▲ 501 ▼ Justice Alito says Congress lacks the power to impose an ethics code on the Supreme Court (apnews.com) submitted 3 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world 93 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] baldingpudenda@lemmy.world 117 points 3 years ago (4 children) Unelected, serve for life, say they are untouchable and can do as they please. How is that not a king? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 20 points 3 years ago (3 children) Any position that is for life is too long, especially an appointed one with almost zero mechanisms for removal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] outrageousmatter@lemmy.world 14 points 3 years ago* Almost, impeachment is one big one allowed. I believe only one justice was impeached but I bet the issue is, you can't get republicans to agree as then democrats can put one in. Which is a terrible injustice so they'll make sure to vote down anything to make sure the supreme court stays right winged. permalink fedilink source parent [–] xuxebiko@kbin.social 4 points 3 years ago Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. permalink fedilink source parent [–] elscallr@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago Except the one mechanism for removal. You don't need more than one. permalink fedilink source parent [–] xuxebiko@kbin.social 17 points 3 years ago (2 children) because they're not murdered by their successor? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Zron@lemmy.world 13 points 3 years ago Not murdered by their successor so far permalink fedilink source parent [–] stown@sedd.it 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) Did you ever hear the tragedy of Ruth Ginsburg the Wise? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xuxebiko@kbin.social 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) too soon Still miss her :( permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] McNasty@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 years ago I still blame her for Barrett. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nepoleon@lemmy.world 6 points 3 years ago* (4 children) Because Supreme Court cant create their own laws directly, missing legislature power, having no direct power to control national finances/budgets, a main power of a country and they dont have control of the executives including army and police. All their power depends on laws made by legislature and constitution. Thats how the three pillars of power works in all democracies. Just because your legislature or executives or even forefathers who made the constitution fucked up, doesnt mean the supreme court is an absolute monarchy. The biggest piece of shit mistake you made was having a two party system. In other countries, supreme courts arent as binary partisan. Coalitions of Partys vote way more reasonable judges to supreme courts permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] blanketswithsmallpox@kbin.social 23 points 3 years ago Considering the Supreme Court's entire schtick is the arbitrary definition of a word's meaning by the sitting justices... I'd disagree. They can literally change the definition of a law at a whim. It doesn't really matter at that point what the law even says unless it's lawyered up specifically to remove their powers. Even then, don't expect the conservative justices to go down without a fight lol. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Wrench@lemmy.world 14 points 3 years ago The problem is that they blatantly collude with the other two pillars. They can't make their own laws, but they can collude with the others to bring a case to their doorstep to make a ruling not based on precedent or good faith interpretation of the law. They effectively can create whatever laws they want, just with extra steps. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 years ago George Washington warned against bicameralism, but they ignored him. Our Supreme Court positions have always been non-partisan until recent history. permalink fedilink source parent [–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 years ago Thats how the three pillars of power works in all democracies. And the amount of people willing to dismantle this particular one means it does serve its purpose well. permalink fedilink source parent [–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 years ago The "unelected" part is on purpose, though I'd prefer sortition. The biggest group of voters may decide who controls the government, but they shouldn't decide who takes places in the supreme court. At least not in the same mechanism. Well, unless you can make it a 95% "in favor" vote, of course. Then, I guess, there'd be no hope anyway. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 20 points 3 years ago (3 children) Any position that is for life is too long, especially an appointed one with almost zero mechanisms for removal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] outrageousmatter@lemmy.world 14 points 3 years ago* Almost, impeachment is one big one allowed. I believe only one justice was impeached but I bet the issue is, you can't get republicans to agree as then democrats can put one in. Which is a terrible injustice so they'll make sure to vote down anything to make sure the supreme court stays right winged. permalink fedilink source parent [–] xuxebiko@kbin.social 4 points 3 years ago Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. permalink fedilink source parent [–] elscallr@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago Except the one mechanism for removal. You don't need more than one. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] outrageousmatter@lemmy.world 14 points 3 years ago* Almost, impeachment is one big one allowed. I believe only one justice was impeached but I bet the issue is, you can't get republicans to agree as then democrats can put one in. Which is a terrible injustice so they'll make sure to vote down anything to make sure the supreme court stays right winged. