I still think the court needs expanded to a minimum of 13 seats, and question why it shouldn’t be 26, for random seatings even. 18 year terms with appointments every two years is a very reasonable thing to do, and gets rid of the permanent seatings, I can agree that is a very needed reform.
Also, the 60 votes filibuster rule in the Senate doesn’t need to be heeded to. A simple majority is enough, and with Manchin and Sinema out, it is entirely possible.
I agree that change in SCOTUS is the only way that the American Democracy survives. It is already a non democratic body as it is currently behaving, as well as being a body that is violating the constitution. I consider that treasonous and those who are doing it should be held to account.
Linda Weide makes a stunning revelation in saying that the Supreme Court is "a body that is violating the constitution." It not only is violating it, it is violating it systematically and comprehensively. Consider that its officials, like all justice officials are required to uphold the professional rules of conduct emanating from the state bar associations that licensed these judges in the first place to be lawyers. When wholescale corruption occurs the highest judges have the highest duty to police the legal profession to ensure that it is stopped. Instead, they have allowed it. The newest letter entitled "The Grand Deception" lays this out. Here is the link
American democracy can not continue to be the greatest democracy if we fail to modernize our institutions. Court reform is a way of securing democracy and amplifying the diversity within our nation.
This is the most important point:
"Republicans have won the popular vote only once since 1988, but George W. Bush and Trump got to name five justices to the Court nonetheless. Put another way, since Richard Nixon was first elected in 1968, 20 people have been appointed to the court, and Republican presidents named 15 of them. Term limits also ensure the Court would have a diversity of age, experience, and political views rather than its current status as an Ivy League Federalist Society outpost."
Steward Beckham's concern about American institutions is a refreshing position. In that regard, a glaring hole in the efficiency of the judiciary lies in its appalling disregard for the rules of professional conduct that oversee all justice officials. Historically, instead of policing wrongful conduct of prosecutors they look the other way. What the public doesn't know is that when they do not refer the wrongful conduct to the state bar association they are just as guilty as the prosecutors of professional misconduct. The entire judiciary, from top to bottom, is infected with this. Here is one newsletter that points this out, entitled "The Fourth of July and the Call to
Most ethics codes adopted by professionals refer not only to unethical behavior, but also to the appearance of unethical behavior. People may not agree as to whether Alito and Thomas' acceptance of travel, lodging and other "gifts" is unethical behavior (I believe it's all be horribly unethical), but everyone should agree that this has the appearance of unethical behavior.
Remember: the Filibuster/60-vote rule IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. It is merely adopted by the Senate itself, and *could* be removed at the start of EVERY congress. It isn't, because politicians hide behind it, but it is FAR from set in stone.
Excellent Lisa! I have a one liner at the moment: The TrumpMAGAGOP is all about grabbing and holding power, the power of the minority over the majority.
This is so shortsighted, since we are not going to succumb to this... not as we go in 250 years since independence.
PS notice that Biden and the Democrats in general, do not talk about grabbing or usurping power even for the majority. The proposals are about fairness and democracy for all.
I agree with all of the proposed changes but the Republicans have put a lot of time and effort into successfully rigging the Supreme Court and there's a snowball's chance in hell of them letting their success be taken away from them. In view of this I wonder if this article even needed to be written except to remind us (and we didn't need reminding) of the sorry state the nation's highest court has descended to.
And that's exactly why it needed to be written -- and "we" do need reminding. Strange as it may seem to all of us political junkies, most USians -- even the ones who vote semi-regularly -- don't pay much attention to the workings of the Court, or even to its major decisions. (The gun lobby is cool with _Bruen_ but if polls are close to accurate "we the people" have problems with it.) Those of us who understand what the Court is up to have to be much better at communicating what this means to those who don't.
From the article: "This would undo the shocking blanket immunity that the US Supreme Court gave Donald Trump earlier this year."
We don't really have to worry about that, I think. Once Harris is elected President, the Court will shout "Oh my, we didn't mean SHE is immune!" and change everything back.
Can someone tell me which state doesn’t restrict years of service for its supreme court? “Very few other democracies have lifetime appointments, and 49 of 50 states limit years of service on the state supreme courts in some fashion.”
The linked article does not identify it, and Google is not useful in this instance.
I still think the court needs expanded to a minimum of 13 seats, and question why it shouldn’t be 26, for random seatings even. 18 year terms with appointments every two years is a very reasonable thing to do, and gets rid of the permanent seatings, I can agree that is a very needed reform.
