1 in 3 say they might consider abolishing/limiting US Supreme Court

[BUtterfield 8 41,816]

 

[Economy 52,837]

And replace it with?

 

 

[Dojo 19,823]

2 minutes ago, Economy said:

And replace it with?

 

 

influencers

[PunkTheFunk 125,703]

2 minutes ago, Economy said:

And replace it with?

 

 

[Pennywise 36,080]

1 hour ago, Economy said:

And replace it with?

 

 

with the head judge being the miss fracking herself 

[Nemo 4,410]

There's no need for that, but we can certainly expand it and appoint enough new justices to rebalance it.

[PoshLife 17,019]

41 minutes ago, Pennywise said:

with the head judge being the miss fracking herself 

"In the abortion rights case, your legal arguments failed to deliver. I'm sorry my dear but you're up for dismissal."

[Luc 4,776]

2 hours ago, Economy said:

And replace it with?

 

 

A bicameral system (i.e. senate and house) can often function pretty well without a supreme court. If the constitution were renewed, it would be worth keeping a supreme court with apolitical appointees however. It's very strange for a democratic society to accept that the most important ethical matters (guns, gay rights, abortion) are decided by a semi-democratic institution with an unclear mandate and life-long appointment.

[gabeoz 7,915]

10 minutes ago, Luc said:

It's very strange for a democratic society to accept that the most important ethical matters (guns, gay rights, abortion) are decided by a semi-democratic institution with an unclear mandate and life-long appointment.

The lifelong appointments are so unnecessary. So many problems could be solved by giving court justices term limits. Renewing the constitution would unfortunately be impossible. The chances of passing an amendment today would be virtually none  the country’s entire political system is designed around making everything difficult.

[Fresco 1,688]

A supreme court is necessary as the final appeal of cases. Judges have not been as politicized in the past. Blame McConnell and Trump for making the courts a political football, imo. Perhaps there should be term limits. Also, there needs to be a requirement to fill a vacancy within 60 days. McConnell and his whole policy of not allowing some nominees to get a hearing or a vote is absurd. He was not doing his duty as defined in  the constitution and should have been sued. 

[NCgaga 4,345]

3 minutes ago, Fresco said:

A supreme court is necessary as the final appeal of cases. Judges have not been as politicized in the past. Blame McConnell and Trump for making the courts a political football, imo. Perhaps there should be term limits. Also, there needs to be a requirement to fill a vacancy within 60 days. McConnell and his whole policy of not allowing some nominees to get a hearing or a vote is absurd. He was not doing his duty as defined in  the constitution and should have been sued. 

This 100%

[Chromatican 4,046]

Breyer needs to retire soon. There’s no way we can afford losing another seat to the conservatives if Biden loses in 2024. 

[Nemo 4,410]

On 10/5/2021 at 7:26 PM, Nemo said:

There's no need for that, but we can certainly expand it and appoint enough new justices to rebalance it.

BTW, this is one of the few changes we could make to the court that wouldn't require a constitutional amendment, just a simple act of Congress.