The Politicization of American Courts

Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Apr 6, 2017.

  1. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    For years now, Republicans, with the rise of right wing misinformation, have become increasingly partisan and have taken extraordinary measures to control both legislatures and the courts. Today, Senate Republicans will change the rules of the senate to prohibit filibusters of the US Supreme Court nominations. That's a line that until now hasn't been crossed.

    Some Republicans like McCain have spoken out against it, but have done nothing to prevent it. It's a sad day for the nation. So what happens next?

    Future nominees could become quite radical. There is no longer a need for moderation in Supreme Court justices. This is not a good thing for the long term fate of the nation. If we are going to have a grossly politicized court, and we are, why should they be appointed for life terms? I think we need to rethink the US Supreme Court.

    When Democrats take back the presidency and the Senate, and they will, they should increase the number of Supreme Court justices from 9 to 21 and fill the new positions with young democrats. If Republicans want to play that game and stack the courts, Democrats should play too and return the favor.

    The question is, how far will this go? How large will the court become with each party trying to stuff the court? I think it safe to say, Americans will quickly loose whatever faith they once had in the American judicial system, and rightly so. What Republicans did today will further erode the American state. Thank you Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al.

    I think it's time Supreme Court justices be elected by popular vote to 10 year terms.

    If Gorsuch had any moral fiber he would withdraw his nomination. But he doesn't, and he hasn't.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/opinion/how-to-end-the-politicization-of-the-courts.html?_r=0

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...eam-of-a-unifying-court-has-dissolved/379220/
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2017
    cluelusshusbund likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I'm not sure that's possible without an unlikely supermajority.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Making the supreme court yet another elective office will do nothing to de-politicize jurisprudence.
    Rather the reverse, i should think : more political campaigns, policy platforms, fund-raising, backers, patrons and potential for corruption. In fact, no judges or prosecutors should be elected, for the same reason. You should no more choose judges according to their popularity or the effectiveness of their advertising than you should choose the heads of hospital departments or university chairs by those methods. Presiding over the law should be a matter of competence and integrity - not political maneuvering . That whole branch of government should be independent of party politics.
    Political appointment is not very much better - except in that judges are expected to outlive the administration to which they owe their position: their bias is supposed to be counterbalanced by appointees from other administrations, and presumably the party loyalties should even out over time.

    Attempts to change the structure of the supreme court are strongly resisted.... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125789097
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    There is no law mandating the number of Supreme Court justices. Who says they need a super majority? The Senate has ditched traditional restraints. How long do you think it will be before they ditch the filibuster in its entirety? I think it's just a matter of time, and it might not even be that long. The gloves are off. The Senate has become just as partisan as the House. Driven by right wing entertainers Republicans have become extreme. Democrats need to fight fire with fire.
     
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    There are occasions when reciprocation means everybody loses.

    And there are people who would exploit that by taking advantage such as to dare reciprocation; it is always societal duty to transcend such temptation. And that really is problematic, because―

    ―the temptation is strong. But it would behoove us all to look not necessarily at the politicians and advocates, but the ideas and circumstances and, ultimately, human conditions represented in any given discussion, and take note of who makes which demands, who is expected to give what, and how remaining conflicts should be resolved. One of the basic functional problems of equivocation is that Americans maintain an abstract scoreboard and scorekeeping formula that seems to omit, or at least minimize, the fact and interest of society itself. That is to say, what is the difference between a compromise 'twixt competing policies to move forward, or between progressive and deliberately regressive policies?

    The patterns will come up over and over again. Eye for an eye leaves everybody blind; who is willing to abide the wisdom, and who is willing to take while requiring others to stay their own hands?

    One of the reasons abiding the wisdom tends to suck so badly is that it only matters to those who abide the wisdom.

    But, come on. When wisdom actually prevails? Yeah, those days are definitely attending and abiding.

    Meeting them on their chosen field means surrendering at the outset.
     

Share This Page