-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Justice Stephen Breyer (liberal Supreme Court justice) warns that packing the Court would "erode trust"
- Thread starter Deleted member 31923
- Start date
May want to see how little trust there is in that court already and wonder why exactly there are calls for such actions in the first place.......
The idea that the SCOTUS is a Conservative majority despite the fact that the popular vote continues to show that's not how the USA is should be setting off all the alarm bells for why the court is broken as fuck and needs fixing.
The idea that the SCOTUS is a Conservative majority despite the fact that the popular vote continues to show that's not how the USA is should be setting off all the alarm bells for why the court is broken as fuck and needs fixing.
It's worth pointing out that he specifically said in this interview that he intends to retire rather than die as a justice.
The elites have excellent class solidarity, unlike the rest of us.
Hard to say, there's definitely evidence for them in their dissents of doing just that but one commonality among all of them is this refusal to acknowledge the history of the court as a politically-motivated institution in the same ways most people think of Congress and the presidency. It really does boil down to this delta between what the court theoretically should do versus what it's actual purpose is in a country where congress has been functionally gridlocked for the entirety of my adult life. Which leads me to…
SCOTUS being a conservative majority shouldn't actually matter as much as it does if the machinery of Congress was actually behaving as designed. It's not exactly a big secret that the courts have actually been the primary driver of decisive policy in America for the past decade plus. Normally, things like marriage equality, campaign finance reform and labor rights should be something Congress determines via legislation that actively holds those members accountable for their votes. Instead, there's absolute gridlock on what's even brought to the floor to begin with by ideologues within their respective parties which makes the notion of who to hold accountable for what very murky to your average voter.
The only reason we're even discussing packing the courts is specifically because an entire other branch of government has been completely non-functional as originally intended for most of my personal lifetime.
I came in here to make this exact point.
SCOTUS is not the problem; it's a symptom. Specifically, the Senate is the problem.
The erosion of trust in SCOTUS is not due to SCOTUS, but due to shitheads in the Senate.
I the court lost legitimacy when Garland the centrist was denied a fair hearing.
McConnell and his pals ended that legitimacy.
I have no respect for selfish, greedy judges who won't fucking retire when they should to save their goddamned country.
Now we have a fucking catastrophic court partly because of them. History won't judge them kindly.
McConnell and his pals ended that legitimacy.
I have no respect for selfish, greedy judges who won't fucking retire when they should to save their goddamned country.
Now we have a fucking catastrophic court partly because of them. History won't judge them kindly.
The court is already effectively packed and partisan after McConnell refused to allow Obama to nominate anyone to the court in 2016 and then agreed to sit Barrett on the Court with an election a month away. Breyer is living in a fantasy land in which his legacy isn't already tainted by a Partisan court.
Mitch McConnell straight up stole a Supreme Court seat. And he'll do it again. R's in his position will follow his roadmap and do it any time they're in power during a vacancy.
There's no trust that SCOTUS is somehow an apolitical body, or in the Senate's role in advise and consent.
Losing trust in the courts in a good thing, as they should not be trusted. They are a part of an unelected branch of government that has way too fucking much power. Do anything you can to lessen their power...stack them with 200 judges while you're at it, individual lifetime judges are a joke, with how much power they have over the population.
Yep. Very much represents what I am feeling.
The US courts, including the Supreme Court, have already been tampered with and politicized, nearly since their very inception, and so trust has long ago been lost. They were never the sacred, impartial choir of justice angels some would have us believe, even if they have, at times, blandly represented the average interests of the ruling elite. The courts should represent the people. At large. If not by affluence, or common sense morality, then at least by political opinion. After all of the fuckery by Republicans, etcetera, they don't even come close anymore. They are unbalanced, at this very moment in history - ergo, ipso facto, they need to be rebalanced.
Last edited:
Not saying I disagree, but what's the alternative / fix to this then?
In the short term whichever side is in power should just appoint as many judges as possible to accomplish their agenda. Because for a long time now, we just get one party accomplishing their agenda regardless of which party is in power.
Once the SC is like 1000 judges strong hopefully even the really stupid people in this country will see that the Supreme Court is a farce and hopefully lead to its elimination or a large decrease in its power.
But of course it's not going to happen because only the Republican politicians understand that there is no sanctity in the SC, while libs still think that the SC is this great respected institution.
