3 ms·

“Abolish the senate” “Abolish the Supreme Court” …when my party isn’t in control of it.

titzer 4y ago
sigh. The Supreme Court was never intended to be as polarized and partisan as it is today. The framer's thinking on lifetime judicial appointments was that it would give them independence from politics, never needing to be concerned about elections. If you look at the history of votes on Supreme Court nominees, the hyper-partisan divide, splitting along party lines, is an anomaly. We're in a new era. The last 4 nominees[1] just barely squeaked by, while historically, nominees usually got 60, 70, even 80+ votes in the Senate. What we are seeing now is very, very different. It used to actually be based on qualifications, and now it's 100% ideological and politics. A party "controlling" the Supreme court. What a crappy reality we are in now. edit: [1] I should say 5 nominees, because Garland didn't even get a vote for an entire year because the Senate majority quashed it in order for the next President to nominate someone else. Blatant theft of a constitutionally-enumerated power allotted to the President, if you ask me.
- bequanna 4y ago
  > A party "controlling" the Supreme court. What a crappy reality we are in now. Absolutely. But the problem of partisan courts is endemic in the US Judicial system. Encountering Far-left or right judges at all levels is fairly common. It doesn't matter which side started packing the courts because now it is a race to see who can do it the fastest. By luck, planning or whatever the conservatives did it at the highest level. The liberals really shouldn't say anything because they are also doing the same thing at every level. In general, we need to get away from Courts, especially at the Federal level, writing laws. In fact, anyone who is not elected (including the bloated, highly partisan admin fed/state agencies) should not be writing law.

sigh. The Supreme Court was never intended to be as polarized and partisan as it is today. The framer's thinking on lifetime judicial appointments was that it would give them independence from politics, never needing to be concerned about elections. If you look at the history of votes on Supreme Court nominees, the hyper-partisan divide, splitting along party lines, is an anomaly. We're in a new era. The last 4 nominees[1] just barely squeaked by, while historically, nominees usually got 60, 70, even 80+ votes in the Senate. What we are seeing now is very, very different. It used to actually be based on qualifications, and now it's 100% ideological and politics. A party "controlling" the Supreme court. What a crappy reality we are in now. edit: [1] I should say 5 nominees, because Garland didn't even get a vote for an entire year because the Senate majority quashed it in order for the next President to nominate someone else. Blatant theft of a constitutionally-enumerated power allotted to the President, if you ask me.

bequanna 4y ago
> A party "controlling" the Supreme court. What a crappy reality we are in now. Absolutely. But the problem of partisan courts is endemic in the US Judicial system. Encountering Far-left or right judges at all levels is fairly common. It doesn't matter which side started packing the courts because now it is a race to see who can do it the fastest. By luck, planning or whatever the conservatives did it at the highest level. The liberals really shouldn't say anything because they are also doing the same thing at every level. In general, we need to get away from Courts, especially at the Federal level, writing laws. In fact, anyone who is not elected (including the bloated, highly partisan admin fed/state agencies) should not be writing law.