3 ms·

Yeah, but updating the constitution and election laws are congress' job, not the courts.

mschuster91 6y ago
That would assume that there is a working Congress (for the laws) and working intra-state coordination (for constitutional amendments). The reality is that Congress has been locked up ever since the third year of Obama, and since 1971 (26th) there only got one constitutional amendment passed (27th, in 1992). That is the reason why the courts have gotten so important, and why the Supreme Court and other federal justice nominations and their confirmation by the Trump administration will have such long lasting impact - given that there is no input from the legislative, governing has fallen to the executive and judiciary.
- apexalpha 6y ago
  I understand that, but I disagree you should 'force' the SCOTUS to pick up where Congress stops. Scotus is not where laws or society should be progressing; that should be congress. And of course the founding fathers didn't foresee today's' society, so they included ways to upgrade and amend the constitution and election laws. That congress isn't doing its job is a different debate entirely, but not Scotus' fault.
- pyronik19 6y ago
  The fact you can't move your agenda forward in the legislature because its "locked up" is a feature not a bug. To then think its appropriate to use the judicial branch to bludgeon your agenda through is an abuse of its intended purpose in our system of checks and balances.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    So ten years of standstill, even a government shutdown (which is a word only heard in third world countries), because of one political party being utterly unwilling to participate in normal democratic process, that is a feature to you? > an abuse of its intended purpose in our system of checks and balances The intention was to stop a dictator from rising, not that the country would be essentially governed by executive degree for a decade.

That would assume that there is a working Congress (for the laws) and working intra-state coordination (for constitutional amendments). The reality is that Congress has been locked up ever since the third year of Obama, and since 1971 (26th) there only got one constitutional amendment passed (27th, in 1992). That is the reason why the courts have gotten so important, and why the Supreme Court and other federal justice nominations and their confirmation by the Trump administration will have such long lasting impact - given that there is no input from the legislative, governing has fallen to the executive and judiciary.

apexalpha 6y ago
I understand that, but I disagree you should 'force' the SCOTUS to pick up where Congress stops. Scotus is not where laws or society should be progressing; that should be congress. And of course the founding fathers didn't foresee today's' society, so they included ways to upgrade and amend the constitution and election laws. That congress isn't doing its job is a different debate entirely, but not Scotus' fault.
pyronik19 6y ago
The fact you can't move your agenda forward in the legislature because its "locked up" is a feature not a bug. To then think its appropriate to use the judicial branch to bludgeon your agenda through is an abuse of its intended purpose in our system of checks and balances.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  So ten years of standstill, even a government shutdown (which is a word only heard in third world countries), because of one political party being utterly unwilling to participate in normal democratic process, that is a feature to you? > an abuse of its intended purpose in our system of checks and balances The intention was to stop a dictator from rising, not that the country would be essentially governed by executive degree for a decade.