4 ms·

Indeed. To illustrate Samuel Alito just gave a keynote address to the Federalist Society a few days ago. The NY Times and NPR have recaps: https://www.nytimes.

Indeed. To illustrate Samuel Alito just gave a keynote address to the Federalist Society a few days ago. The NY Times and NPR have recaps: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/13/us/samuel-alito-religious-liberty-free-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/13/us/samuel-alito-religious... https://www.npr.org/2020/11/13/934666499/justice-alito-pandemic-has-brought-unimaginable-restrictions-on-freedoms https://www.npr.org/2020/11/13/934666499/justice-alito-pande... You can watch the whole thing for yourself here: https://youtu.be/tYLZL4GZVbA https://youtu.be/tYLZL4GZVbA The speech is an attack on science, expertise, and common sense. It’s a MAGA hat with a thin veneer of respectability. It’s not clear to me to what extent such judges believe in this ideology, or whether they’re simply craven and exercising a will to power, but the Federalist Society has spent the past several decades working to place lawyers with fringe jurisprudence into the judiciary, and the Koch brothers wrote the checks.

dane-pgp 6y ago
> It’s a MAGA hat with a thin veneer of respectability. So like a MAGA fedora?
akudha 6y ago
I saw parts of the speech and it was crazy. This is why appointing judges for life makes zero sense to me. If I become a supreme court judge at 45 and live to 75, I have a full three decades to change the direction of the country forever. This is very very scary. There should be a term limit for everyone in government like presidents do - mayors, congressmen, senators, judges...
- jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
  Not to mention it'd make the majority of turnovers in the supreme court an orderly scheduled event fair between parties.
  - erik_seaberg 6y ago
    They are meant to be appointing an independent judiciary applying precedent and law as written, not delegates whose votes are pledged to parties. Activists belong in Congress where the voters have some say.
- TechBro8615 6y ago
  One advantage of lifetime appointments is avoiding the temptation for judges to become corrupted by promises of post-judicial careers.
- karaterobot 6y ago
  The reason Supreme Court justices are appointed for life is so they are independent. That cuts both ways, protecting both people I agree with, and people I disagree with from having their verdicts influenced by outside forces. Sometimes this is inconvenient for me, but on the whole I prefer it over the alternative. The key is to hold the people who nominate and confirm these justices to account, since they are elected.
  - akudha 6y ago
    Can’t we do long terms (10-15 years) then? Instead of life, which could be as much as 40 years in some cases
  - gruez 6y ago
    >The reason Supreme Court justices are appointed for life is so they are independent Can't you just make it so it's x years appointment, but you can't be reappointed?
    - nl 6y ago
      The issue with term limits is that it gives a potential perception of bias related to whatever they do when they leave. An example of this is in agencies like the FTC, where people leave the regulator and end up in well paid jobs in the companies they are supposed to be regulating. Even if there was no bias in their decision making people point to it and it undermines confidence in the system.
  - lostdog 6y ago
    Give them a term limit, and then send them back to their life appointment on the district courts (with a higher salary if you want to sweeten the deal a little).
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      > (with a higher salary if you want to sweeten the deal a little). After being on the SC, they'd be set with high-paying speaking and book deals for life, along with deals as paid commentators on all sorts of issues and platforms.
nl 6y ago
I agree with Alito on his "the state treated houses of worship less favorably than it did casinos" point, and I don't think it's anti-science to say that. To quote NYT: "Casinos were limited to 50 percent of their fire-code capacities, while houses of worship were subject to a flat 50-person limit." It seems reasonable to me that both should be limited to a 50-person limit, or perhaps a people-per-area limit (although I do understand that Churches are higher risk because singing spreads the virus much more than silently sitting at a slot machine).
- jonstewart 6y ago
  As a states-rightser, shouldn’t Alito argue that it’s just fine for “the” state to prioritize thusly?

dane-pgp 6y ago

> It’s a MAGA hat with a thin veneer of respectability. So like a MAGA fedora?

akudha 6y ago

I saw parts of the speech and it was crazy. This is why appointing judges for life makes zero sense to me. If I become a supreme court judge at 45 and live to 75, I have a full three decades to change the direction of the country forever. This is very very scary. There should be a term limit for everyone in government like presidents do - mayors, congressmen, senators, judges...

jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
Not to mention it'd make the majority of turnovers in the supreme court an orderly scheduled event fair between parties.
- erik_seaberg 6y ago
  They are meant to be appointing an independent judiciary applying precedent and law as written, not delegates whose votes are pledged to parties. Activists belong in Congress where the voters have some say.
TechBro8615 6y ago
One advantage of lifetime appointments is avoiding the temptation for judges to become corrupted by promises of post-judicial careers.
karaterobot 6y ago
The reason Supreme Court justices are appointed for life is so they are independent. That cuts both ways, protecting both people I agree with, and people I disagree with from having their verdicts influenced by outside forces. Sometimes this is inconvenient for me, but on the whole I prefer it over the alternative. The key is to hold the people who nominate and confirm these justices to account, since they are elected.
- akudha 6y ago
  Can’t we do long terms (10-15 years) then? Instead of life, which could be as much as 40 years in some cases
- gruez 6y ago
  >The reason Supreme Court justices are appointed for life is so they are independent Can't you just make it so it's x years appointment, but you can't be reappointed?
  - nl 6y ago
    The issue with term limits is that it gives a potential perception of bias related to whatever they do when they leave. An example of this is in agencies like the FTC, where people leave the regulator and end up in well paid jobs in the companies they are supposed to be regulating. Even if there was no bias in their decision making people point to it and it undermines confidence in the system.
- lostdog 6y ago
  Give them a term limit, and then send them back to their life appointment on the district courts (with a higher salary if you want to sweeten the deal a little).
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    > (with a higher salary if you want to sweeten the deal a little). After being on the SC, they'd be set with high-paying speaking and book deals for life, along with deals as paid commentators on all sorts of issues and platforms.

nl 6y ago

I agree with Alito on his "the state treated houses of worship less favorably than it did casinos" point, and I don't think it's anti-science to say that. To quote NYT: "Casinos were limited to 50 percent of their fire-code capacities, while houses of worship were subject to a flat 50-person limit." It seems reasonable to me that both should be limited to a 50-person limit, or perhaps a people-per-area limit (although I do understand that Churches are higher risk because singing spreads the virus much more than silently sitting at a slot machine).

jonstewart 6y ago
As a states-rightser, shouldn’t Alito argue that it’s just fine for “the” state to prioritize thusly?