The US Supreme Court

[Lafayette]

A SERIOUS RETHINKING OF THE SUPREME COURT

trump did not pack the court. he simply nominated justices when vacancies came up and they were confirmed by the Senate. Packing the court would be passing a law to add more justice then the current 9. That is what the democrats have lately been threatening to do. understand now?

And you think, "He simply nominated justices"? And they were confirmed by a Replicant-Senate?

There are many things wrong with America's governance. And one of the most grievous is the "packing of the Supreme Court" by the Replicants.

The whole process dates from two-centuries and the Replicants can think of no other way to dominate law-making than to have a Supreme Court packed with "their people"!

Rather, the Supreme Court should be indifferent to political-belief. It must stand alone with no reverence in particular for any given political-party. It should be perfectly neutral and no PotUS should be able to nominate judges with the political-preferences of the US PotUS.

And ours in the US isn't perfectly neutral!

Here's a document that is well-worth the read. It is a report made by Kim Lane Scheppele and titled
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN GLOBAL COMPARISON

Excerpt:

In this testimony, I will first discuss the institutional ecosystem in which national “peak courts” (the highest courts in national legal systems) function to show why the U.S. Supreme Court is presently a target of so much criticism and explain how other constitutional systems have handled the problems that the U.S. Supreme Court faces. Part II will review the various ways that the key functions of peak courts are divided across different institutional homes. Part III explores methods of judicial appointment to the courts that make constitutional decisions. A conclusion follows explaining the relevance of the comparative analysis for the task before the Commission.

It's well worth the effort for anyone who thinks that two-centuries of the present Supreme Court needs some serious rethinking ... !

 

[Mycroft]

A SERIOUS RETHINKING OF THE SUPREME COURT



And you think, "He simply nominated justices"? And they were confirmed by a Replicant-Senate?

There are many things wrong with America's governance. And one of the most grievous is the "packing of the Supreme Court" by the Replicants.

The whole process dates from two-centuries and the Replicants can think of no other way to dominate law-making than to have a Supreme Court packed with "their people"!

Rather, the Supreme Court should be indifferent to political-belief. It must stand alone with no reverence in particular for any given political-party. It should be perfectly neutral and no PotUS should be able to nominate judges with the political-preferences of the US PotUS.

And ours in the US isn't perfectly neutral!

Here's a document that is well-worth the read. It is a report made by Kim Lane Scheppele and titled
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN GLOBAL COMPARISON

Excerpt:


It's well worth the effort for anyone who thinks that two-centuries of the present Supreme Court needs some serious rethinking ... !

Off-Topic: I see you use this word..."Replicant"...a number of times in your OP. Exactly what IS a Replicant?

On-Topic: I'm not interested in what some liberal academic thinks about the comparison of the US Supreme Court and any other country's supreme court, so I have nothing to say about that.

 

[Peter]

Off-Topic: I see you use this word..."Replicant"...a number of times in your OP. Exactly what IS a Replicant?

On-Topic: I'm not interested in what some liberal academic thinks about the comparison of the US Supreme Court and any other country's supreme court, so I have nothing to say about that.

Considering you fling about the term TDS for anyone who doesn't agree with his actions you don't have the authority to question anyone about the use of names.

If you aren't interested in the topic why did you feel the need to jump in and answer right away? You can just ignore it.

 

[Mycroft]

Considering you fling about the term TDS for anyone who doesn't agree with his actions you don't have the authority to question anyone about the use of names.

Nonsense.

Authority has nothing to do with it.

If I don't understand a term a member uses in their post, I not only have the right...I have a responsibility...to ask for a definition of the term. That's the only way I can actually know what that member is talking about.

If you aren't interested in the topic why did you feel the need to jump in and answer right away? You can just ignore it.

I thought I made it clear why I jumped into this thread. I'm more interested in the OP's definition of a term he used than in the topic of the thread.

Does it chap your ass? Too bad.

 

[NatMorton]

A SERIOUS RETHINKING OF THE SUPREME COURT



And you think, "He simply nominated justices"? And they were confirmed by a Replicant-Senate?

There are many things wrong with America's governance. And one of the most grievous is the "packing of the Supreme Court" by the Replicants.

The whole process dates from two-centuries and the Replicants can think of no other way to dominate law-making than to have a Supreme Court packed with "their people"!

Rather, the Supreme Court should be indifferent to political-belief. It must stand alone with no reverence in particular for any given political-party. It should be perfectly neutral and no PotUS should be able to nominate judges with the political-preferences of the US PotUS.

