5 ms·

This is a fine gesture, but it does not solve the fundamental problem that Supreme Court justices are an unelected super-government with lifetime appointments a

by apozem 3y ago

This is a fine gesture, but it does not solve the fundamental problem that Supreme Court justices are an unelected super-government with lifetime appointments and zero accountability. The whole institution is absurd and undemocratic and, as Clarence Thomas has proved [0], ripe with opportunities for corruption. A non-binding code of ethics doesn't change that. [0]: https://www.propublica.org/series/supreme-court-scotus https://www.propublica.org/series/supreme-court-scotus

EGreg 3y ago
Are you proposing we do a Netanyahu-style reform?
boxed 3y ago
> and zero accountability They can be impeached?
- remmargorp64 3y ago
  By us?
  - numbsafari 3y ago
    SCOTUS impeachment is a virtual function from the electorate through their elected officials. Hopefully the receiver isn't a null object...
- meepmorp 3y ago
  Impeachment is a political solution, though. Conviction in the house is a simple majority, but removal from office (or other forms of punishment) requires a 2/3 majority in the senate. That's not going to happen in the current environment, no matter how unsuitable an individual might be for office. It's accountability, but in theory only.
  - boxed 3y ago
    > It's accountability, but in theory only. That's true for much more than the Supreme Court though.
- alex_young 3y ago
  Only once has a supreme court justice been impeached, and they were acquitted by the Senate.
- noarchy 3y ago
  >They can be impeached? To answer your question: yes.
golergka 3y ago
> unelected super-government with lifetime appointments and zero accountability And what's the problem? That's exactly the point of this system — a part of government that is still _appointed by elected representatives_, but is not populist.
- moate 3y ago
  Because everyone wants neutral fair referees when their laws/rights are being interpreted but that’s an impossibility because humans aren’t neutral. The fact that there are problems with an alternative set up (oh no, unstable populism!) doesn’t mean the current paradigm is itself flawless. The parts of government that exist to slow things are always “very important to stability/safety/growth of the nation” but a lot of us just see them as the artifacts the rich and powerful put in place to ensure they and their friends and family stay rich and powerful for as long as possible. Move fast and break things, especially governments.
  - golergka 3y ago
    > The fact that there are problems with an alternative set up (oh no, unstable populism!) doesn’t mean the current paradigm is itself flawless. You're absolutely technically correct. In the same vain, this doesn't mean that there's any better alternative. > the artifacts the rich and powerful put in place to ensure they and their friends and family stay rich and powerful for as long as possible You could say the same about many other things that benefit society as a whole. Turns out, things that make society rich and stable often help those in power stay in power. > Move fast and break things, especially governments. Unfortunately, I've been on the internet too long to be 100% sure it's sarcasm. So, just in case — please don't break governments. And may be don't actually move fast with them. Thank you.
willcipriano 3y ago
Same is true of most of government. From the FDA to the ATF practical life altering choices are increasingly made by a unelected permanent government unfettered by things like accountability.
- mikeyouse 3y ago
  Those departments are executive branch departments, their leadership can be fired by the President and can be appointed with a simple majority in the Senate - hence how we've had 7 FDA commissioners since 2017 - not remotely comparable to the US Supreme Court.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    One example of this accountability you ensure me exists: https://www.businessinsider.com/fda-chief-approved-oxycontin-six-figure-gig-at-purdue-pharma-2021-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/fda-chief-approved-oxycontin... Guy is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the addiction of millions. He wasn't elected and he wont be punished.