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] xuxebiko@kbin.social 4 points 3 years ago Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] elscallr@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago Except the one mechanism for removal. You don't need more than one. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] xuxebiko@kbin.social 17 points 3 years ago (2 children) because they're not murdered by their successor? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Zron@lemmy.world 13 points 3 years ago Not murdered by their successor so far permalink fedilink source parent [–] stown@sedd.it 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) Did you ever hear the tragedy of Ruth Ginsburg the Wise? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xuxebiko@kbin.social 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) too soon Still miss her :( permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] McNasty@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 years ago I still blame her for Barrett. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zron@lemmy.world 13 points 3 years ago Not murdered by their successor so far permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stown@sedd.it 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) Did you ever hear the tragedy of Ruth Ginsburg the Wise? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xuxebiko@kbin.social 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) too soon Still miss her :( permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] McNasty@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 years ago I still blame her for Barrett. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] xuxebiko@kbin.social 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) too soon Still miss her :( permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] McNasty@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 years ago I still blame her for Barrett. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] McNasty@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 years ago I still blame her for Barrett. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nepoleon@lemmy.world 6 points 3 years ago* (4 children) Because Supreme Court cant create their own laws directly, missing legislature power, having no direct power to control national finances/budgets, a main power of a country and they dont have control of the executives including army and police. All their power depends on laws made by legislature and constitution. Thats how the three pillars of power works in all democracies. Just because your legislature or executives or even forefathers who made the constitution fucked up, doesnt mean the supreme court is an absolute monarchy. The biggest piece of shit mistake you made was having a two party system. In other countries, supreme courts arent as binary partisan. Coalitions of Partys vote way more reasonable judges to supreme courts permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] blanketswithsmallpox@kbin.social 23 points 3 years ago Considering the Supreme Court's entire schtick is the arbitrary definition of a word's meaning by the sitting justices... I'd disagree. They can literally change the definition of a law at a whim. It doesn't really matter at that point what the law even says unless it's lawyered up specifically to remove their powers. Even then, don't expect the conservative justices to go down without a fight lol. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Wrench@lemmy.world 14 points 3 years ago The problem is that they blatantly collude with the other two pillars. They can't make their own laws, but they can collude with the others to bring a case to their doorstep to make a ruling not based on precedent or good faith interpretation of the law. They effectively can create whatever laws they want, just with extra steps. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 years ago George Washington warned against bicameralism, but they ignored him. Our Supreme Court positions have always been non-partisan until recent history. permalink fedilink source parent [–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 years ago Thats how the three pillars of power works in all democracies. And the amount of people willing to dismantle this particular one means it does serve its purpose well. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] blanketswithsmallpox@kbin.social 23 points 3 years ago Considering the Supreme Court's entire schtick is the arbitrary definition of a word's meaning by the sitting justices... I'd disagree. They can literally change the definition of a law at a whim. It doesn't really matter at that point what the law even says unless it's lawyered up specifically to remove their powers. Even then, don't expect the conservative justices to go down without a fight lol. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 14 points 3 years ago The problem is that they blatantly collude with the other two pillars. They can't make their own laws, but they can collude with the others to bring a case to their doorstep to make a ruling not based on precedent or good faith interpretation of the law. They effectively can create whatever laws they want, just with extra steps. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 years ago George Washington warned against bicameralism, but they ignored him. Our Supreme Court positions have always been non-partisan until recent history. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 years ago Thats how the three pillars of power works in all democracies. And the amount of people willing to dismantle this particular one means it does serve its purpose well. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 years ago The "unelected" part is on purpose, though I'd prefer sortition. The biggest group of voters may decide who controls the government, but they shouldn't decide who takes places in the supreme court. At least not in the same mechanism. Well, unless you can make it a 95% "in favor" vote, of course. Then, I guess, there'd be no hope anyway. permalink fedilink source parent