but they'll be on the ballot. Afterwards the control is mostly because we don't fund elections properly, so everyone except AOC has to spend all day calling donors.
- sjy 6y ago
  Needing to spend all day calling donors in order to stay in office sounds a lot like “special interests driving ... what the agenda is” to me.
  - exclusiv 6y ago
    Precisely. Big donors provide money to get a return. In fact, its one of the best investments you can make. "Corporations Lobbying Government Reap 76,000% Return On Investment. Between 2007 and 2012, 200 of America’s most politically active corporations spent a combined $5.8 billion on federal lobbying and campaign contributions." [1] "How The Fortune 100 Turned $2 Billion in Lobbying Spend Into $400 Billion of Taxpayer Cash" [2] [1] https://www.mintpressnews.com/corporations-lobbying-government-reap-76000-return-on-investment/203447/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/corporations-lobbying-governme... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2019/05/14/how-the-fortune-100-turned-2-billion-in-lobbying-spend-into-400-billion-of-taxpayer-cash/#147e9ef454ff https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2019/05/14/how...

arkis22 6y ago

The court is actually meant to be more trusted than congress. They don't pass laws, they just interpret them. That's why there's only 9 members and why supreme court appointments are taken so seriously. There was a contentious period during the great depression where FDR threatened to pack the court. A serious infringement on what is supposed to be an impartial court.