• underisk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Because an unelected council of lifetime appointed politically motivated actors who can arbitrarily decide whether democratically instilled laws are valid on a case by case basis is fundamentally stupid and obviously prone to corruption.

        • underisk@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just the Supreme Court, thanks. Though I’m not super happy about those lesser courts being lifetime appointments either, so maybe they could do with some reform instead. We can always revisit those later, call it incremental improvement.

          • minorninth@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            But the Supreme Court is part of the whole system of appeals courts. They all have lifetime appointments. It makes no sense. You’d just be giving regional judges more power and the country would have even more stark divided across state lines.

            • underisk@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              So you did read the part where I said that I’m not happy about the lesser courts being lifetime appointments? Why does it matter if the Supreme Court is part of the appellate court system? There are federal courts of appeal beneath the SC so idk how you think that’d be shifting more power into regional courts. And even if it did, so what? Breaking up concentrated sources of power is good, not bad.

        • underisk@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s nothing to salvage, it should not exist. Whatever you could make of it out of reforms wouldn’t be worth the trouble. What function does it perform that is so vital it cannot be removed?

            • underisk@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The role of the judicial can be fulfilled with lesser courts without the overreach provided by the SC; they’re meant to interpret and enforce, not invalidate.

              You don’t need a lifetime appointment for a long term view of the law, it’s not as if politicians in other branches retire after their terms or don’t serve as many terms as possible. The possibility of churn is, in theory, meant to keep those branches beholden to their constituents. Even that’s often insufficient to prevent corruption, but at least it’s something.

    • RunningInRVA@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ll get downvoted for supporting your question in seek of an answer. Why dissolve the Supreme Court? Can reform not work? If you dissolve the Supreme Court then what is the proposed alternative?