And ours in the US isn't perfectly neutral!

Here's a document that is well-worth the read. It is a report made by Kim Lane Scheppele and titled
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN GLOBAL COMPARISON

Excerpt:


It's well worth the effort for anyone who thinks that two-centuries of the present Supreme Court needs some serious rethinking ... !

This is partisan drivel. While I would never pretend there haven’t been cases of conservative judicial activism, at least the mainstream of conservative jurisprudence is constructionism — a phisolisphy that reduces the scope and authority of the court and leaves the legislative process to elected officials.

Judicial activism — the disregard for the intent of elected legislatures and the substitution of a judge’s political preferences — is the unapologetic stock and trade of justices appointed by Democrats. Seriously, name the contentious case over the last 20 years were there was any doubt about how justices like Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, or Kagan were going to vote. If you knew the DNC’s position on the matter, you knew which side these justices would be on.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Off-Topic: I see you use this word..."Replicant"...a number of times in your OP. Exactly what IS a Replicant?

On-Topic: I'm not interested in what some liberal academic thinks about the comparison of the US Supreme Court and any other country's supreme court, so I have nothing to say about that.

Replicant refers to an engineered being made to appear human. It is likely based the perceived need to dehumanize those in the ‘wrong’ political party.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Considering you fling about the term TDS for anyone who doesn't agree with his actions you don't have the authority to question anyone about the use of names.

If you aren't interested in the topic why did you feel the need to jump in and answer right away? You can just ignore it.

The topic is based on members of one political party being deemed inferior (subhuman?) to members of the other(s). That premise is used to imply guilt by association to any SCOTUS justices nominated and confirmed by members of that “replicant” political party.

 

[Peter]

The topic is based on members of one political party being deemed inferior (subhuman?) to members of the other(s). That premise is used to imply guilt by association to any SCOTUS justices nominated and confirmed by members of that “replicant” political party.

I've seen many times on here the claim that Liberalism is a mental illness so you don't have a leg to stand on when complaining about name calling.

 

[Mycroft]

Replicant refers to an engineered being made to appear human. It is likely based the perceived need to dehumanize those in the ‘wrong’ political party.

That's interesting and you may be correct, but I prefer the OP provide his definition.

Thanks.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I've seen many times on here the claim that Liberalism is a mental illness so you don't have a leg to stand on when complaining about name calling.

Hmm… is this the ”since some on both sides do something bad then it’s OK” argument?

I typically refer to the major US political parties as demorats and republicants, thus indicating an equal amount of disrespect for both. My major complaint about that SCOTUS is that they allow an ever increasing growth in federal government powers - greatly exceeding the founders intent that the federal government’s Constitutional powers remain few and distinct.

Once the premise (precedent?) was established that whatever congress deems important makes that matter fall under the general welfare (catch all?) federal power, the SCOTUS became nothing more than a another federal government body offering a rubber stamp of approval for the continuing expansion of federal government power and expense.

 

[Lafayette]

OUR INABILITY TO EVOLVE

My major complaint about that SCOTUS is that they allow an ever increasing growth in federal government powers - greatly exceeding the founders intent that the federal government’s Constitutional powers remain few and distinct.

This is a blatant disregard for the fact that historically we are in constant change as an individual and also collectively as a nation.

And anyone who refuses to believe that historical fact is displaying pure ignorance of the way we live.

Like it or not, change is a constant in Life of Earth, and how we (the people) handle that change is key to the functioning of our governance. Which is why, such a simple fact that the Electoral College that allows five times in the history of our country to allow the loser of the popular-vote to win the presidency clearly shows its deficiency.

And we, as a nation, should be rid of it!

But, no! We can't have that because we confuse government and religion. The latter is irreversible because it has been handed down for centuries in the very same manner that a religion was born. But governments are not irreversible. In fact, the evolution of a country's governance depends upon how well it understands the necessity to progress rather than remain backwards in committing and recommitting the very same errors!

Five times in history the Electoral College has allowed the loser of the popular-vote to attain the presidency. Which is both ludicrous and shameless!

But, in the US, apparently progress is for science and remaining stuck-in-history is for politics! Our inability to evolve the manner in which we elect our heads-of-state is ludicrous by employing uniquely the antiquated mechanism of an Electoral College ...

PS: The countries that employ an Electoral College: Burundi, Estonia, India, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Myanmar, Pakistan, Trinidad, Tobago, Vanuatu and the US!

