2024 tea leaves?

You sure?

 

After refusing to schedule a hearing for Garland for almost 300 days because "the next president should choose them." https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2719115/Senate-SCOTUS-Letter.pdf

That's when the integrity of SCOTUS really started to be compromised.

 

But that is symptomatic of the underlying problem. The reason all the games are played is that the Supreme Court doesn't just adjudicate technical legal claims on appeal. No, over the last fifty or 75 years it has engaged in what some people (including me) call extensive "legislation from the bench". This pattern of conduct allows the Congress, whose job it is to legislate, to escape their collective responsibility to the nation but it also elevates a small panel of unelected jurists into a position of practically untouchable political power. This is an abuse but rather than check that abuse, Congress and the President fight over who those unaccountable legislators will be based upon how we anticipate they will legislate.

Well, I suppose it's easier than taking actual responsibility. You can always blame the Court.

 

Say, Johann, in another thread I was accused of going to law school back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth. You were there when I arrived; weren't there some primitive mammals by that time? Nickelback fans, maybe?

 

Yes, but will there be anyone left to turn the page?

 

Maybe one of the key answers are in the hands of Putin.

 

And what is this all abut?
There are still 2020 recounts taking place?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/im-frankly-amazed-another-judge-164718194.html

 

I guess it matters what you think their role is and what the Constitution is. I feel the Constitution is a document to be interpreted as it applies to modern times. That means the SCOTUS is ultimately responsible for those interpretations.

I think you raised the question of whether or not Congress can address this kind of issue legislatively, and are here suggesting that being preferable to the SCOTUS "legislating from the bench." Okay, that's fine. Theoretically. But Congress doesn't always do that, and the Supreme Court can protect citizens in some of those situations (or fail to do so.) by interpreting what the Constitution means. Of course, SCOTUS often gets it terribly wrong, like in Heller, Dred Scott, Citizens United, etc., precisely because it is NOT a legislative body.

But, in the case of abortion, if the SCOTUS can't uphold Roe, and Congress can't pass a law protecting a woman's choices regarding her health, where does that leave us? The states? That is going to be one holy mess. Besides, if the Constitution cannot be interpreted as protecting our personhood, then we have no rights anymore, just privileges that can be taken away.

 

Problem is, when the Supreme Court begins "finding" stuff that really isn't there I get nervous. I have no problem with the "living constitution". I DO have a problem where the Justices seem (to me) to be just making stuff up because it furthers a rather obvious social agenda.

 

IIRC, the Supreme Court has had a GOP-appointed majority since 1972. There has been since a very interesting list of "finding stuff."

 

Actually - fans of a different small sum - $1.65. This guy, Rich Terfry. Interesting dude, for a Canadian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_65

And yes - I remember you from those days. I was moonlighting as a Torts professor at Osgoode Hall back then. https://www.osgoode.yorku.ca/ I know - you were studying law in New Mexico - but I think you were up here on a vacation lookaround.

And yes - in fact I think we still have primitive mammals up here - they're called hockey fans. Lots of them.

 

Where does curling fit in the story of evolution?

 

It was a catalyst in the increased life expectancy of older Canadians. As generation after generation passed, they were able, in increasing numbers, to grow big sweaters as protection against the vicious winters.

The sweaters eventually marked them as Elders of the Community and they were revered and respected. They began to receive offerings regularly from the Feds and were generally well looked-after. That bumped the life expectancy.

The game itself? Gives 'em something to do, I guess. It's really all about the sweaters.

 

I actually blame the founding fathers (not really, but if I'm going to assign someone blame...). They set up a really crappy system of government, because they assumed the people that would be elected to office would #1) want the best for the country, not just their 'tribe', #2) always work to compromise with opposing viewpoints, #3) be honest and not hypocritical. And they didn't come close to foreseeing the information age (or disinformation age) and the information bubbles everyone is in.

Currently, we're in a situation where Republican senators represent 41 million less people (about 12.5% of the country) than the Democrats/Independents, although they have equal numbers. I know the founding fathers set it up as a feature, but I can't help but think it's a bug. Add to that our first-past-the-post polling system, and there's no incentive for third party candidates or consensus building. It's tribalism all the way down, and I don't know how to fix it without ripping out the whole system and starting over, but that's never going to happen.

 

Well...politics really is the art of the possible. The choice was probably between what we have and nothing.

 

Do you think the US's current system works to create meaningful legislation that's supported by a majority of the population as of today, May 5th, 2022? If not, do you think it's possible for the system to be changed without a revolution?

 

Actually, I think it does for the most part. You have to sift through all the posturing and pandering but one way or another Congress keeps the government funded and leaves popular programs alone or expands them. The dysfunction we hear about is mostly the noise the media emphasizes for its readership/audience. Look for example at the funding for the Covid response under Trump and Biden. ObamaCare, which is overwhelmingly popular, is still with us as are Social Security and Medicare. No one expects these programs to fail for lack of funding let alone be repealed; the only real issue is how soon Congress will quit shouting and start doing stuff.

Governance by indirect representative democracy doesn't mean always doing whatever the polls say a majority wants. But doing unpopular things usually gets put off as long as possible which is an expensive habit. Right now, we really need a tax hike. Nothing would do more (say some economists which I am not) to tame inflation than raising taxes. We have a ballooning debt that's going to get more expensive to service in the near future. But tax hikes are really, really unpopular so Congress will continue to skate close to the edge of the fiscal cliff.

 

Also true.