    - mikeyouse 3y ago
      Seems odd to call the leadership of the FDA "an unelected permanent government" and then linking to a commissioner's job after they resigned from the FDA. Even more ironically for this particular discussion - the legality of this pretty open corruption is specifically due to decisions made by the Supreme Court, who have gutted all of the bribery, official corruption, and campaign finance laws we used to have.
      - willcipriano 3y ago
        Summary provided to aid in reading: > Curtis Wright, once a director at the US Food and Drug Administration who oversaw evaluation for pain medication, got a position with a first-year compensation package of $400,000 at Purdue Pharma a year after he led the approval of OxyContin > Wright had confessed in a sworn deposition that he "might" have written the portion of the FDA package insert that said OxyContin was "believed to reduce the abuse liability of the drug." > OxyContin was the "most prescribed brand name narcotic medication" for treating moderate to severe pain by 2001, according to a report by the US Government Accountability Office. Deaths from prescription opioid overdose quadrupled between 1999 to 2019, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded 247,000 deaths from prescription opioid overdose over the last two decades.
toast0 3y ago
It's not really zero accountability. Supreme Court justices are subject to impeachment. It happened once, although Samuel Chase was acquitted. Yes, impeachment is notoriously partisan, but that's democracy?
mettamage 3y ago
How did the Supreme Court come into being? How has it been able to fly under the radar like this as being undemocratic?
- gnicholas 3y ago
  Article III, section I of the Constitution.
- seanw444 3y ago
  It's a council of 9 justices who vote on final decisions. They are appointed by politicians who the people vote for. This is intentional, for the same reason that the Senate wasn't meant to be directly voted for by normal citizens either: normal citizens usually don't have the political involvement necessary to make educated decisions about who to appoint the position. In theory, at least. It's a balance between politicians playing the circlejerk game to help each other with their misdeeds, and average joes voting for imbeciles.
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    >> for the same reason that the Senate wasn't meant to be directly voted for by normal citizens either: normal citizens usually don't have the political involvement necessary to make educated decisions I am going to take slight issue with this, The reason the Senate was appointed as not because "normal citizens usually don't have the political involvement necessary to make educated decisions" it was because we are a Union of States. ie the United States. The states are suppose to have some level of sovereignty from the Federal Government, Previous to the Civil War most citizens were loyal to their State first, then the country. Post Civil War the federal government started to rewrite the relationship, however the Senate was to be the States representative in the Federal Government, thus why there are 2 for every State. The House Represented the people, thus why it is apportioned by population. A Senator was not meant to be the citizens voice in the Federal government, but was meant be the Voice of the State Government from which they were appointed.
    - seanw444 3y ago
salamandersss 3y ago
Yep. Ruth Ginsburg was another corrupt one, taking lavish trips funded by Israeli billionaires. But whoops, I wasn't supposed to mention the ones people here may like.
- mikeyouse 3y ago
  Do you think maybe there should be a distinction between trips reported on annual disclosure statements and those taken privately and without being reported?
  - salamandersss 3y ago
    Yes there should be distinctions if level of corruption. For instance stealing candy from a baby and putting an ad in the paper saying you've done it is probably less bad than stealing candy when nobody sees it. And no I don't think this is the same as stealing candy, since some fucking pedant is gonna make that comment.
