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.
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?
A check on power in the executive and legislative branches of government. A judicial perspective to our government. A longer term view on policy than 2,4,6 year terms. Glad I’m getting down voted for asking questions it makes this feel just like the reddit I missed haha
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.
I’ll get downvoted for supporting your question in seek of an answer. Why dissolve the Supreme Court? Can reform not work? If you dissolve the Supreme Court then what is the proposed alternative?
Why should we dissolve the court?
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.
deleted by creator
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.
But why not reform it instead?
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?
A check on power in the executive and legislative branches of government. A judicial perspective to our government. A longer term view on policy than 2,4,6 year terms. Glad I’m getting down voted for asking questions it makes this feel just like the reddit I missed haha
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.
All of the blatant corruption
I’ll get downvoted for supporting your question in seek of an answer. Why dissolve the Supreme Court? Can reform not work? If you dissolve the Supreme Court then what is the proposed alternative?