A democracy shouldn’t have a single person in power who wasn’t elected.
The United States needs to discard the “republic” part of our democratic republic.
- no more electoral college
- no SCOTUS
- no appointments for positions of power
- no private political donations
And in order for these changes to happen, rich men in positions of power will need to die.
I feel like if a corrupt executive and legislative branch can get elected, having an elected judicial branch doesn’t exactly fix anything.
I kind of agree with that
Really we should have a direct democracy
Aren’t judges appointed in almost all countries outside of the US, Mexico and Switzerland.
But appointments can work if the system is respected by all. Elections just mean pure unadulterated politics.
My country (Australia) our Supreme Court is called the High Court. The national judicial body shortlists a selection of suitably qualified and respected candidates when there is a vacancy. The candidates owe no political affiliation to any party. The government selects a candidate, usually the recommended judge. There is rarely any controversy in the selection as the politicians, the judges, and the people respect the system.
Australia sometimes gets an upset challenge to a government decision, but everyone tends to blame a government for overreach rather than corruption on the part of the High Court.
This is all appointment with no elections involved. In the US you have elections for positions that we never have, and you introduce politics and dirty money where it’s not needed. If the system is fucked no amount of empty democracy is going to save it. We even have a appointed commission to draw independent electoral boundaries in this country. Gerrymandering isn’t a thing anymore, anywhere in the country. Politicians and parties get to make a submission on what the boundaries might look like, but anything dodgy gets thrown out. The people have confidence in the commission and no controversy.
too many people to vote for means no one knows anything about who they’re voting for.
I think some appointments are fine, but they should never be soley appoint able by 1 branch/person. I3, congress should be able to put forth their own cabinet options type of thing
…of natural causes so that their entrenched power can be passed on to future generations.
Way past time but ok.
The time was
yesterdaylast yearlast decadebut I guess we can do it now of everyone is up for it.
The entire friggin government needs to be replaced.
The US political system is antidemocratic (Madison) and should be replaced.
People don’t want to hear this. They want to blame the marginal voter for not supporting their compromise candidate.
Oh yeah the only way to fix the broken two party system is to vote for the great team Btm and not that terrible team Atm. Gotta make sure there is never any other options then team Atm or Btm after all.
Oh and when it all goes wrong (now) make sure to blame voters without choice and also state how nothing can be done as the usa is somehow special and what works everywhere else could never work there.
Gotta make sure there is never any other options then team Atm or Btm after all.
The best part is when you do all the work to win the seat for B and they change parties to A right after the election (Jim Justice down in WV being a great example).
There’s a bunch of speculation that Cuellar got his Appropriations seat back to keep him from flipping to R after the Trump pardon. The parties were in a bidding war for one of the most corrupt mother fuckers of the 21st century
And this is who we’re choosing between
Ah yes, the american “we” that both somehow includes everyone in the world but at the same time excludes them at the same time.
If you are not an american, can’t have an opinion on the american system (not that that stops americans from thinking they have the same ability outside of the us). Everyone is also an american to every american until proved otherwise, and most americans think the whole world works like america. The american system is broken but according to americans nothingtm can be done about it so get out and vote for the home team.
Hey maybe if americans took a page from Nepal things would be different, but those sorts of things can’t happen in america since for some unknown and indescribable reason they are special and unique.
Hey maybe if americans took a page from Nepal things would be different
A non-white country? Perish the thought.
Replaced by who? The one appointing new judges is the president. He would love to replace them all.
Difficult to argue against but impossible to actually change.
George Conway had an interesting “fix” that gets around the constitutional obstacles where older justices are relegated to something like emeritus positions and new justices are appointed to the main bench to take their place
Only six of them deserve to be replaced, but they should also spend the rest of their lives in prison.
Clean it all out and start over again.
All of them ruled against an ethics framework. All can go. The Republicans need to be in prison, the democrats need disbarred.
Did you even read the article?