- drawkward 3y ago
  No, by all means: sunshine is the best disinfectant. Root out corruption and unethical behavior everywhere.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  Shhh only conservatives can be corrupt....
  - mdhb 3y ago
    It’s not only which is an argument you just made up that nobody said, just overwhelmingly as backed up by charges and convictions.
hermannj314 3y ago
Agreed! I think the Supreme Court is crazy. Depending on the decade, the constitution may or may not allow segregation, gay marriage, abortion, or slavery. You have to squint sometimes and turn the document sideways. Your guess is as good as mine what the current Supreme Court will decide the constitution says or doesn't say. And on some issues they take decades of latency to come to these decisions. I do think it is insane that we allow this in the modern world. Not to mention all the self-righteous posturing of lawyers absolutely convinced this system epitomizes "justice".
- Ajedi32 3y ago
  Kind of tangential to your point, but slavery was made unconstitutional by a constitutional amendment (the 13th), not by the courts, so that's not a good example.
  - hermannj314 3y ago
    Fair point. Despite that being passed in 186X, the court didn't have a clue if it applied to the involuntary draft, peonage contracts, or chain gangs until decades later. The courts are so slow in this country.
- ilovetux 3y ago
  > Not to mention all the self-righteous posturing of lawyers absolutely convinced this system epitomizes "justice". I always had respect for the legal profession, but the way the Supreme Court is acting and the fact that nothing is being done about it has made me lose all respect for anyone in the legal profession. Sure, most lawyers and judges might disagree with the actions of the Supreme Court, but lawyers are hesitant to say anything because they might end up as counsel in a Supreme Court case and don't want the court's ire. The state of affairs really highlights how much of a dress-up, make-believe game the Legal profession has become.
ihsw 3y ago
[dead]
awb 3y ago
> lifetime appointments The lifetime appointments are designed to put them outside of the scope of politicians and the need to run for re-election. I guess you could serve a single 15 year term with no option to rejoin the court. > zero accountability Supreme Court justices can be impeached and removed from office.
- SauciestGNU 3y ago
  Yeah but practically speaking they can't be as long as their crimes benefit at least a third of the Senate. Frankly, the corruption of the court seems to fall substantially along party lines, so as long as one party never holds 67 senate seats there is no mechanism for accountability.
jimbob45 3y ago
Isn't that the strength of the institution though? If they were elected, they'd be fundraising nonstop for re-election and be far less concerned about their actual job.
rqtwteye 3y ago
I definitely would give them term limits and a maximum age. Let's say 16 years and a president gets 2 nominations per term (more if a judge dies or gets sick). Watching Bader-Ginsburgh basically die on the bench should be a warning.
phpisthebest 3y ago
>>and undemocratic yes, by design and it should remain so.. This idea that democracy is the end all be all is false and dangerous, very dangerous. Mob rule is never the solution to anything (as we are seeing with the massive mobs in support of terrorist organization Hamas) There are all kinds of checks built into the American REPUBLIC that are undemocratic purposefully to prevent the whims of the mob for ruling. Personally I would like to remove many of the "democratic" processes we have put in place since the founding, namely the election of senators by popular vote, The senate should be returned to be appointed by State Legislators. If you want to reform the Court system end Stare decisis and make the court rule on the constitutionally of each case on their merits based on the actual words of the Constitution as was their original charge and their constitutional mandate