 

[ttwtt78640]

OUR INABILITY TO EVOLVE



This is a blatant disregard for the fact that historically we are in constant change as an individual and also collectively as a nation.

And anyone who refuses to believe that historical fact is displaying pure ignorance of the way we live.

Like it or not, change is a constant in Life of Earth, and how we (the people) handle that change is key to the functioning of our governance. Which is why, such a simple fact that the Electoral College that allows five times in the history of our country to allow the loser of the popular-vote to win the presidency clearly shows its deficiency.

And we, as a nation, should be rid of it!

But, no! We can't have that because we confuse government and religion. The latter is irreversible because it has been handed down for centuries in the very same manner that a religion was born. But governments are not irreversible. In fact, the evolution of a country's governance depends upon how well it understands the necessity to progress rather than remain backwards in committing and recommitting the very same errors!

Five times in history the Electoral College has allowed the loser of the popular-vote to attain the presidency. Which is both ludicrous and shameless!

But, in the US, apparently progress is for science and remaining stuck-in-history is for politics! Our inability to evolve the manner in which we elect our heads-of-state is ludicrous by employing uniquely the antiquated mechanism of an Electoral College ...

PS: The countries that employ an Electoral College: Burundi, Estonia, India, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Myanmar, Pakistan, Trinidad, Tobago, Vanuatu and the US!

The Constitution was designed to be changed by the well defined amendment process, not by decisions of our nine robed umpires or mere legislative acts of congress.

 

[Peter]

The UK only recently got a Supreme Court and as far as I know the people on it are selected out of the best judges and it's apolitical but I'll have a google and see what I can find.

 

[Peter]

Here's the info.

Appointments of Justices - The Supreme Court

Appointments of Justices

www.supremecourt.uk

It seems to be pretty impartial and not someone selected by any party.

 

[OrphanSlug]

We have a method to change the Constitution, and while painful to get it done there is a route that has been used 27 times to Amend the Constitution.

That said just bitching about it and linking in articles written by whoever does absolutely nothing to change things.

Our issue is not the idea of the Supreme Court, but rather the damage done to it via our duopoly of a political system.

 

[Lafayette]

WE THE SHEEPLE

Our issue is not the idea of the Supreme Court, but rather the damage done to it via our duopoly of a political system.

And what would you suggest to change that "duopoly of a political system"? The Replicants will "never let go" any and all controls Federal or state-wise. It is the foundation-stone of their institutional makeup that they control from both houses of Congress ...

When the Russians got around to "changing things" they stumbled into three-quarters of a century of Communism. That's what a revolution does and I suggest just one at the end of the 18th century was more than enough for America.

We as a people were unprepared for the hegemony that BigMoney and the Replicant Party implemented to maintain control of government spending and enjoy a long history of comparatively low upper-income taxation:

What happened in 1963 that changed everything in terms of upper-income taxation? JFK foolishly started the downturn in taxation to please his father who has arranged the financing of his presidential victory. Yes, it was a Democrat PotUS who started the downturn in Income Taxation of the rich! Thereafter the Replicants handled all further reductions in upper-income taxation!

See history of US income taxation-rates here during the years of Replicant control of the presidency! The rate dropped from 90% in 1963 to the 40% of today.

It is high-time that we-the-sheeple put it back up to where it was ... !

 

[Rogue Valley]

We have the most anti-democratic and partisan SC in my lifetime.

 

[Lafayette]

AMASSING WEALTH CAN LEAD TO MENTAL DISORDER?

Replicant refers to an engineered being made to appear human. It is likely based the perceived need to dehumanize those in the ‘wrong’ political party.

So, re-humanize!

The Replicant party reminds me of the early Communists in Russia. Dedicated to only one objective:
*In Russia it was to take the down and throw them out of the country (or worse),
*In the US it will be simply to assure that Political Affiliations will have no impact upon those chosen for the highest court in the land.

What is heart-rendering is to see that some people can use politics to obtain what they particularly want from the government. You see, once you start earning millions, then billions, you become a very different person. That is, even more possessive of the wealth you have amassed!

It can become as well a mental illness that should be treated by a psychiatrist. One does not lead a better life because they have billions of wealth-money stored away if afflicted by a psychological disturbance pure-and-simple that needs mental assistance ...

PS: From off the Internet:

Does wealth cause mental illness?

