The chief justice doesn’t like his conservative Supreme Court colleagues getting called out for judicial overreach.

  • lunar_parking@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    The supreme court even as a concept is one of the most asinine yet accepted institutions in the world. On par with the Catholic church, but so much worse because it actually has enormous and direct power over 330+ million people. I am dreaming and pining for the day that someone in power, most likely a president, just legitimately tells them to fuck off. They have no enforcement power and they fucking know it. I’m yearning for someone to have the courage, but it’s as clear as it possibly can be that it certainly won’t be a Democrat.

    • zalack@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The thing is that the court only has so much power right now because Congress is so fucking broken. If Congress where in working order it could just legislate all the shit that the court is blocking the executive on.

      • Neferic@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is there any sense when Congress went off the rails? Some folks I have listened to say it was around the 90s but there were obviously very contentious times before then.

        • The Congress has never consistently functioned well, I’m not entirely convinced it’s designed to. For the current mess, both in Congress and American politics in general, probably the most influential source is Newt Gingrich’s electioneering policy of attacking wedges and saying anything you have to to get headlines without regards to the truthfulness of your statements. That’s what reshaped the Republican party to be particularly welcoming to extremists, popularized science denial, and led to the modern wave of Christian Nationalism.

          https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/07/07/newt-gingrich-republican-party

    • Neferic@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Can you elaborate on the comparison to the church? You don’t like a panel having authority so you want to consolidate it to a president unilaterally ignoring the third branch? Would term limits on judges change how you see the court?

      • lunar_parking@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The Catholic church is an unjustifiable and ridiculous institution in the same way the supreme court is. The Catholic church also had a lot of control over the lives of many people for a very long time, although that influence has obviously waned in recent centuries and decades (although it’s clearly still not completely gone). Now, as far as the president having control, I will also say fuck the presidency, but it would always be my hope that a person in that position would do anything in their power as a president and a person to stand up to unjustifiable institutions like the supreme court. Obviously a president couldn’t abolish the supreme court single-handedly, nor do I think that would necessarily, inherently be a good thing, but I do think that a president could and should call out the obvious reasons for which the institution needs to be abolished, because it absolutely does. The fact that nine human beings can directly control the lives of millions and millions and millions of people is an absolute travesty. I don’t even feel dissimilarly about congress, but obviously it’s a bit better because they are actually elected. In general, though, I am a very strong proponent of direct democracy. Term limits are a starting point, but it would be akin to applying a bandaid to a gaping, oozing wound.

    • ndguardian@lemmy.studio
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The thing is, I can see the logic behind why the Supreme Court is designed the way it is. If they don’t have to worry about reelection, they shouldn’t have a vested interest in making calls that make a specific voting group happy. In theory, this means they should be free to provide unbiased decisions that help society to better function.

      The problem though is that there isn’t a way for the public to easily remove a justice that obviously is just trying to rule from the bench. This increases the chance of them abusing their position of power.

      The current Supreme Court has made several decisions recently that are beyond a rational understanding of the law that only serve to the benefit of themselves and to their wealthy benefactors. The decisions are harming people with little genuine benefit for our collective society. As such, we should be able to remove them in such extenuating circumstances. But we can’t, and they are there for life. It is extremely frustrating.