Unpacking the Court

[hpslugga 4062]

It’s time that we started discussing this topic and I want to start it off by posting two videos to kinda guide it along at least at first. I would really like to see the lawyers’ takes on it in particular. 
 

 

[TwiceHorn 31538]

In some ways it works, but it does assume that a) the legislation passes and b) a Democratic administration can get all the appointments for the new spots.

We have several anti-democratic institutions, intentionally, that are not functioning as intended in the Senate, the electoral college, and the Court.  I'm pretty much untroubled by attempting to make the Court more "democratic."

I have been a lawyer for 30 years.  I alternate between cynicism toward the Court and believing, until recently, that the justices were ultimately largely independent of partisan politics (meaning, yes they are conservative and liberal, and yes, often their decisions will reflect that, but not grossly partisan, implementing agendas of their appointing party).

[hpslugga 4062]

22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

In some ways it works, but it does assume that a) the legislation passes and b) a Democratic administration can get all the appointments for the new spots.

On point a I would agree, but if they actually did that would mean Manchin and Sinema would have been convinced finally to kill the filibuster and to add more judges, so since that would almost have to be the case, point B would be moot because they’d be able to rapid fire those.

I have next to zero confidence that it would come to it with this current makeup but at some, we do have to recognize that we are indeed a failed state and therefore have to operate within that framework. In a bi-factional system, when one faction doesn’t operate within the framework we like to call “rule of law,” there’s no reason for the other to do so either. Even if they put forth their most earnest effort to do so, the Democrats are never going to convince Republicans to operate within that framework, so that “when they go low we go high” shit just doesn’t reach anyone serious. It’s lofty rhetoric, sure, but lofty rhetoric doesn’t give us Roe back and it doesn’t protect Obergfell, Griswold and/or Lawrence.

22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

We have several anti-democratic institutions, intentionally, that are not functioning as intended in the Senate, the electoral college, and the Court.  I'm pretty much untroubled by attempting to make the Court more "democratic."

At this point, I’m not. The whole notion of “lifetime appointment,” coupled with this Court’s absolute lack of moral integrity, is just an invitation to the most sociopathic judges imaginable to aspire to serve on it. That no longer seems to me a viable option. A Samuel Alito and a Clarence Thomas can never be seen as people whom anyone should aspire to emulate. 

22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I have been a lawyer for 30 years.  I alternate between cynicism toward the Court and believing, until recently, that the justices were ultimately largely independent of partisan politics (meaning, yes they are conservative and liberal, and yes, often their decisions will reflect that, but not grossly partisan, implementing agendas of their appointing party).

Well if the second alternative is no longer viable and you’re now only cynical towards it in its current guise, why would you still be troubled by the prospect of making it more democratic? 

Edited June 25, 2022 by hpslugga