Income inequality linked to poor mental health

Recent studies have found that people living in developed countries with the highest levels of income inequality were three times more likely to develop depression or anxiety disorders than their more egalitarian counterparts. (Dec 9, 2014)

PS: Well worth reading in the matter: The Culture of Affluence: Psychological Costs of Material Wealth

Abstract:

Children of affluence are generally presumed to be at low risk. However, recent studies have suggested problems in several domains—notably, substance use, anxiety, and depression—and 2 sets of potential causes: pressures to achieve and isolation from parents. Recognizing the limited awareness of these issues, the objectives in this paper are to collate evidence on the nature of problems among the wealthy and their likely causes. The first half of the paper is focused on disturbances among affluent children and the second half is focused on characteristics of their families and neighborhoods. Widespread negative sentiments toward the rich are then discussed, and the paper concludes with suggestions for future work with families at the upper end of the socioeconomic spectrum.

 

[Lafayette]

COMPARATIVE HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS

There are a number of HC-system rankings. Enough to confuse the matter in anybody's mind.

Amongst the better ones (IMO) is this: What countries have the best healthcare in the world?

Excerpt:

CEOWorld Magazine's Health Care Index "is a statistical analysis of the overall quality of the health care system, including health care infrastructure; health care professionals (doctors, nursing staff, and other health workers) competencies; cost (USD p.a.per capita); quality medicine availability, and government readiness."

Each country is given a score for each of the above factors and then a total score out of 100. According to this index, the ten countries with the best health care are:

1. South Korea
2. Taiwan
3. Denmark
4. Austria
5. Japan
6. Australia
7. France
8. Spain
9. Belgium
10. United Kingdom

As you can see, this one does not contain either the US or Canada. It is no surprise that the very costly US HC-system is not in the top-10 (but it is in the top-20)! Because it is certainly one of the most expensive!

And if you wish to continue with the tomfoolery of Who's the Best in Healthcare there is noted (right after the above study) yet another called the LPI-Ranking and France is 7th!

What is going on? It doesn't matter. If you are looking for a ranking of International Healthcare Systems on the Internet, you are going to be wasting a lot of time. Suffice it to say that if a country ranks in the top-20 then "it can't be too bad" ... and that's about all one can say about these rankings.

Whyzat? Because all tests depend upon the criteria applied to measure the quality of healthcare. And those criteria may be very different from one study to another!

My point?
*The US needs to break the mould by measuring comparative provision of Important Public Services such as Healthcare, Post-secondary Education and Accidental Deaths of All-Kinds.
*There is a great multiple of criterias that are key to defining the Quality-of-Life in a country. Many are not tested comparatively across all countries because such testing could become extremely complex and thus non-comparative.
*Let's not forget - the best countries tested must be doing something right. And other countries should know which and why!

Because if one cannot read and understand comparative-testing of countries across a number of key-criterions then there is an important lack of knowledge as regards which country is doing better than the others. Which opens the question to ... why does that happen?

 

[Court Jester]

There are many things wrong with America's governance. And one of the most grievous is the "packing of the Supreme Court" by the Replicants.

All of our Supreme court justices have been nominated and confirmed under the rules which provide for that process. Doesn't matter if it has been during a Republican administration or a Democrat administration. However, if you really want to have a discussion about how more often than the other way; how Republican nominate justices have voted with liberal justices, maybe we should have that conversation?

The last time court packing (which is adding more justices who agree with a Presiden't polcies) was considered, it was under FDR. And thankfully it was legislators in his own party who were against that scheme.

The whole process dates from two-centuries and the Replicants can think of no other way to dominate law-making than to have a Supreme Court packed with "their people"!

The Republican party isn't even two centuries old, so maybe you might do some more research into the subject before you spout off.

Rather, the Supreme Court should be indifferent to political-belief. It must stand alone with no reverence in particular for any given political-party. It should be perfectly neutral and no PotUS should be able to nominate judges with the political-preferences of the US PotUS.

No thanks! You in France keep your system, we will keep ours.

And ours in the US isn't perfectly neutral!

Here's a document that is well-worth the read. It is a report made by Kim Lane Scheppele and titled
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN GLOBAL COMPARISON

We couldn't give a shit what other countries do. Most Americans reject globalism.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Scheppele-Written-Testimony.pdf

It's well worth the effort for anyone who thinks that two-centuries of the present Supreme Court needs some serious rethinking ... !

It isn't perfect (see Dredd Scott decision), but it is better than what you have, and it tends to correct itself naturally without outside interference by short term elected politicians who have short term goals.

 

[Lafayette]

My major complaint about that SCOTUS is that they allow an ever increasing growth in federal government powers - greatly exceeding the founders intent that the federal government’s Constitutional powers remain few and distinct.

