this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
786 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2987 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito no doubt intended to shock the political world when he told interviewers for the Wall Street Journal that “No provision in the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”

Many observers dismissed his comment out of hand, noting the express language in Article III, establishing the court’s jurisdiction under “such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

But Alito wasn’t bluffing. His recently issued statement, declining to recuse himself in a controversial case, was issued without a single citation or reference to the controlling federal statute. Nor did he mention or adhere to the test for recusal that other justices have acknowledged in similar circumstances. It was as though he declared himself above the law.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BB69@lemmy.world 56 points 1 year ago (6 children)

No. Judges should not be political. I don’t know the answer here, but being an elected official isn’t the right course.

[–] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, if anything their selection needs to be further removed from the political process.

[–] DharkStare@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Maybe the supreme Court should be like jury duty. Randomly select from a pool of judges from around the country to fill the position for a certain period of time.

[–] dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They'd still need to understand the laws, prior decisions and cases, and be able to make a logical argument.

[–] DharkStare@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I didn't mean select random people to be supreme Court justices. I meant select from existing judges to temporarily serve in the supreme Court.

It's the only way I can think of to remove as much politics as possible from the SC.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's always going to be political, they just pretend to be above it.

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

That is my concern. In an ideal world we would have well educated apolitical folks with decades of good faith judicial practice on the supreme Court.

We don't live in the ide world so judges are political and you are voting for them when you vote for your representatives.

Honestly if we fixed the house and Senate (add Puerto Rico and DC as states, uncapped the house) it might get better in the long term, but doesn't solve the problem.

The Constitution did not plan on the elected officials being corrupt and unwilling to do "the right things", so I think it has proven to be fundamentally broken.

I don't know how to fix it.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

Judges should not be political

Judges are already absolutely political. Judges get appointed based on whether they'll support the policy agenda of the person appointing them. Being said, I'm with you inasmuch as giving the people who made Donald Trump president the power to pick the supreme court all by themselves is a bad fucking idea.

[–] SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Judges should not be political.

Good thing they're not political now then, right?

[–] BB69@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Never said they weren’t presently.

[–] SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok, so we shouldn't elect them, because then they would become political.

Instead, they should be appointed, like now, when they are political.

Makes sense.

[–] BB69@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I never said the current system was good.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 year ago

It is political. Whether they should be or not doesn't really matter.

[–] rambaroo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Judges have always been political