SCOTUS

[jesmu84]

Through the federalist society, the christian fundamentalists/evangelicals have finally won. Hard fought. Congrats.

This goes well beyond roe v wade

[tower912]

They played the long game very well.

[Jockey]

They will have the opportunity to bring the country to its knees next summer with the North Carolina case. I am positive they will take it.

[brewcity77]

IBTL

SCOTUS has clearly been corrupted. When 6 individuals, 5 of whom were nominated by presidents that lost the popular vote, are making decisions that are opposed by 70% of the country then the system is broken. Buttigieg was right. It needs to be massively reformed. Expand the court, first to 13 to restore balance on the court. Then pass a law that any new SCOTUS justice must be approved unanimously by the sitting justices. That will insure that both parties have to nominate justices that are truly fair, neutral arbiters of the law. After that, expand to 25 and nominate 12 new justices that will guarantee the dominant wing of the court is the middle ground.

Term and age limits would be great, but those would likely require an unattainable constitutional amendment.

[Jockey]

I might also mention that Roberts is the weakest Chief Justice in a long, long time.

[brewcity77]

I might also mention that Roberts is the weakest Chief Justice in a long, long time.

Is he even really the Chief Justice anymore? (Though just asking that might confirm your assertion)

[Pakuni]

Is he even really the Chief Justice anymore? (Though just asking that might confirm your assertion)

No. It's Alito's court now.

[jficke13]

IBTL

SCOTUS has clearly been corrupted. When 6 individuals, 5 of whom were nominated by presidents that lost the popular vote, are making decisions that are opposed by 70% of the country then the system is broken. Buttigieg was right. It needs to be massively reformed. Expand the court, first to 13 to restore balance on the court. Then pass a law that any new SCOTUS justice must be approved unanimously by the sitting justices. That will insure that both parties have to nominate justices that are truly fair, neutral arbiters of the law. After that, expand to 25 and nominate 12 new justices that will guarantee the dominant wing of the court is the middle ground.

Term and age limits would be great, but those would likely require an unattainable constitutional amendment.

What happens if one Justice simply refuses to confirm anyone?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

What happens if one Justice simply refuses to confirm anyone?

And it's also unconstitutional. You can't add extra steps to the process.

[Spaniel with a Short Tail]

I do not think expanding the court is the solution. That could just lead to one party having an even greater majority. Plus it does not have enough support.

I believe these things are cyclical and the worm will turn, eventually. My biggest concern is the ramifications of what McConnell did to Merrick Garland's nomination, and McConnell's more recent statements that make it sound like he would NEVER allow a vote on a Democratic president's nominee if the Senate is in GOP control. That is a terrible abrogation of civic responsibility and historical norms. While it may be legal, it is very, very dangerous.

My other concern is the relatively young age of the more recent nominees. That makes me think there should be an experience standard or minimum age of at least 50 for nominees going forward.

[Uncle Rico]

I do not think expanding the court is the solution. That could just lead to one party having an even greater majority. Plus it does not have enough support.

I believe these things are cyclical and the worm will turn, eventually. My biggest concern is the ramifications of what McConnell did to Merrick Garland's nomination, and McConnell's more recent statements that make it sound like he would NEVER allow a vote on a Democratic president's nominee if the Senate is in GOP control. That is a terrible abrogation of civic responsibility and historical norms. While it may be legal, it is very, very dangerous.

My other concern is the relatively young age of the more recent nominees. That makes me think there should be an experience standard or minimum age of at least 50 for nominees going forward.

Time for term limits

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Time for term limits

Yup. Each President should be allowed to put two people on the court, with the two longest tenured stepping down. Of course, you have to write a law that ensures McConnell can't block the appointments.

[lawdog77]

Yup. Each President should be allowed to put two people on the court, with the two longest tenured stepping down. Of course, you have to write a law that ensures McConnell can't block the appointments.

You mean like this?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8424#:~:text=This%20bill%20establishes%20staggered%2C%2018,Court%20Justice%20every%20two%20years.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Yup. Each President should be allowed to put two people on the court, with the two longest tenured stepping down. Of course, you have to write a law that ensures McConnell can't block the appointments.