by apozem 3y ago

EGreg 3y ago

Are you proposing we do a Netanyahu-style reform?

boxed 3y ago

> and zero accountability They can be impeached?

remmargorp64 3y ago
By us?
- numbsafari 3y ago
  SCOTUS impeachment is a virtual function from the electorate through their elected officials. Hopefully the receiver isn't a null object...
meepmorp 3y ago
Impeachment is a political solution, though. Conviction in the house is a simple majority, but removal from office (or other forms of punishment) requires a 2/3 majority in the senate. That's not going to happen in the current environment, no matter how unsuitable an individual might be for office. It's accountability, but in theory only.
- boxed 3y ago
  > It's accountability, but in theory only. That's true for much more than the Supreme Court though.
alex_young 3y ago
Only once has a supreme court justice been impeached, and they were acquitted by the Senate.
noarchy 3y ago
>They can be impeached? To answer your question: yes.

golergka 3y ago

> unelected super-government with lifetime appointments and zero accountability And what's the problem? That's exactly the point of this system — a part of government that is still _appointed by elected representatives_, but is not populist.

moate 3y ago
Because everyone wants neutral fair referees when their laws/rights are being interpreted but that’s an impossibility because humans aren’t neutral. The fact that there are problems with an alternative set up (oh no, unstable populism!) doesn’t mean the current paradigm is itself flawless. The parts of government that exist to slow things are always “very important to stability/safety/growth of the nation” but a lot of us just see them as the artifacts the rich and powerful put in place to ensure they and their friends and family stay rich and powerful for as long as possible. Move fast and break things, especially governments.
- golergka 3y ago
  > The fact that there are problems with an alternative set up (oh no, unstable populism!) doesn’t mean the current paradigm is itself flawless. You're absolutely technically correct. In the same vain, this doesn't mean that there's any better alternative. > the artifacts the rich and powerful put in place to ensure they and their friends and family stay rich and powerful for as long as possible You could say the same about many other things that benefit society as a whole. Turns out, things that make society rich and stable often help those in power stay in power. > Move fast and break things, especially governments. Unfortunately, I've been on the internet too long to be 100% sure it's sarcasm. So, just in case — please don't break governments. And may be don't actually move fast with them. Thank you.

willcipriano 3y ago

Same is true of most of government. From the FDA to the ATF practical life altering choices are increasingly made by a unelected permanent government unfettered by things like accountability.

mikeyouse 3y ago
Those departments are executive branch departments, their leadership can be fired by the President and can be appointed with a simple majority in the Senate - hence how we've had 7 FDA commissioners since 2017 - not remotely comparable to the US Supreme Court.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  One example of this accountability you ensure me exists: https://www.businessinsider.com/fda-chief-approved-oxycontin-six-figure-gig-at-purdue-pharma-2021-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/fda-chief-approved-oxycontin... Guy is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the addiction of millions. He wasn't elected and he wont be punished.
  - mikeyouse 3y ago
    Seems odd to call the leadership of the FDA "an unelected permanent government" and then linking to a commissioner's job after they resigned from the FDA. Even more ironically for this particular discussion - the legality of this pretty open corruption is specifically due to decisions made by the Supreme Court, who have gutted all of the bribery, official corruption, and campaign finance laws we used to have.
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      Summary provided to aid in reading: > Curtis Wright, once a director at the US Food and Drug Administration who oversaw evaluation for pain medication, got a position with a first-year compensation package of $400,000 at Purdue Pharma a year after he led the approval of OxyContin > Wright had confessed in a sworn deposition that he "might" have written the portion of the FDA package insert that said OxyContin was "believed to reduce the abuse liability of the drug." > OxyContin was the "most prescribed brand name narcotic medication" for treating moderate to severe pain by 2001, according to a report by the US Government Accountability Office. Deaths from prescription opioid overdose quadrupled between 1999 to 2019, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded 247,000 deaths from prescription opioid overdose over the last two decades.

toast0 3y ago

It's not really zero accountability. Supreme Court justices are subject to impeachment. It happened once, although Samuel Chase was acquitted. Yes, impeachment is notoriously partisan, but that's democracy?

mettamage 3y ago

How did the Supreme Court come into being? How has it been able to fly under the radar like this as being undemocratic?

gnicholas 3y ago
Article III, section I of the Constitution.
seanw444 3y ago
It's a council of 9 justices who vote on final decisions. They are appointed by politicians who the people vote for. This is intentional, for the same reason that the Senate wasn't meant to be directly voted for by normal citizens either: normal citizens usually don't have the political involvement necessary to make educated decisions about who to appoint the position. In theory, at least. It's a balance between politicians playing the circlejerk game to help each other with their misdeeds, and average joes voting for imbeciles.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  >> for the same reason that the Senate wasn't meant to be directly voted for by normal citizens either: normal citizens usually don't have the political involvement necessary to make educated decisions I am going to take slight issue with this, The reason the Senate was appointed as not because "normal citizens usually don't have the political involvement necessary to make educated decisions" it was because we are a Union of States. ie the United States. The states are suppose to have some level of sovereignty from the Federal Government, Previous to the Civil War most citizens were loyal to their State first, then the country. Post Civil War the federal government started to rewrite the relationship, however the Senate was to be the States representative in the Federal Government, thus why there are 2 for every State. The House Represented the people, thus why it is apportioned by population. A Senator was not meant to be the citizens voice in the Federal government, but was meant be the Voice of the State Government from which they were appointed.
  - seanw444 3y ago

salamandersss 3y ago

Yep. Ruth Ginsburg was another corrupt one, taking lavish trips funded by Israeli billionaires. But whoops, I wasn't supposed to mention the ones people here may like.

