643
Justice Elena Kagan accuses Supreme Court’s conservative majority of undermining democracy (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 1 day ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The liberal justice took aim at various recent rulings, including one that paved the way for rampant partisan gerrymandering of legislative districts.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan sharply criticized the Supreme Court’s conservative majority Tuesday, saying it undermined democracy in a series of rulings, including several that have prompted a new wave of legislative map-drawing that has increasingly eliminated competitive districts.

Kagan, who has dissented in those cases, also took aim at the majority for striking down campaign finance restrictions and, as she put it, the “evisceration” of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act that was enacted to protect minority voters.

“Part of the reason why the court got it wrong was a kind of lack of the appropriate concern or understanding of the consequences of their decisions,” she said in remarks at Catholic University’s law school in Washington, D.C.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 26 points 16 hours ago* (2 children)

"Conservative judges" and "liberal judges" should not exist. Judges shouldn't be aligned with any political party, they should be legal professionals.
Separation of Powers is a great ideal but, unfortunately, the US got it positively wrong letting the president appoint judges. A bit too late to change now, though. (Tangentially, the US actually has very good separation between the executive and legislative branches, which nevertheless isn't useful when they're both controlled by the same personality cult.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 12 hours ago (1 child)

    The US's separation between legislative and executive branches just means that they can each point the finger at the other when things go badly. I'm glad my country doesn't use that kind of system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 10 hours ago

    The other weakness of the US presidential system is that when the executive and legislature are diametrically opposed (the system wasn't envisioned with parties in mind), they both still have to be able to get stuff done, so the power of the executive is expanded way beyond what's acceptable in e.g. the Westminster (parliamentary) system, and the legislature, which is technically the supreme branch (representing the will of the people directly) has to take drastic measures to overturn executive decisions.

    In the Westminster system, the executive necessarily maintains the confidence of the parliament, so it can always get stuff passed through parliament while the opposition in parliament also acts as a formal mechanism to critique it. If party discipline is enforced, though, the parliament can't actually do all that much to control the executive and ends up acting as a rubber stamp (with the opposition possibly loud but impotent).

    It also really depends on the local culture: if "backbench" (to use the UK terminology) government MPs aren't afraid to stand up for their values, criticize their party in government and shoot down various laws, parliament really does act independently. On the other hand, if MPs are loyal to their party above all else, there are effectively only two branches of government: the legislature-executive and the judiciary, which necessitates either a powerful (activist) judiciary or a very limiting constitution to maintain balance.

    What system does your country use?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent