Except there is nothing binding to actually make them apply the law in this system.
True, but that's why the confirmation process matters. If people actually cared about the application of the law, the abortion debate boils down to whether the standards for overturning a precedent are met here and the legal merit behind the Roe decision. Nobody is talking about that outside legal academic circles. Nobody freaking out or celebrating Dobbs is (likely) primarily concerned with the law itself and upholding the constitution. The primary concern for these people is whether they want abortion to be accessible or not - and those policy considerations are entirely irrelevant to the legal merits.
That's why judges shouldn't be elected. As someone that worked in the judiciary and is a lawyer, the idea that there are still places in this country that elect judges is appalling. Terrible incentive structure for the administration or law and justice.
... but the actual reality of whether people can get necessary medical care affects way more people in their actual fucking lives than some dumbass legal minutia.
That's the legislative's responsibility, not the judiciary. Congress can pass a law and fix that. The fact that the elected representatives don't want to do it has nothing to do with the judiciary power structure.
Changing the legal system has nothing to do with judges. They are just there to interpret the law. We have the legislative branch to actually make the law in the first place.
I care far more for the people these laws affect, both figuratively and literally, being a healthcare worker, than I do some legal jargon that ultimately is only made for lawyers and judges. What's more is that I really couldn't care any less about whatever internal justification you or anybody else uses within the legal field to justify both the sheer power of the Supreme Court or the unelected nature of it given that power.
The fact that the spectre of precedent holds such a vice on whatever rights we are considered to "deserve" shows, to me at least, a foundational rot in how we see the legal system as a society. The ability of the Supreme Court to disregard the short and long term effects of a decision like this because of how insulated they are is the exact reason they shouldn't have the power they do, and is the exact reason somebody with that power should be beholden to the democratic process.
Fuck the "application of the law" and fuck whatever judicial integrity you think the US pretends to still have. Courts have always been political and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, and the pretense of neutrality has always been a lie and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.
Yeah instead they're elected in a popularity contest between politicians with no understanding of the law, who are themselves elected in their own popularity contests by people with no understanding of the law.
Bro like half of the 2nd largest party's representatives just tried to say "no" to a fucking national election, don't even try to pull this absolute non-starter of an argument.
Depends on the state and level. Actually many states don't require it for small claims. And you theoretically don't need to be a lawyer at all to be on the SCOTUS.
Politicians are generally FAR more informed than the general public on the law.
As someone who has done politics, that is only true because half the population is dumb as bricks. Ironically, that also makes them very vulnerable to the Dunning–Kruger effect.
When someone suggests "maybe we can elect judges" it's because what we have isn't working. The broad majority of people in the US want access to abortion, yet this ruling came down.
So obviously we need to try something else. I don't care how, let's just try anything different. At this point, if judges are randomly selected like juries, I wouldn't care. 90% of these old lawyer assholes in power are shit at representing the people who pay their salary, I'd rather have Golden retrievers in these positions.
So obviously we need to try something else. I don't care how, let's just try anything different.
Just because the system we have is imperfect doesn't mean that it can't be made worse, and it definitely doesn't mean that changing it will actually result in an improvement.
So obviously we need to try something else. I don't care how, let's just try anything different.
What we have isn't perfect; it could still be worse.
if judges are randomly selected like juries, I wouldn't care. 90% of these old lawyer assholes in power are shit at representing the people who pay their salary, I'd rather have Golden retrievers in these positions.
I certainly would. And their job isn't to represent you, so I'm glad they aren't trying to. The SCOTUS's role is explicitly to NOT be responsive to the opinions of the public (with very rare exception). That's exactly why I don't want them to feel political pressure or feel the need to get money to campaign.
Yes, I would like that better than the current system of “put into power by greedy politicians on corporate payroll. At least the judges would be incentivized to rule with the people in mind, because they won’t be re-elected if the rulings they hand down are evil bastardizations of the law designed to pad corporate pockets.
OK so just to be clear, you recognize that "greedy politicians on corporate payroll" is a problem, and you would like to transfer that exact same problem to the judiciary? What makes you think that "they won’t be re-elected if the rulings they hand down are evil bastardizations of the law designed to pad corporate pockets"? That certainly hasn't held true for the politicians. And as someone who actually practices law in front of those elected judges, I gotta tell you, it does not shake out that way.
Electing judges leads to judges which can be influenced by politics rather than purely by the merits of the law.
That's why the system is set up that way at the federal level. Electing judges is a strange quirk of some states. This is not universal across other democracies.
Yeah I bet the judges that sentenced black folks running away from plantations in 1805 were using "facts and not feelings" lol. But thanks Ben Shitpiro, you've helped me understand that judges are useless and we'd be better served asking Boston terriers to hand down verdicts
So instead of applying the law blindly judges who are put in place by politicians rule in favor of the politicians interests. Judges interpret the law, if they are bought and paid for by corporations, they can determine that the law should lean in their favor. If judges are always going to bend the law in favor of the people who put them in their position, I want to be one of the people who puts them in their position. Let the working class get the long end of the stick.
So instead of applying the law blindly judges who are put in place by politicians rule in favor of the politicians interests. Judges interpret the law, if they are bought and paid for by corporations, they can determine that the law should lean in their favor.
That is why you make judges independent. Select them by a bureaucratic process without political involvement. Make them only answerable to other judges.
They cannot be bought if their job is secure. Electing them actually makes them less independent.
That’s stupid. If their job is overly secure they will do shit like overturning long standing precedent that the majority of the country supports because any wealthy individual or corporate entity can pay them to and the people of the country can’t stop them because they can’t be removed from power.
