Way past time but ok.
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2025
618 points (97.8% liked)
politics
26844 readers
1949 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The time was ~~yesterday~~ ~~last year~~ ~~last decade~~ but I guess we can do it now of everyone is up for it.
Replaced by who? The one appointing new judges is the president. He would love to replace them all.
No shit.
Why the fuck didn’t they pack the court with 11 justices when they had the chance?
Since FDR stacked it to push through the New Deal, if not earlier.
Your friendly reminder that the Democrats helped to set up the levers of power that Trump and his fascist ilk are now cheerfully pulling.
FDR didn't stack the supreme court. He threatened to do it, but ultimately didn't follow through. We've been at 9 supreme court justices since 1869.
This is a lie. FDR tried to pack the court and Congress didn't go with it.
No? FDR famously stacked the court, but he was only able to do that because the Constitution does not specify the number of justices on the court.
Something that the Bidden admin could have done (and I think even campaigned on doing) to override the court's conservative bent, but didn't.
Further, power of Judicial Review, where the court can rule laws as being Constitutional or not, and thus for justices to legislate from the bench, was not outlined in the Constitution either. That was a power that the court effectively granted to itself in Marbury v. Madison, in 1803.
The problems here are far more systemic.
So many commenters have short as fuck memories.
Biden administration never could have done it because it requires Congress to accept nominations and confirm them - the process is not controlled by the president, only initiated.
The senate was 48-50 split between Dems and Reps but with two independents generally caucusing/voting with Dems (Bernie and King) taking it to 50-50. However, two of those Democrats were Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin - who both commonly voted against the Democrats legislation and acted as key swing votes for their own benefit.
There is absolutely no way Biden could have convinced them to expand the court, Joe Manchin voted to confirm Brett Kavanagh for fucks sake - voting against his own party to side with the Republicans and allow a serial rapist into the supreme court.
That was a power that the court effectively granted to itself in Marbury v. Madison, in 1803.
Jesus that does go back a while.
... reads ...
Huh. I always sort of assumed, as a non-American, that that was the one of the main purposes of the Supreme Court.
It does seem like a good idea, though, to have some court responsible for deciding the Constitutionality of laws.
The real problem is the lifetime tenure of the justices. The Founders did that for good reason, to insulate the Court from the immediate politics of the time. But people are simply living longer now, and Republicans figured out how to ratfuck the Court to stack it in their favor. (Helped in no small part by RBG, who could not be convinced to retire at the right time). Openings on the Court are so rare that it is worth expending significant political effort to get them to go your way.
If Democrats ever get control of the Presidency and Congress again, they should immediately move to blow up the Court to 13 members. They can do it by immediately turning it up to 11, and then making it 13 two years later, in order to stagger the changes. But this is important enough that they should blow up the filibuster to do it.
(13 is a magic number because it matches the number of Federal district courts.)
And then, after the bill is passed, they should work with Republicans on a framework to add term limits to the Constitution. Each of the 13 justices gets a 13 year term, each justice could serve up to two terms, consecutive or not, and would have to be re-appointed and re-confirmed for their second term. They can even tie the number of justices directly to the number of Federal circuits, so that it is harder to ratfuck on the future. 26 years is long enough to insulate a justice from politics. And out of our 116 justices to date, only 28 have served more than 26 years.
But by giving every President the right to nominate one justice per year, it makes the process more regular, and the political payoff for engineering a single appointment becomes less attractive. Supreme Court turnover becomes a predictable thing.
At this point, Republicans may be willing to support that amendment, because the alternative would be for President Newsom to appoint 4 Liberals to the court for Life in quick succession, and wait for their own full control to ratfuck it again. That might take a while.
It’s so adorable that you think Democrats might ever actually do anything if they got power. Enjoy your cookie.
A boy can dream, can't he?
We have two pro capitalist parties in the US.
What's interesting is that during the great depression they knew that economic collapse would lead to a socialist revolution, and so put in the work to "inoculate" the US against it. They would give us a little socialism, so that we wouldn't go all in. Medicare, social security, minimum wage, all these things came out of that philosophy. And it fucking worked. The US had the single most robust economy in human history from the 40s all the way through to the 1970s. When, in response to the civil rights movement, white southerners actively voted against their own self interest KNOWINGLY, so that black people wouldn't get a fair share of the pie. Nixon began the week to work to dismantle the New Deal, and we're basically living with the shattered broken corpse of the best social program we were ever going to get with votes.
