29 pointsby KnuthIsGod2 months ago4 comments

hallole2 months ago
The job of the justices is to interpret the Constitution, not maintain a public image. The law profs who authored this are surely aware of that. "Illegitimate" means more than "people dislike it." I think the late Justice Scalia did things right: delivering decisions that aligned with his Constitutional philosophy, even if he ultimately found the results distasteful (nevermind what the public had to say!).
A small YouTube channel I found, hosted by a constitutional litigator, has a number of solid videos about the S.C., and about this "partisanship problem" in particular [1]. The D/R split of the S.C. is much fuzzier than I once thought.
[1]: https://youtu.be/WKfF-WhIm5o
- mrtesthah2 months ago
  Through July, all of the lower federal courts, including many conservative justices, ruled against Trump ~93% of the time. The S.C. reversed that and ruled for him by roughly the same percentage.
  If the justices seems partisan, it’s probably because they are.
FrankWilhoit2 months ago
The Supreme Court cannot be replaced without replacing the Constitution. This only shows that there are also many other reasons to replace the Constitution. But the level of stress that would be needed to trigger that process would make it impossible.
- f30e3dfed1c92 months ago
  The fact that the court consists of one Chief Justice and eight associate justices is a matter of statute, 28 U.S. Code § 1. Absolutely nothing in the Constitution requires that. Congress could change that at any time.
- johng2 months ago
  There are going to be (me included) lots of people that don't want to change the constitution.
lastdong2 months ago
The comments section in that article is quite active.
antibull2 months ago
[dead]