Also, the 60 votes filibuster rule in the Senate doesn’t need to be heeded to. A simple majority is enough, and with Manchin and Sinema out, it is entirely possible.
I agree that change in SCOTUS is the only way that the American Democracy survives. It is already a non democratic body as it is currently behaving, as well as being a body that is violating the constitution. I consider that treasonous and those who are doing it should be held to account.
Linda Weide makes a stunning revelation in saying that the Supreme Court is "a body that is violating the constitution." It not only is violating it, it is violating it systematically and comprehensively. Consider that its officials, like all justice officials are required to uphold the professional rules of conduct emanating from the state bar associations that licensed these judges in the first place to be lawyers. When wholescale corruption occurs the highest judges have the highest duty to police the legal profession to ensure that it is stopped. Instead, they have allowed it. The newest letter entitled "The Grand Deception" lays this out. Here is the link
https://therunnymedereport.substack.com/p/the-grand-deception?r=3tdx2w
American democracy can not continue to be the greatest democracy if we fail to modernize our institutions. Court reform is a way of securing democracy and amplifying the diversity within our nation.
This is the most important point:
"Republicans have won the popular vote only once since 1988, but George W. Bush and Trump got to name five justices to the Court nonetheless. Put another way, since Richard Nixon was first elected in 1968, 20 people have been appointed to the court, and Republican presidents named 15 of them. Term limits also ensure the Court would have a diversity of age, experience, and political views rather than its current status as an Ivy League Federalist Society outpost."
Steward Beckham's concern about American institutions is a refreshing position. In that regard, a glaring hole in the efficiency of the judiciary lies in its appalling disregard for the rules of professional conduct that oversee all justice officials. Historically, instead of policing wrongful conduct of prosecutors they look the other way. What the public doesn't know is that when they do not refer the wrongful conduct to the state bar association they are just as guilty as the prosecutors of professional misconduct. The entire judiciary, from top to bottom, is infected with this. Here is one newsletter that points this out, entitled "The Fourth of July and the Call to
True Independence: https://therunnymedereport.substack.com/p/the-fourth-of-july-and-the-call-to?r=3tdx2w
Most ethics codes adopted by professionals refer not only to unethical behavior, but also to the appearance of unethical behavior. People may not agree as to whether Alito and Thomas' acceptance of travel, lodging and other "gifts" is unethical behavior (I believe it's all be horribly unethical), but everyone should agree that this has the appearance of unethical behavior.
Remember: the Filibuster/60-vote rule IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. It is merely adopted by the Senate itself, and *could* be removed at the start of EVERY congress. It isn't, because politicians hide behind it, but it is FAR from set in stone.
This leaves me wondering about the mechanism and procedures and possibility of sequential impeachment, one by one.
Thanks for explaining the rest of it.
Excellent Lisa! I have a one liner at the moment: The TrumpMAGAGOP is all about grabbing and holding power, the power of the minority over the majority.
This is so shortsighted, since we are not going to succumb to this... not as we go in 250 years since independence.
PS notice that Biden and the Democrats in general, do not talk about grabbing or usurping power even for the majority. The proposals are about fairness and democracy for all.
I agree with all of the proposed changes but the Republicans have put a lot of time and effort into successfully rigging the Supreme Court and there's a snowball's chance in hell of them letting their success be taken away from them. In view of this I wonder if this article even needed to be written except to remind us (and we didn't need reminding) of the sorry state the nation's highest court has descended to.
And that's exactly why it needed to be written -- and "we" do need reminding. Strange as it may seem to all of us political junkies, most USians -- even the ones who vote semi-regularly -- don't pay much attention to the workings of the Court, or even to its major decisions. (The gun lobby is cool with _Bruen_ but if polls are close to accurate "we the people" have problems with it.) Those of us who understand what the Court is up to have to be much better at communicating what this means to those who don't.
From the article: "This would undo the shocking blanket immunity that the US Supreme Court gave Donald Trump earlier this year."
We don't really have to worry about that, I think. Once Harris is elected President, the Court will shout "Oh my, we didn't mean SHE is immune!" and change everything back.
Time to vote the bums out! Anybody to the Right of Bernie Sanders shouldn't be in office any more....
Can someone tell me which state doesn’t restrict years of service for its supreme court? “Very few other democracies have lifetime appointments, and 49 of 50 states limit years of service on the state supreme courts in some fashion.”
The linked article does not identify it, and Google is not useful in this instance.