5 ms·
4 years and a complete control of the supreme court guarantees lasting damage to the ecosystem (and all other aspects of society) since all the conservative/rig
by danudey 2y ago
4 years and a complete control of the supreme court guarantees lasting damage to the ecosystem (and all other aspects of society) since all the conservative/right-wing issues just need to be appealed up to SCOTUS and they'll get their way - and set legal precedent on the way.
There's two justices ready to retire, and if Trump replaces them (and he will) that'll be five supreme court justices appointed by Trump and chosen by his cronies. The entire legal system will be corrupted for decades.
- qingcharles 2y agoRight. This is the biggest damage Trump can do because it lasts so long after his presidency.
- TomK32 2y agoWell, the size of the Supreme Court is not fixed at nine. A future Democratic president might just work to increase it to give it more balance.
- jayGlow 2y agowouldn't that just start an arms race of each side trying to stack the court whenever they're in power?
- nateglims 2y agoYeah, same with ending filibuster and other speculated tactics. I don't think you can close the door behind you without a constitutional amendment, which won't happen.
- nocoolnametom 2y agoYes, but each time diluting the power of the justices individually. Right now if you have one wacko justice who decides on the basis of political ideology instead of some of the established legal theories they have 11% of a say in things. Add another few justices who are relatively normal and the ability of the wacko to swing things into dangerous territory goes down. Even if the tit-for-tat tries to cram more wackos in you have to try to convince the Senate to let more and more obviously terribly choices through.
- hackernewds 2y agoAre you suggesting the supreme Court should be another House of Congress?
- DiscourseFan 2y agoThere is no reason why supreme court decisions couldn’t be made more democratically. The law should not be in the hands of a select few elite
- ndiddy 2y agoSure but after a few decades of packing we'd eventually end up with a direct democracy where every adult citizen is a Supreme Court justice and the legislative branch would be sidestepped entirely. Seems better than our current system IMO.
- trinsic2 2y agoEveryone thinks that the Dems and Republicans are different sides, but they are on the same side, money. This has been going on for at least 50 years. Every 5 years I hear this bull shit. IF the dems got in it would be more balanced. Nothing changes until we reevaluate our support for system that doesn't serve us.
- paulryanrogers 2y agoDems at least talk about taking money out of politics. McCain Feyngold was a big step in the right direction but IIRC SCOTUS shut that down hard.
- trinsic2 2y agoThey talk and do nothing, they are supported by the same system of money that reb get. The only difference is of a perceptual nature.
- samatman 2y agoSo you're saying that President Trump can appoint as many Supreme Court justices as he would like to in January?
- TomK32 2y agoIt might take a little more than that to update the Judiciary Act of 1869 that defined the current number of justices on the court.
- samatman 2y agoOk but the Republicans will have full control of both houses, and can also put aside the filibuster if they would like. Are you saying it's therefore ok for Trump to pack the courts? That does appear to be the logical extension of your original comment.
- refurb 2y agoFDR tried and members of his own party came out against him. It’s a non-starter.
- TomK32 2y agoThere are good reasons to increase the size though, mainly it being one of the smallest Supreme Courts in the world.
- refurb 2y ago“Smallest in the world” doesn’t seem like a good reason at all. The reason why the Democratic party revolted against FDR attempt to stuff the Supreme Court was because it was such an obvious runaround of the Constituion.
- scotty79 2y agoYou can't really tell how long his presidency lasts. Two term limit is just a rule that can be changed with help of judiciary branch. If Americans want him for a third term who'd object?
- lelandfe 2y agoTrying to reinterpret "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice" to allow for that would be quite a spectacular feat of jurisprudence.
- scotty79 2y agoIt's just 22nd amendment. Can't be more important than the will of the nation. The only question is do the Americans like Trump as much as they like booze or can it be at least made to look like they do.
- barkerja 2y agoTheoretically, if changes were put into place to allow a run for a third term (which is highly unlikely given age), then that also opens the door for someone like Obama running again.
- sirbutters 2y agoKey word here is "elected". Prepare for their justification like "well XYZ is not really an election so...."
- raisedbyninjas 2y agoJust expanding the court with pure loyalists seems easier.
- psunavy03 2y agoPeople don't seem to understand that even Trump's judges still see themselves as JUDGES. They're not going to just make stuff up that's not in the law, and there were several instances in his first term where his own SCOTUS Justices told him to pound sand. It's not so simple as "nominated by Trump == inherently corrupt," much as he'd like it to be that way.
- lelandfe 2y agoBingo. The Tea Party went away. MAGA, though, is now harpooned straight into the checks and balances for a lifetime.
- chucke1992 2y agoYeah, well essentially republican went through 2 transformations over the last 8 years.
- bas 2y agoIndeed. 5th Circuit -> SCOTUS will easy mode for right-wing causes (if it isn't already).