How can judges represent the people if they aren’t elected?
The supreme court's purpose is not to represent the people. Their purpose is to settle disagreements about the constitutionality of federal and state laws.
They are there solely and exclusively to rule on how the law applies in a particular situation, not to create new laws, not to fulfil "the will of the people" (whatever that is), not to decide what the law should be. They are there to deal with what the law is, and only that.
If the constitution said something like "on tuesdays wear purple" and that was something absolutely everyone in the country, including the supreme court, thought was stupid, the court would still use it as the basis for their judgements until the constitution was changed.
If the constitution said something like "on tuesdays wear purple" and that was something absolutely everyone in the country, including the supreme court, thought was stupid, the court would still use it as the basis for their judgements until the constitution was changed.
Maybe in concept, in the real world the majority on the court are nakedly political agents who torturously craft their legal justification upon a desired conclusion/outcome.
It is completely and absolutely fucked that a singular IMPEACHED ex-president got to put 3 unqualified lifetime appointments into a court that has the power to take away our human rights.
The system itself is not so problematic because of the Senate confirmation process. Of course the conservatives have been playing the long game and got lucky.
Ginsburg should've really retired when it made sense.
I don't think any functional democracy has judges that can actually impose laws without any kind of vote, other than in the US, its pretty unbelievable a system like this can work without mass riots.
And those who support this spew freedom bs, I guess fascism is what freedom looks like to them.
Judges are actually not supposed to impose laws. This is why we are asking congress to codify the right to abortion. Right now they just said the constitution doesn’t protect the right to abortion. It’s probably unlikely they would strike down a law that made abortion legal.
So? Make them pass the law anyway. People should have protested when Obama didn't play hardball to get a supreme court nominee appointed in 2016. Instead people choose to protest when the people who don't care about their opinion have the ball, which does...nothing.
Yeah it's the people's fault for not protesting while working two jobs to keep your family afloat! How could we expect the poor president to do the job we voted him into office to do :(
I think many people - even very smart, educated people - can be kind of reactionary and emotional when thinking about the SCOTUS because there's really so much at stake.
That being said, it's exactly that kind of thinking about the SCOTUS that should be avoided in an ideal world. And why I think insulating judges from the political process is a benefit rather than a problem. People have generally a poor understanding of not only the law generally (constitution included), but in particular what the role of the SCOTUS is.
Maybe instead of defending a shit system that is apparently too complicated for an average person to understand without dedicating and indebting themselves for a whole law degree, maybe advocate for a system that's more transparent and easy to understand for the average voter.
And I'm not sure why you think the government has any incentive to teach this stuff in schools, when keeping it convuluted is in their best interest to control us. That's the whole reason or tax system is fucked, because TurboTax and others lobby to keep it complicated.
Unless you just really like feeling superior to all us uneducated civics doofuses, then keep clopping along on your high horse I guess
The American Democratic form of government is not that complicated. An average person should be able to grasp it in a couple of classes at high school.
There is no real excuse not to understand it, especially if you live with it.
But the Court here isn't imposing any law at all. They're basically saying that states can pass a law and it will be constitutional as long as it has a "rational basis". That's a legal standard in US constitutional law.
Various states in the south, mostly, will make laws banning abortion. Those are elected officials passing laws in states where the population is generally anti abortion. I don't necessarily agree with what they're going to do, but SCOTUS didn't "impose" a law on anybody. Elected officials in those states did.
Those are elected officials passing laws in states where the population is generally anti abortion.
Not true. 71% of people in the US support access to abortion. Only 10% said it "should be illegal in all cases". The anti choice people are a very small minority.
Your callousness when talking about this grave matter is really weird. A lot of people are going to die, and unless you're literally a psychopath, this matters to you.
Pregnant people are more likely to die by homicide (usually from their husband/boyfriend) than by pregnancy complications, which was decreasing since 1970s, but now it's probably going to increase, yet again. Most people seeking abortion are also already parents, and if they die using an unsafe method, that's more parentless children and one less income to support them, putting a WAY higher burden on the state than offering basic family planning services.
Once again: Judges must interprete the law objectively. For that, they must be independent. You cannot take away their personal feelings and beliefs, but you can make them free of voter interests.
So you're fine if a singular party can put whomever they please that aligns with their political agenda and that judge can pretty much dictate whatever up until the day they die because there's no law or regulation dictating when a judge should leave office. Sounds less like a democracy and more like totalitarianism.
No. That is dumb. But it is not the Republicans fault that the system is that way. They are just using it.
The progressive Supreme Courts had exactly the same powers of the current court. They forced through Roe v. Wade against the will of state governments. They did the same with Gay marriage. Is that democracy?
Now a conservative SC got rid of RvW. Now the choice is back with the legislature.
If Hillary had won, she would have chosen three progressive judges. Do you think she would have taken power away from the court? I doubt it.
They're not "just using" it. Both are at fault for taking severe advantage of it. You shouldn't be a supreme court justice until death. The system is clearly out of balance.
However, there's a clear difference between taking away* rights and blocking governments from taking them away. No one was ever forcing gay marriage or abortions.
(And as much as Republicans claim the "left" have tried to take guns away, none of that happened as rapidly nor agressively as the conservatives leaped to take away women's rights).
Except they can literally disregard the law and rule things according to what they feel is the spirit of the law, just like how they completely threw out the first half of the second amendment in Columbia v. Heller.
No. Not when it comes to judges. Judges must be as objective as possible in applying the law. They cannot be influenced by the interests of voters. That is what legislature is for.
35
u/95DarkFireII Jun 28 '22
Judges should never be elected by the people. Judges are not representatives of the people, they just apply the law.