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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
So do you throw out the whole appeals court system? Or just the Supreme Court?
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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?
deleted by creator
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.