Citing other bad rulings as justification for a bad ruling instead of basing it off existing laws and/or the Constitution for one. Redefining of words to the opposite of their intended meaning for another. Granting themselves authority they were never given. I can easily think of a few things. They were never intended to speak for the legislature, yet they insist on doing it routinely anyway. Well they really meant…
Oh they give plenty of explanation. Sometimes the explanation makes no logical sense and completely defies reason, but it’s still an explanation. Kind of.
I would advocate for 6 year terms. Staggered, so every president could appoint a justice every two years.
Of all our institutions, the court needs churn the most.
Question: should justices be allowed multiple terms? Could/should a president be allowed to re-nominate a sitting justice? If so, should the number of terms be limited?
“Bad” is subjective.
No it really isn’t. I just gave you a boatload of criteria.
If it were up to me no political position, appointed or elected would be for multiple terms. I would also get behind a single six year term for ALL of them. I’d also add that once an elected or appointed position was held, that same person could not run for another elected position or be re-appointed to another position after leaving office. ONE and DONE. A civic duty, not a career path.
Of course, we’d also have to do away with lobbying, but that would at least take care of half of that revolving door syndrome.
The first one doesn’t work right off the bat. It assumes existing law is “good”.
That’s the thought.
So remove the assumption. If the supporting law isn’t backed by the Constitution, it goes too. A two-fer.
A quite extraordinary claim given it was a drop from July to when the poll was taken.
Not really. The poll was taken right after the decision to uphold the Texas law restricting abortions…something that would offend liberals.
And yet 37% believe that the court is too conservative, meaning 63% do not believe it is too conservative.
Seems like the correct answer is collapsed support by liberals of what for a long time they rightly considered their court.
Expect more attacks on the court by the left media.
2 Likes
are they?
Alito and Thomas are angry that the public is finally seeing them for what they really are, political individuals. If the Supreme Court was truly nonpartisan, Mitch McConnell wouldn’t have denied Merrick Garland or rushed Amy Coney Barrett.
For too long the Supreme Court was worshiped by the American people. Some of the justices obviously believe they are god like figures, who should never be questioned. I would love to see their tears if their terms and power were limited.
I’m already enjoying see them whine about no longer being respected by most Americans. Hopefully they will reexamine some of their beliefs.
Just those two though, right?
Tsk, tsk
You nailed it. 
For the most part. There are exceptions for those in the center. They are harder to predict. The easiest to predict are the staunch conservative constructionists and the far left LIBs.
is that why we still have daca and obamacare? those predictions seem a bit off.
Yeah I think they’re all suspect. Alito admits they never even addressed the Constitutionality of the Texas abortion law. What’s their role again?
This is also troublesome.
“This portrayal feeds unprecedented efforts to intimidate the court and to damage it as an independent institution.”
That sounds like someone who has too much power and has had it go to his head.
As for damage it as an independent institution, that ship sailed awhile ago.
1 Like
How does what Mitch does reflect on the individuals on the court? As for being worshipped by the public, just not true, someone is always upset about some ruling or another.
