The major questions doctrine, explained.

  • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’d be fine with a Presidential Review of the Supreme Court every four years offset by two years of the Presidential election. This would allow a President to replace members of the Supreme Court with a simple majority of the House and Senate as part of the conformation of a new judge. The President would have to justify the replacement for criminal or ethical reasons confirmed by both houses of Congress.

    • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d be fine with a Presidential Review of the Supreme Court every four years offset by two years of the Presidential election. This would allow a President to replace members of the Supreme Court with a simple majority of the House and Senate as part of the conformation of a new judge. The President would have to justify the replacement for criminal or ethical reasons confirmed by both houses of Congress.

      This would be great until Trump 2.0 comes along and throws out liberal judges he doesn’t like or that he knows won’t rule in his favor, backed by a complicit Congress. We just got finished with four years off watching one man almost singlehandedly corrupt every single branch of government with ease, so it’s not like this idea is far fetched.

      Rulings would no longer be about what is (supposed to be) best for the American people but instead would be about what rulings to give so they can keep their cushy jobs, especially when the White House and Congress are both controlled by the same party.

      I understand the sentiment behind trying to get the corrupt judges off the bench, but this would likely just make the situation worse, not better.