Oh, come of it! The world has changed over two centuries since the US was founded. It is far, far more complex today than it was then.

But, the fact remains this: Yes, Uncle Sam won WW2. But it was Europe that took the "old system" and junked it. It then had to rethink the entirety of the government system, create it and them employ it.

Had the US done the same thing, the mess we have today would have changed long, long ago. Let's face it, nothing has really changed in the US in two centuries. The rich still get rich (and lately astronomically rich) because upper-income taxation is lowly taxed.

Moreover, why does anybody need billions of dollars in Net Worth. To leave it to the kids? And what will they do with it? Waste it in a highly self-indulgent life-style. (What a gift to leave your children!)

Outrageously high incomes that create Monstrously Large Net Worth are not worth it! The money simply turns over and over and over and makes the pile larger. It does nothing for the well-being of the entire nation because it is a simple banking mechanism. Which means it benefits a small number of billionaires whilst about 15% of the population (around 40 million of us) is stuck below the poverty-line ...

 

[AliHajiSheik]

OUR INABILITY TO EVOLVE



This is a blatant disregard for the fact that historically we are in constant change as an individual and also collectively as a nation.

And anyone who refuses to believe that historical fact is displaying pure ignorance of the way we live.

Like it or not, change is a constant in Life of Earth, and how we (the people) handle that change is key to the functioning of our governance. Which is why, such a simple fact that the Electoral College that allows five times in the history of our country to allow the loser of the popular-vote to win the presidency clearly shows its deficiency.

And we, as a nation, should be rid of it!

But, no! We can't have that because we confuse government and religion. The latter is irreversible because it has been handed down for centuries in the very same manner that a religion was born. But governments are not irreversible. In fact, the evolution of a country's governance depends upon how well it understands the necessity to progress rather than remain backwards in committing and recommitting the very same errors!

Five times in history the Electoral College has allowed the loser of the popular-vote to attain the presidency. Which is both ludicrous and shameless!

But, in the US, apparently progress is for science and remaining stuck-in-history is for politics! Our inability to evolve the manner in which we elect our heads-of-state is ludicrous by employing uniquely the antiquated mechanism of an Electoral College ...

PS: The countries that employ an Electoral College: Burundi, Estonia, India, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Myanmar, Pakistan, Trinidad, Tobago, Vanuatu and the US!

"They know hats in Burundi"

 

[Lafayette]

Doesn't matter if it has been during a Republican administration or a Democrat administration.

Surely you jest! ;^)

The Supreme Court should have NO POLITICAL DENOMINATION attached to it. But it does today - and we-the-sheeple let that happen. Successive governments on both sides put in their "own people" in an effort to manipulate the interpretation of laws.

That is a highly grievous charge against the fact that in our two-party system both sides have sunk to the lowest level in an effort to "control the political mechanism" of the country and the states.

That is a hideous consequence and should never be allowed in a country where the "people choose their representatives that run the country". That prompts the question, "Why did we let it happen?"

If Uncle Sam is all-screwed-up I maintain it is the two-party system that is to blame! But, then, what is the country to do? I suspect the problem lies with a lack of understanding of how the country is run, who runs it and who should not.

I am beginning to wonder about the quality of high-school Civic-lessons taught in the US.

From here: A Look at Civics Education in the United States

Is civics taught in American schools?

Key Findings. Here is the current state of high school civics education:* Only nine states and the District of Columbia require one year of U.S. government or civics, while 30 states require a half year and the other 11 states have no civics requirement.

To my mind that aint enough. I got one full year of Civics in high-school - and enjoyed every bit of it. Because our teacher brought in professionals working in the different government agencies.

Any ideas? Anyone ...

 

[TurtleDude]

The topic is based on members of one political party being deemed inferior (subhuman?) to members of the other(s). That premise is used to imply guilt by association to any SCOTUS justices nominated and confirmed by members of that “replicant” political party.

socialists see the US constitution as a road block to the centralized authoritarian government they want, so they try to denigrate the constitution, its authors and justices who actually respect it

 

[ttwtt78640]

socialists see the US constitution as a road block to the centralized authoritarian government they want, so they try to denigrate the constitution, its authors and justices who actually respect it

Yep, and are getting away with it, thus they will continue to try to increase federal government power and expense. Unfortunately, the republicants are for that as well - so long as it starts as ‘block grants’ (legal bribes?) to the states. Of course, federal funding comes with federal strings (controls) over how it may (and may not) be spent.