4 ms·
It is impossible to keep partisanship out of the court, so it is a lot like a second version of Congress.
by Miner49er 4y ago
It is impossible to keep partisanship out of the court, so it is a lot like a second version of Congress.
- JohnHaugeland 4y agoWe managed for hundreds of years.
- thomascgalvin 4y agoMitch McConnell broke the Senate, and through that, the Judiciary.
- Bhilai 4y agoYes and the recent stuff with the wife of a SCOTUS justice involved in conspiracy to overturn an election is definitely a sign of hyper partisanship.
- InTheArena 4y agoThis is the problem with partisanship. Blockade of judges started in 2001, when Democrats declared Bush illigetimate, and decided that no judges would be selected. Republicans threatened the "nuclear option" (removing fillibusters). The "Gang of 14" in 2005 wrote ideological ground rules and approved a set number of judges to keep the nuclear option from being used. Obama came to office, and the Democrats used the nuclear option - despite the gang of 14 framework, but then said that it doesn't apply to supreme court ballots. Republicans came in and decided that yes, it did apply. We've been destroying our own government with crap like this for the last 20 years. Partisanship is a hell of a drug.
- Miner49er 4y agoNot everyone thinks so: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/04/03/the-supreme-court-has-never-been-apolitical-00022482 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/04/03/the-suprem...
- luma 4y agoYet somehow we also managed to appoint SC judges without the senate stalling nominations to prevent the president from being able to appoint them. Let's not pretend that the current situation represents anything like "normal", and further, that we don't all recognize that bad-faith actions by the Republican party are responsible.
- JohnHaugeland 4y ago> Yet somehow we also managed to appoint SC judges without the senate stalling nominations to prevent the president from being able to appoint them. Yeah, that's because change happened. Pretending that something can't be done because it worked for hundreds of years and then something bad happened isn't actually very correct.
- colinmhayes 4y agoAnd the internet has changed everything. What used to be possible no longer is
- JohnHaugeland 4y agoNo evidence supports this.
- colinmhayes 4y agoNo evidence supports the internet causing hyper partisanship or no evidence supports hyper partisanship infecting the Supreme Court?
- JohnHaugeland 4y agoThat what used to be possible no longer is
- thesiniot 4y agoThat was before the Senate hijacked the normal nomination process in 2016. The court has been an illegitimate and partisan body ever since Garland's seat was denied.
- InTheArena 4y agoNo, that process was broken in 2001 - and temporarily restated wit the gang of 14 - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14 It's a much bigger problem then just this.
- JohnHaugeland 4y ago> That was before the Senate hijacked the normal nomination process in 2016. Yes, it was. What's your point? Parent poster claimed that a non-political Supreme Court isn't possible, and in reality, the Supreme Court has been essentially completely non-political for all but about 22 years of its existence
- ohCh6zos 4y agoThe process was hijacked long before 2016. See "Borking".
- SilasX 4y agoThe first hundred had a deadly civil war.
- mynegation 4y ago“We managed it for 900 years” someone in the Roman Empire circa 394 AD.
- bandyaboot 4y agoRight up until we didn’t.
- rabuse 4y agoThe constitution isn't partisan though.
- Miner49er 4y agoHow it is interpreted is.
- teakettle42 4y agoWhich is why “textualism” is the only appropriate interpretation an unelected court should be using. It’s not their job to write laws or advance policy, it’s their job to enforce the constitution as written.
- ceejayoz 4y agoTextualism is just one of many excuses to rule the way you want to, as it leaves an immense amount of leeway to interpret. A textualist reading of the First Amendment would permit the President to infringe free speech/religion/press etc. rights, as it says "Congress", and the "no law" bit would texutally forbid things like banning human sacrifice in religious ceremonies. Textualists always find an out when they need one.
- teakettle42 4y agoDo you have a better suggestion that’s less partisan and less prone to abuse? Humans will always bring bias, but I can’t think of anything better than “interpret as it was plainly written and would have been understood by the people who wrote it at the time”.
- ceejayoz 4y agoInterpreting how it would have been understood at the time is quite subjective; how do we interpret how the Founding Fathers would've considered semi-automatic rifles or Facebook to fall in First/Second Amendment jurisprudence, or how far you can push the General Welfare Clause? The Founding Fathers themselves often disagreed on such things. > Do you have a better suggestion that’s less partisan and less prone to abuse? I'm of the opinion that textualism, in actual practice, is a highly partisan and heavily abused concept intended to be a thin veil over "I rule the way I want". I prefer the concept of a living Constitution; per Jefferson: > I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.