The importance of the Supreme Court

[Monoriu]

The UK doesn't seem to have a similar problem?  What's the difference in the two systems? 

[grumbler]

Actually, that clip is more amusing than amazing, as he totally missed the actual impact of Citizens United.   (snip)

Yeah, I'm going to have to go ahead and ask you to put me with Raz if you're going to be that disingenuous when it comes to replies.  I've known for quite a while we don't see eye to eye on posting and especially political items, but the last few year plus you've gotten to the point where I have zero interest in engaging with you or having you engage with me.  Keep your shtick for those who haven't burned out on it yet, I'm all done.  Thanks! 

Sorry, I don't do requests.  Feel free to ignore my posts, though.  Thanks. 

[Agelastus]

I think the Dems should absolutely pack the court if they can.

Pack the court.

So, at the moment the court is 5-4; let's assume the Democrats try to pack the court by adding 2 extra justices making is 5:6. Then the Republicans get in power again and with the example having been made add 2 extra justices themselves making it 7:6; or perhaps a justice retired during the Democrat period and it is 4:7 and to fix this they have to add four new justices making it 8:7.

I am aware that nowhere in the Constitution does it say how many justices there should be on the bench so where does this stop? How long before a constitutional amendment has to be done to fix the number of Justices on the court?

It was a stupid "let the genie out of the bottle" idea when Roosevelt thought it up and I don't see how this is any different now.

Term limits, on the other hand, may be something the USA should explore as an option given the precedent is there with the term limiting of the President.

[Valmy]

Term limits, on the other hand, may be something the USA should explore as an option given the precedent is there with the term limiting of the President.

That would require an amendment to the Constitution, packing the court does not.

[crazy canuck]

The structures themselves don't make moral choices; the humans intertwined in the structures do. Structures don't have agency.

Congratulations.  You just demolished the premises that underlie Citizens United and Hobby Lobby.

Well done 

Although one has to have a better understanding of corporate law than the USSC to see what you did.

[Berkut]

I think the Dems should absolutely pack the court if they can.

Pack the court.

So, at the moment the court is 5-4; let's assume the Democrats try to pack the court by adding 2 extra justices making is 5:6. Then the Republicans get in power again and with the example having been made add 2 extra justices themselves making it 7:6; or perhaps a justice retired during the Democrat period and it is 4:7 and to fix this they have to add four new justices making it 8:7.

I am aware that nowhere in the Constitution does it say how many justices there should be on the bench so where does this stop? How long before a constitutional amendment has to be done to fix the number of Justices on the court?

It was a stupid "let the genie out of the bottle" idea when Roosevelt thought it up and I don't see how this is any different now.

Term limits, on the other hand, may be something the USA should explore as an option given the precedent is there with the term limiting of the President.

Are you saying that if the Dems do this, then they would be on even footing with the Republicans, and they both could use that to try to game the system?

OH TEH HORROR!!!!!

You are missing the point. Gaming the system is how the Republicans have decided the game is being played. They just refused to allow the President to appoint a justice.

I agree that in theory this sucks, but we don't get to play in the world of theory. In the actual world, gaming the system is the only game to be played.

[crazy canuck]

Berkut, you have identified one of the most troubling things for me.  I have been educated and trained to support the Rule of Law as one of the pillars of a strong Liberal Democracy.   But what happens when the institutions which are charged to uphold the Rule of Law are corrupted?

I would like to hear Oex on this one.  I think this is something his particular area of expertise can helpfully inform. 

[Valmy]

Somehow I feel like this all goes back to Bill Clinton and the blind rage he inspired. The Republicans were not like this before the late 90s.

[Berkut]

Berkut, you have identified one of the most troubling things for me.  I have been educated and trained to support the Rule of Law as one of the pillars of a strong Liberal Democracy.   But what happens when the institutions which are charged to uphold the Rule of Law are corrupted?

I would like to hear Oex on this one.  I think this is something his particular area of expertise can helpfully inform. 

I think it is actually even a bit worse than that.

It isn't just a lack of respect for law, which is bad enough. It is a lack of respect for custom which is worse. Laws can be changed, and honestly, they are a rather blunt tool anyway.

The lack of respect for the customs of power that exist outside the law is worse. Because there isn't any "law" those supporting the violation can just say "Hah, but he didn't break the law so its ok!". And this means that if we want to constrain power, we have to go write a law to do so - but if the unwritten law has already been broken, why does anyone want to limit *themselves* when they have power?

If a Democrat is elected, and lets even say they take the Senate as well. What we would LIKE to see happen is that all those customs that Trump threw out get written into law so they won't get thrown out anymore. Like divestuture, declaring your financial situation openly, etc., etc.

Two problems with that:

1. It just sucks that we ahve to write blunt laws to handle subtle and nuanced issues that were previously handled by precedence, custom, and political punishment for their violation. It is, by definition, almost impossible to violate the spirit of a convention, since it is all spirit. But if your law is not well written, or even if it is but just doesn't anticipate some corner case, it becomes easy to meet the letter of the law while flouting its spirit completely.
2. The Dems will be sorely tempted, especially if they really crush the right, to not institute those rules. After all, the last guy didn't ahve to follow them, so why should we? *We* are the good guys, and will be in power for a long time....surely we can deal with that later....

[Malthus]

The US Founding Fathers set up a system that outright assumed people would act like power-hungry assclowns if they got the chance. That's why they put so much emphasis on "checks and balances".

What they failed to anticipate is the corrupting ability of party loyalty above all. That people in Congress and the Judiciary would all cooperate together to undermine the system and prevent it from working as intended.

[Grey Fox]

The US Founding Fathers set up a system that outright assumed people would act like power-hungry assclowns if they got the chance. That's why they put so much emphasis on "checks and balances".

What they failed to anticipate is the corrupting ability of party loyalty above all. That people in Congress and the Judiciary would all cooperate together to undermine the system and prevent it from working as intended.

Because they didn't consider the fact that we would not all have the same religious background?

[Valmy]

Because they didn't consider the fact that we would not all have the same religious background?

In what way did they not consider that fact?

[Grey Fox]

Because they didn't consider the fact that we would not all have the same religious background?

In what way did they not consider that fact?

I don't know how to prove the absence of something with more than "they didn't". 

[Valmy]

Because they didn't consider the fact that we would not all have the same religious background?

In what way did they not consider that fact?

I don't know how to prove the absence of something with more than "they didn't". 

You don't have to prove anything, simply explain WTF you are talking about. Because, after all, they did have differing religious ideas and specifically made a secular government.

[Grey Fox]

Because they didn't consider the fact that we would not all have the same religious background?

In what way did they not consider that fact?

I don't know how to prove the absence of something with more than "they didn't". 

You don't have to prove anything, simply explain WTF you are talking about. Because, after all, they did have differing religious ideas and specifically made a secular government.

They didn't anticipate the need for protestant groups to circle the wagon & throw their undying religious faith behind 1 party.

It's not a secular government, it's a christian government.