5 ms·

> This latest development should certainly call into question the haphazard rules and procedural tricks that allot Trump the power to decisively tip the scales

> This latest development should certainly call into question the haphazard rules and procedural tricks that allot Trump the power to decisively tip the scales of justice in his favor. Pressed further, one might also ask: Why should the Supreme Court, an unelected body that is richer, whiter, and more male than the United States is, continue to have such outsized power in the lives of ordinary people I think the arguments (that go against yours) in this article are relevant: https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-case-for-ending-the-supreme-court-as-we-know-it https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-case-for-e...

crocodiletears 6y ago
I can understand the author's frustration with the court's decisions, and generally agree with his complaints that the court has historically served as a breaking mechanism on social progress. But molany of the examples he cites are exactly what the Supreme Court is suposed to be doing, serving to moore the federal government's reach into daily life, and local governance by interpreting the constitution, and leveraging historical precedent. Initial appointment is inevitably a political affair. But once the justice is in, the justice is in, and you pray that their interpretation of law is what you wanted it to be, because you're not going to remove them. Now, you could argue that the Supreme Court will increasingly lose its legitimacy, since a filibuster is no longer enough to prevent an overtly politically motivated appointment. You could also argue thattimes have changed, and the relatively degenerate state of state level authority means that the confirmation process should be moved to the house, rather than the senate. But these would be relatively new criticisms and proposals that have yet to be spread and be internalized widely enough as to make the whole institution illegitimate in the public's eye.

crocodiletears 6y ago

I can understand the author's frustration with the court's decisions, and generally agree with his complaints that the court has historically served as a breaking mechanism on social progress. But molany of the examples he cites are exactly what the Supreme Court is suposed to be doing, serving to moore the federal government's reach into daily life, and local governance by interpreting the constitution, and leveraging historical precedent. Initial appointment is inevitably a political affair. But once the justice is in, the justice is in, and you pray that their interpretation of law is what you wanted it to be, because you're not going to remove them. Now, you could argue that the Supreme Court will increasingly lose its legitimacy, since a filibuster is no longer enough to prevent an overtly politically motivated appointment. You could also argue thattimes have changed, and the relatively degenerate state of state level authority means that the confirmation process should be moved to the house, rather than the senate. But these would be relatively new criticisms and proposals that have yet to be spread and be internalized widely enough as to make the whole institution illegitimate in the public's eye.