3 ms·

Some senate has voted for them in the past, then the senate changes, the justices do not (except if they die or resign), and then the situation is that the curr

Some senate has voted for them in the past, then the senate changes, the justices do not (except if they die or resign), and then the situation is that the current senate, or any subsequent future senate ever, will not have voted for them, they are absolutely out of any representativity of the will of the population.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
As pedantic as possible. The SC justices are voted in by Senate representatives.
- henearkr 4y ago
  My point is that the permanence of the vote removes all the benefit of the concept of "election". They are voted in but then they never change. That's how you elect a tyrant. Even laws are not voted like that: you can amend or cancel a law, but not a justice.
  - Nevermark 4y ago
    Justices can be impeached. The court could be packed. Ultimately even the Supreme Court can be corrected by Congress. But when power is consolidated in both Congress and the Supreme Court, that fix no longer exists in any practical way. The core problem, as with any problem of rule by a minority or individual, are weaknesses in a system that allow power to be consolidated at the top. The US system has neither legal nor practical/cultural limits on party control. Temporary one-party rule (limited only by the courts) is often achieved by parties controlling both the Presidency and Congress. Add courts opportunistically designed to reinforce that one party rule, and temporary control can be carefully orchestrated in the direction of long term one party rule. -- If the Constitution dictated party seat limits (to 25% of Congress, for example), then cross-partisanship cooperation, instead of all-or-nothing competition, would become a virtual necessity. Multiple parties would be required to achieve anything, or block anything. And multiple parties have much less incentive, and more to fear, from allowing subversion of electoral systems. The wonders of decentralized power. -- Unfortunately, peaceful decentralization of an already highly centralized system, is an extremely difficult problem. Party limits are unlikely to be adopted by either party. Even a seemingly losing party will have difficulty attempting to promote such a thing. (And violent reformations, in addition to mass casualties of the innocent, rarely produce anything like the intended results.) The US has entered a new era of its political history.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago

As pedantic as possible. The SC justices are voted in by Senate representatives.

henearkr 4y ago
My point is that the permanence of the vote removes all the benefit of the concept of "election". They are voted in but then they never change. That's how you elect a tyrant. Even laws are not voted like that: you can amend or cancel a law, but not a justice.
- Nevermark 4y ago
  Justices can be impeached. The court could be packed. Ultimately even the Supreme Court can be corrected by Congress. But when power is consolidated in both Congress and the Supreme Court, that fix no longer exists in any practical way. The core problem, as with any problem of rule by a minority or individual, are weaknesses in a system that allow power to be consolidated at the top. The US system has neither legal nor practical/cultural limits on party control. Temporary one-party rule (limited only by the courts) is often achieved by parties controlling both the Presidency and Congress. Add courts opportunistically designed to reinforce that one party rule, and temporary control can be carefully orchestrated in the direction of long term one party rule. -- If the Constitution dictated party seat limits (to 25% of Congress, for example), then cross-partisanship cooperation, instead of all-or-nothing competition, would become a virtual necessity. Multiple parties would be required to achieve anything, or block anything. And multiple parties have much less incentive, and more to fear, from allowing subversion of electoral systems. The wonders of decentralized power. -- Unfortunately, peaceful decentralization of an already highly centralized system, is an extremely difficult problem. Party limits are unlikely to be adopted by either party. Even a seemingly losing party will have difficulty attempting to promote such a thing. (And violent reformations, in addition to mass casualties of the innocent, rarely produce anything like the intended results.) The US has entered a new era of its political history.