It would need to be an amendment. And if you are going to go through the process of amending the Constitution, you may as well amend the "advice and consent of the Senate clause."

Or better yet, 12 year terms. Allow the President to name two at the beginning of their term. Ditto the Senate. The House gets one. That way if they are in opposite hands, you have more balance. There would be 15 members at any given time.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

You mean like this?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8424#:~:text=This%20bill%20establishes%20staggered%2C%2018,Court%20Justice%20every%20two%20years.

Which would be unconstitutional.

[lawdog77]

Which would be unconstitutional.

Here's a good read on the subject
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46731

[Hards Alumni]

It would need to be an amendment. And if you are going to go through the process of amending the Constitution, you may as well amend the "advice and consent of the Senate clause."

Or better yet, 12 year terms. Allow the President to name two at the beginning of their term. Ditto the Senate. The House gets one. That way if they are in opposite hands, you have more balance. There would be 15 members at any given time.

Don't get me started.  We hold our constitution in far too much reverence.  It was meant to be a living document that changed with the times and adapted to societal norms. 

[brewcity77]

Don't get me started.  We hold our constitution in far too much reverence.  It was meant to be a living document that changed with the times and adapted to societal norms.

Yeah, it's a dinosaur. People talk about the Founders, but I think the thing that would offend them the most is this country still using what they wrote 246 years ago as some sort of gospel document. Other countries frequently rewrite their constitutions to keep up with the times.

[mu_hilltopper]

I think the biggest whammy (of many) .. is the crushing blow for stare decisis.  Nothing is decided forever now, and all is on the table.

It's inevitable that Dobbs will be overturned eventually, and we'll have a flipping and flopping of laws as each party wins the court for a time.  #doom

[Uncle Rico]

Yeah, it's a dinosaur. People talk about the Founders, but I think the thing that would offend them the most is this country still using what they wrote 246 years ago as some sort of gospel document. Other countries frequently rewrite their constitutions to keep up with the times.

As someone who has spent a lot time reading and researching the founding fathers, they would be shocked the constitution hasn’t been more radically adapted to the times

[jesmu84]

As someone who has spent a lot time reading and researching the founding fathers, they would be shocked the constitution hasn’t been more radically adapted to the times

Gee, I wonder why...

[JWags85]

Gee, I wonder why...

Legitimate, non snarky question...

What do you like about the US and why do you stay?  You're in the medical profession if I'm not mistaken, which is well in demand everywhere.  I assume its some combination of "family" and "im from here"

Cause it feels like 90% of your posts in the Superbar are complaining about capitalism, business, the government, the US in some way shape or form.  It seems like short of the US becoming Denmark or Norway, you'll be perpetually unhappy.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

You mean like this?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8424#:~:text=This%20bill%20establishes%20staggered%2C%2018,Court%20Justice%20every%20two%20years.

I'm all for it, and like the provision that if the Senate ignores it for 120 days they lose their right to consent. And yet, seems like if the Senate is held by the opposing party, some slimy bastard like McTurtle can still block the nomination so long as his party has no conscience.

[Hards Alumni]

Legitimate, non snarky question...

What do you like about the US and why do you stay?  You're in the medical profession if I'm not mistaken, which is well in demand everywhere.  I assume its some combination of "family" and "im from here"

Cause it feels like 90% of your posts in the Superbar are complaining about capitalism, business, the government, the US in some way shape or form.  It seems like short of the US becoming Denmark or Norway, you'll be perpetually unhappy.

What if I told you that it is okay to advocate for change but still live comfortably in an imperfect society?

[JWags85]

What if I told you that it is okay to advocate for change but still live comfortably in an imperfect society?

There is zero wrong with that.  Which is why i asked what he liked about the US?  Advocate for change =/= relentless complaining and snarkily/whiningly pointing out of things you dislike with no realistic or alternative plans or hopes.  Its just a "I want something that is not this" tantrum.

You're a business owner/manager.  If you had an employee that felt things were wrong in his role/department/company and asked for changes, suggested improvement, etc... you'd listen and be amenable to reasonable suggestions.  If they just bitched and moaned and pointed out endless wrongs, perceived or real, you'd ask "why are you still here then?"