No shit.
SCOTUS is flawed because it IS beholden to the other branches.
What I mean is, the President picks the nominee and Congress approves them. Every other branch is selected by the people.
It gives the other branches too much power over the judicial branch. It harms checks and balances.
It’s far worse than that. The judiciary is able to be fired by the executive branch and that simply should not be possible.
I feel the checks on the supreme court is close. I think with 18 year ish terms to replace 1 every every 2 years consistently would work
The judiciary is able to be fired by the executive branch
No it isn’t. Federal judges serve for life. They can’t be removed by the President
I think that the recent case put to them that Trump has the power to sack formally independent institutional heads may be an answer. It certainly put Federal judges on notice. Not addressed directly, but once Trump sacks a Federal judge under that rulling the legal consequences for SCOTUS may be startling. He, or the next president may dump any or all of the Supremes that they don’t like?
Caveat: not a lawyer, or even close to being one. Just a long-time interested observer.
18 is probably correct number. Its the shortest even-numbered term that doesn’t allow a normal 2-term president to replace half the court. If you want to count the extreme case of a 10-year president due to a VeeP taking over then getting elected twice, it should be 20 years with terms starting on like January 10.
Why the fuck didn’t they pack the court with 11 justices when they had the chance?
term limits is a start
We accepted that a long time ago, in the before-fore.
The US needs to resume amending the constitution. That’s been the historical recourse when the Supreme Court makes shitty decisions.
I think the absolute failure of the ERA has proven unequivocally that ratifying amendments to the Constitution are no longer possible in an age where mass media has broad and instant reach.
There will always be someone powerful who opposes any amendment to the Constitution. And they will always make themselves heard loudly around the world, thereby making a consensus completely impossible.
I think the absolute failure of the ERA has proven unequivocally that ratifying amendments to the Constitution are no longer possible in an age where mass media has broad and instant reach.
I don’t see why not. Older amendments have gone unratified before. The longest spell between ratifications so far has been 61 years, and our last ratification was on 1992, so resuming now wouldn’t break any records.
While ERA would have been a good one, we also have an older unratified amendment for regulating child labor. The only reason ERA can’t be ratified is that congress started setting ratification deadlines, but that’s never been necessary, and older proposals that don’t have them can still be ratified.
I think part of the reluctance is that people unaware that constitutional originalism is a fairly new legal theory (first proposed in the 1970s) don’t regard the constitution as a living document when it has been for most of history. They’ve come to see the US constitution as entirely up to the Supreme Court & forgotten that the ultimate control is the people & their power to amend it.
It’s not about the deadlines or the age of the amendments that have been proposed. The problem is that in our current media setup all it takes is one rich asshole who doesn’t like an amendment to literally spam the entire world with propaganda against said amendment. And because the bar for ratification is so high it ends up being impossible.
I live in illinois. We’ve got a very liberal establishment here. But when we wanted to change our constitution to allow for a progressive income tax. One billionaire funneled millions of dollars into an ad campaign to shitcan the entire idea. And it worked.
The problem is that in our current media setup all it takes is one rich asshole who doesn’t like an amendment to literally spam the entire world with propaganda against said amendment.
That isn’t new, and in the olden times, they thought their media of the time was also a threat to democracy. They had their tycoons then, too. As seen with political races like Mamdani’s, wealth doesn’t ultimately determine outcomes: the people still matter & have a mind of their own.
The people in Illinois were probably too apathetic or uninformed: laws don’t sell themselves & activists need to advocate.
It’s not a nuice we need. It’s a guillotine. We need their blood splatter to wash away the shit these people have put out.
Democratic congresspersons confirmed most of the conservative Supreme Court justices. Biden was famously instrumental in getting Clarence Thomas confirmed.
Amazing that putting pubic hair in your coworkers coffee is not a career killing move.
I guess, unlike Kavanaugh, to my knowledge Thomas has never raped anyone.