So bring on that 9-0 supreme court dominated by right wing shitheads I guess.
But the establishement democrats are actually there to win. They're just another flavor of corporate shills. Democratos or republicans passing laws, it doesn't matter as long a the status quo is maintained and corporations and billionnaires keep giving them some of the money they plunder from the country.
Only Sanders, AOC and a few others really want to make things better, but they don't have the power to do so, or know they'll get destroyed if they say the quiet part too loud.
Exactly.
This was my face reading this title
I don't think he's wrong. It's about weighing that vs other consequences.
Anything we do here becomes open season when the conservatives are in power.
That said, the trust erosion started with the shitshow surrounding Merrick Garland.
Anything we do here becomes open season when the conservatives are in power.
That said, the trust erosion started with the shitshow surrounding Merrick Garland.
This kind of argument is super common but makes no sense.
It's open season RIGHT NOW. It's BEEN open season for the right for the entire 37 years I've been alive.
You're afraid that the right wing will have full control of the Supreme Court in the future if we do anything now, when they already have full control.
Actually, I don't think McConnell would. He is extremely adept at not being the one to change the rules, as soon as they're changed he will use them to their fullest extent.
He is also good at causing enough gridlock to push other groups into changes that cost them political capital and gives him more tools in the future.
No, I mean in terms of packing the court. Right now they have control, but in years past a liberal SCOTUS has prevented a lot of bad shit from happening. Even with this SCOTUS, there are extremes they have not gone to.
I think you believe it doesn't make sense because you're thinking this is as bad as it could possibly get. In reality it can get so much worse.
Imagine that a conservative Congress increases the court size after one decision that doesn't go their way.
Now, remember, I'm not saying do/don't pack the court. I'm saying that it's not actually an obvious decision when viewed in context.
EDIT: More specific example. Let's say they REALLY wanted Trump to win, and after SCOTUS threw out the election cases earlier this year, the right decided to expand the court to add justices who would have taken those cases. Is that risk worthwhile?
They have double the number of justices that we do right now. I don't really understand what you think would get even worse.
Like with a 6-3 majority they can approve the abortion law in Texas and allow Nestle to do child slavery, but if they had a 10-3 majority, they could just execute women and children outright?
You would think this, but there is always the corporate media and prominent, supposedly liberal lawyers like Neal Katyal who are eager to convince the public that the Supreme Court and the demons that get appointed to it are worthy of trust.
I edited with a specific example.
But basically, I feel you're assuming that every decision goes one way based on the makeup of the court. There are levels of insane even this court has not reached (yet).
you kinda answered your own question there
taken a look at what the requirements for passing and ratifying a constitutional amendment are lately?
McConnell eroded that trust when he pulled the shit he did. It's interesting that the constitutional originalists don't speak up about how much power the Supreme Court has. It was never intended to be what it is today. 9 unelected people making decisions consistent with partisan ideology that effect hundreds of millions is absurd.
What about term limits? Seems weird to have a "For life" gig where your decisions impact millions of peoples lives.
Needs an amendment and it just shifts the issue from seats effectively being randomly decided by party control of the senate to being predictably decided by party control of the senate.
The only two words I want to hear out of this fucker mouth is "I retire".
I can't even imagine how much up your own ass you need to be to think that yeah, it's probably best for the country to retire under Democratic senate and a president, but I don't really feel like it yet.
I can't even imagine how much up your own ass you need to be to think that yeah, it's probably best for the country to retire under Democratic senate and a president, but I don't really feel like it yet.
I for one love having 83 year old people at their end of their lives determining laws for future generations. Seems legit.
You mean the same "trust" that caused Mitch McConnell to prevent Obama from picking a Justice by making up some bullshit rule about SC Justices in a Presidential election year, only to go against it four years later?
The courts are already broken. Court packing won't hurt anything.
That said, I don't put this near the top of my things to worry about because packing the courts is an impossibility. The Democratic Party will absolutely not have enough supporters of such a move any time in the near future. 0% shot that it comes close to happening.
That said, I don't put this near the top of my things to worry about because packing the courts is an impossibility. The Democratic Party will absolutely not have enough supporters of such a move any time in the near future. 0% shot that it comes close to happening.