this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
322 points (97.4% liked)

BrainWorms

1226 readers
77 users here now

Hey, welcome to BrainWorms.

This is a place where I post interesting things that I find and cant categorize into one of the main subs I follow. Enjoy a front seat as i descend into madness

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

I feel like this purposal doesn't tackle the subject appropriately.

Historically there's been streaks of one party winning elections (like 1869-1885) this kind of change might end up ensuring the SCOTUS is even more polarized.

I think an approach more focused on auditing justices to ensure they don't fall to impropriety would make more sense.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

First of all having the supreme court be political at all is bizarre. They should be some of the best judges in a country that enforce the law in the most fair way possible and they shouldn't be elected, they should be hired.

But if you are gonna do that, the judges that are elected should reflect the current political views of the majority and not what people thought years ago.

If the people decide that one party is better for many years, the judges should be of that party. Basically if the people are "polarized" the supreme court should be "polarized" as well.

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

To be fair for the most part Scotus judges aren't really 'republican' or 'democrat' but are normally grouped based on how they interpret law, with completely different names like 'originalists' or 'textualists'. The idea was them being nonpolitical arbitrers of law. But of course they're still appointed by presidents who fall into a party who insert bias by selecting someone they like.