• Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Dissolve the court. Arrest Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh. Bring in an independent investigator and if any of the others have so much as gotten a ride to their car from someone with business before the court arrest them too. No more “well it’s only a little bit corrupt” or “yeah but you’ve gotta understand” or that horse shit. You want your word to be the literal law that almost 400 million people have to live under? You need to be fucking flawless.

    • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      While I agree with the sentiment, there’s technically no laws against the corruption. You can’t just arrest people because you don’t agree with them and think they’re immoral. Do that and imagine what a republican regime will do with that ability.

      • underisk@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        46
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Because an unelected council of lifetime appointed politically motivated actors who can arbitrarily decide whether democratically instilled laws are valid on a case by case basis is fundamentally stupid and obviously prone to corruption.

        • marmo7ade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Also because there is no legal construct that gives SCOUTS the specific powers it currently wields. Article 3 of the US constitution is an outline that lacks specifics. The federal government decided SCOTUS would rule on case law without encoding it in law. It was a subjective decision. We can make another subjective decision.

          • underisk@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Just the Supreme Court, thanks. Though I’m not super happy about those lesser courts being lifetime appointments either, so maybe they could do with some reform instead. We can always revisit those later, call it incremental improvement.

            • minorninth@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              But the Supreme Court is part of the whole system of appeals courts. They all have lifetime appointments. It makes no sense. You’d just be giving regional judges more power and the country would have even more stark divided across state lines.

              • underisk@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                So you did read the part where I said that I’m not happy about the lesser courts being lifetime appointments? Why does it matter if the Supreme Court is part of the appellate court system? There are federal courts of appeal beneath the SC so idk how you think that’d be shifting more power into regional courts. And even if it did, so what? Breaking up concentrated sources of power is good, not bad.

          • underisk@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’s nothing to salvage, it should not exist. Whatever you could make of it out of reforms wouldn’t be worth the trouble. What function does it perform that is so vital it cannot be removed?

              • underisk@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The role of the judicial can be fulfilled with lesser courts without the overreach provided by the SC; they’re meant to interpret and enforce, not invalidate.

                You don’t need a lifetime appointment for a long term view of the law, it’s not as if politicians in other branches retire after their terms or don’t serve as many terms as possible. The possibility of churn is, in theory, meant to keep those branches beholden to their constituents. Even that’s often insufficient to prevent corruption, but at least it’s something.

      • RunningInRVA@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ll get downvoted for supporting your question in seek of an answer. Why dissolve the Supreme Court? Can reform not work? If you dissolve the Supreme Court then what is the proposed alternative?