The US had the single most robust economy in human history from the 40s all the way through to the 1970s.
This was mostly due to being basically the only industrial economy to not be bombed to bits during WW2. We had the entire world reliant on US manufacturing
load more comments
(3 replies)
they should work with Republicans
Have....have you not been paying attention?
Republicans want power. They don't care how they get it. They will negotiate in bad faith to get it.
That's why you need to add 4 young, Liberal justices in thir 40s (who would serve for 40+ years with a lifetime appointment) before starting to work with Republicans. Make it so that the alternative to not working together is much worse for them.
load more comments
(1 replies)
You do not need a constitutional amendment. Until 1911; part of a Supreme Court Justice's job was "riding circuit", to serve on more local circuit courts. This practice was established and abolished by Congress. Congress has the existing constitutional authority to assign Justices to circuit courts.
There is also a recently proposed TERM act, which would promote Justices to senior Justices after 18 years. A senior Justice is still a Justice, but would not actively decide cases unless there was a shortage of active Justices.
Congress could also impeach some of the current Justices. Either for partisan political reasons; perjury at their confirmation; or blatant corruption.
load more comments
(8 replies)
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
One author is in the federalist society (the reason SC is corrupt)...
And the other seems to believe international laws shouldn't exist and Israel is totally cool...
They want us to "accept" it's corrupt and somehow do away with the entire notion of a SC and replace it with some "populist rule".
Similarly, progressives are increasingly converging on the idea of both expanding and “disempowering” federal courts. Attentive to the reality that the supreme court especially is not and rarely has been their friend, left-leaning advocates are finding ways to empower ordinary people, trading the hollow hope of judicial power for the promise of popular rule.
To label as “nihilists” those sketching an alternate, more democratic future is, in other words, not only mistaken but outright bizarre. Rather than adhere to the same institutionalist strategies that helped our current crisis, reformers must insist on remaking institutions like the US supreme court so that Americans don’t have to suffer future decades of oligarchy-facilitating rule that makes a parody of the democracy they were promised.
In Trump’s second term, the Republican-appointed majority on the supreme court has brought their institution to the brink of illegitimacy. Far from pulling it back from the edge, our goal has to be to push it off.
They're right wingers trying to hijack progressivism to destroy the SC after it changes all the laws to how they want, and before the left can use it as a weapon to change the laws back.
I'd love to say people won't be naive enough to fall for this, but I don't want to lie
I think this is a misread of the article. They don't seem to be suggesting any actual solution, and only mention "populist rule" in passing with no specifics.
But they do seem to be blaming the left for not doing anything about the problem. And I thought it was funny how at the top they were like "even liberals like Roberts"
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The time was a decade ago.
The United States needs a completely new constitutional process, to stop idolizing as political gurus people who lived 300 years ago and did a great job for their time, but that's over. In Europe, some countries, during that same period, had dozens of constitutions and nothing bad happened about it.
load more comments
(4 replies)
term limits is a start
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
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 B^tm^ and not that terrible team A^tm^. Gotta make sure there is never any other options then team A^tm^ or B^tm^ 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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
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
load more comments
(3 replies)
The entire friggin government needs to be replaced.
Unfortunately, there's no process for that. Single judges can be removed via impeachment, but being a partisan hack is not a high crime.
Similarly, nothing can happen with Conservatives controlling the House and Senate.
Oh, they know...
https://fedsoc.org/bio/ryan-doerfler
They want to trick people into dissolving the SC before the left gains control and can replace the problematic ones while taking steps to prevent this from happening again.
It's like a kid that walks up and slaps a peer, then immediately says "no tag backs" and says the game is over..
The federalist society got what it wants out of the SC, and now they want people to stop abusing it before we can undo what they just did.
I don't know why googling authors isn't the norm when billionaires own all the media companies. If you don't you'll never notice clear hypocrites like Ryan Doerfler.
Alas, the Constitution does little to protect against incompetent voters who refuse to act to protect their democracy.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
We accepted that a long time ago, in the before-fore.
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.
It’s time to accept that the US ~~supreme court~~ is illegitimate and must be replaced | Ryan Doerfler and Samuel Moyn
Fixed the title for you.
view more: next ›