mikeyouse 3y ago
Do you think maybe there should be a distinction between trips reported on annual disclosure statements and those taken privately and without being reported?
- salamandersss 3y ago
  Yes there should be distinctions if level of corruption. For instance stealing candy from a baby and putting an ad in the paper saying you've done it is probably less bad than stealing candy when nobody sees it. And no I don't think this is the same as stealing candy, since some fucking pedant is gonna make that comment.
drawkward 3y ago
No, by all means: sunshine is the best disinfectant. Root out corruption and unethical behavior everywhere.
phpisthebest 3y ago
Shhh only conservatives can be corrupt....
- mdhb 3y ago
  It’s not only which is an argument you just made up that nobody said, just overwhelmingly as backed up by charges and convictions.

hermannj314 3y ago

Agreed! I think the Supreme Court is crazy. Depending on the decade, the constitution may or may not allow segregation, gay marriage, abortion, or slavery. You have to squint sometimes and turn the document sideways. Your guess is as good as mine what the current Supreme Court will decide the constitution says or doesn't say. And on some issues they take decades of latency to come to these decisions. I do think it is insane that we allow this in the modern world. Not to mention all the self-righteous posturing of lawyers absolutely convinced this system epitomizes "justice".

Ajedi32 3y ago
Kind of tangential to your point, but slavery was made unconstitutional by a constitutional amendment (the 13th), not by the courts, so that's not a good example.
- hermannj314 3y ago
  Fair point. Despite that being passed in 186X, the court didn't have a clue if it applied to the involuntary draft, peonage contracts, or chain gangs until decades later. The courts are so slow in this country.
ilovetux 3y ago
> Not to mention all the self-righteous posturing of lawyers absolutely convinced this system epitomizes "justice". I always had respect for the legal profession, but the way the Supreme Court is acting and the fact that nothing is being done about it has made me lose all respect for anyone in the legal profession. Sure, most lawyers and judges might disagree with the actions of the Supreme Court, but lawyers are hesitant to say anything because they might end up as counsel in a Supreme Court case and don't want the court's ire. The state of affairs really highlights how much of a dress-up, make-believe game the Legal profession has become.

ihsw 3y ago

[dead]

awb 3y ago

> lifetime appointments The lifetime appointments are designed to put them outside of the scope of politicians and the need to run for re-election. I guess you could serve a single 15 year term with no option to rejoin the court. > zero accountability Supreme Court justices can be impeached and removed from office.

SauciestGNU 3y ago
Yeah but practically speaking they can't be as long as their crimes benefit at least a third of the Senate. Frankly, the corruption of the court seems to fall substantially along party lines, so as long as one party never holds 67 senate seats there is no mechanism for accountability.

jimbob45 3y ago

Isn't that the strength of the institution though? If they were elected, they'd be fundraising nonstop for re-election and be far less concerned about their actual job.

rqtwteye 3y ago

I definitely would give them term limits and a maximum age. Let's say 16 years and a president gets 2 nominations per term (more if a judge dies or gets sick). Watching Bader-Ginsburgh basically die on the bench should be a warning.

phpisthebest 3y ago

>>and undemocratic yes, by design and it should remain so.. This idea that democracy is the end all be all is false and dangerous, very dangerous. Mob rule is never the solution to anything (as we are seeing with the massive mobs in support of terrorist organization Hamas) There are all kinds of checks built into the American REPUBLIC that are undemocratic purposefully to prevent the whims of the mob for ruling. Personally I would like to remove many of the "democratic" processes we have put in place since the founding, namely the election of senators by popular vote, The senate should be returned to be appointed by State Legislators. If you want to reform the Court system end Stare decisis and make the court rule on the constitutionally of each case on their merits based on the actual words of the Constitution as was their original charge and their constitutional mandate