• underisk@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

      • underisk@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • minorninth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • underisk@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

      • underisk@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

        • Gargantu8@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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

          • underisk@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.