Abolish the Supreme Court?

[TheRepublican]

Only these leftist who wants a one party that will win no matter what! They would want to abolish the SCOTUS because when Republicans are a justice, then they'll uphold the law! The Democrats want to have control because they are weak

 

[concernedpuma]

Less than 1 in 5 cases the court garners a 5-4 decision. Over a third are unanimous and most of the rest are 8-1 or 7-2. So no the fact is that political lines play little if any role in Supreme Court decisions.

Yeah, so be it. Why aren't all decisions 9-0? What is going on? Is the King's English so very hard to understand?
Regards,
CP

 

[Gaius46]

Yeah, so be it. Why aren't all decisions 9-0? What is going on? Is the King's English so very hard to understand?
Regards,
CP

Language by nature is imprecise and it's impossible to write a law to cover every circumstance in which it'll be applied in the present let alone 10 or 20 or 100 years into the future.

 

[Harshaw]

I essentially paraphrased what he said and he tells me I am wrong... not sure why but I was not about to bother with it after that.

:shrug: It's what he does.

 

[Mithros]

If you want to show that he is partisan because he dissented, you need to get into the substance of his dissents and show that they are partisan.

It's not "unfair"; it's what you need to do. It's how it works. Just because it doesn't work in your favor doesn't mean it's unfair.

Your "measure" of partisanship is not a measure at all.



I didn't "hold lawyers up" to anything. This is a nonsense non-sequitur.

Partisanship is like discrimination, it's a manifestation of bias. You can't determine how partisan a judge is based one decision anymore that you could accuse a company of discrimination because of one hiring decision. Many factors that go into a judicial decision just as there are many factors that go into each hire. You can't determine bias based on one decision, you need to examine a large number of decisions to find statistically significant tendencies.

The benefit of using math and statistics is that they're objective. You have complete access to the methodology. If you have a problem with any of it you are free to create and test your own.

 

[Harshaw]

Partisanship is like discrimination, it's a manifestation of bias. You can't determine how partisan a judge is based one decision anymore that you could accuse a company of discrimination because of one hiring decision. Many factors that go into a judicial decision just as there are many factors that go into each hire. You can't determine bias based on one decision, you need to examine a large number of decisions to find statistically significant tendencies.

The benefit of using math and statistics is that they're objective. You have complete access to the methodology. If you have a problem with any of it you are free to create and test your own.

You not only CAN analyze the content of his decisions in toto to establish bias, it's the ONLY way you can do it.

Your method is meaningless. It is a textbook example of the admonishment that correlation never implies causality, for reasons I've already expounded on.

 

[SmartCat]

I would certainly like to weaken the United States Supreme Court with a Constitutional amendment. It would have three parts:

First, any decision would require a two thirds majority. If a law is unconstitutional it should be more obvious; it should not be a matter of interpretation.

Second, it should be possible to overturn any Supreme Court decision with a two thirds vote in both houses of Congress and a presidential signature. It should not require a Constitutional signature.

Third, it should be possible to remove unpopular justices with a referendum.

 

[Mithros]

You not only CAN analyze the content of his decisions in toto to establish bias, it's the ONLY way you can do it.

Your method is meaningless. It is a textbook example of the admonishment that correlation never implies causality, for reasons I've already expounded on.

Yes, you *can* analyze *multiple* decisions to establish bias. If you happen to find two or more highly similar cases decided in two different manners then you can make an argument for partisanship or bias. But you won't be able to rule out changes in judicial temperament over time or responses to other judicial rulings and precedents that may have been relevant. And even if you manage all of that, you'll only be able to make a binary determination.

But bias isn't a binary trait. We are all influenced by bias, some more than others. Determining that a judge shows bias is not useful. All judges show bias. What's more useful is to compare judges against their peers. And for that you need to do an evaluation over a large population.

Or I suppose you could just ignore everything I just said and insist that you're right because you're right and there's no reason to think any more about it.

 

[Harshaw]

Yes, you *can* analyze *multiple* decisions to establish bias. If you happen to find two or more highly similar cases decided in two different manners then you can make an argument for partisanship or bias. But you won't be able to rule out changes in judicial temperament over time or responses to other judicial rulings and precedents that may have been relevant. And even if you manage all of that, you'll only be able to make a binary determination.

But bias isn't a binary trait. We are all influenced by bias, some more than others. Determining that a judge shows bias is not useful. All judges show bias. What's more useful is to compare judges against their peers. And for that you need to do an evaluation over a large population.

Why do you not get that merely dissenting does not show "bias," even if "peers" do so less often (if that's true)?

You don't know what any of those dissents argued. You don't know what any of those majority opinions argued. You don't even know what the questions presented in the cases were.

You learn NOTHING useful merely from the number of times someone dissented. You CERTAINLY learn nothing about "bias."

Or I suppose you could just ignore everything I just said and insist that you're right because you're right and there's no reason to think any more about it.

No, I told you, multiple times, exactly what was wrong with the "analysis" you believe is some kind of "measure" of bias. You simply don't want to hear it.

 

[Mithros]

Why do you not get that merely dissenting does not show "bias," even if "peers" do so less often (if that's true)?

You don't know what any of those dissents argued. You don't know what any of those majority opinions argued. You don't even know what the questions presented in the cases were.

You learn NOTHING useful merely from the number of times someone dissented. You CERTAINLY learn nothing about "bias."



No, I told you, multiple times, exactly what was wrong with the "analysis" you believe is some kind of "measure" of bias. You simply don't want to hear it.

You're right, the rate of dissent by itself is not a valid measure of bias. Fortunately we're not talking about such an overly simplistic measurement. We're talking about how partisan factors affect dissent rates.

e.g.

• Dissent rate from February to November of presidential election years vs dissent rate the other 80% of the time. ie.. how much of an effect does the political coverage of the presidential elections have on judicial temperament.
• Dissent rate vs peers.
• How often are they dissented against vs peers.
• Dissent rate differences between GOP and Dem appointed judges.

Do we expect the coverage of the presidential election to have an effect on the decisions of an unbiased judge? Of course not. But it seems to have a remarkable effect on Kavanaugh. He's a Jekyll and Hyde. Normally he dissents 5% of the time, but during presidential election season Kavanaugh becomes a different justice dissenting a remarkable 15% of the time. These dissents are primarily focused on hot button issues discussed in the campaigns. That means his judicial philosophy is fairly mainstream on issues that aren't current hotbutton issues. But when those issues are front and center in a partisan campaign he becomes fairly radical.

When there's no political coverage Kavanaugh is likely a more moderate judge than either Ginsburgh or Thomas. But unlike Kavanaugh they are both consistent jurists. Ginsburgh is very liberal, Thomas is very conservative, but neither is very much affected by whatever hot button issue is in the news.

A pure conservative would be better for the institution of the court than Kavanaugh. The court needs to be seen as an impartial arbiter to maintain any credibility. Having a jurist that is affected by whatever Fox News happens to be covering is immensely destructive.

 

[Harshaw]

You're right, the rate of dissent by itself is not a valid measure of bias. Fortunately we're not talking about such an overly simplistic measurement. We're talking about how partisan factors affect dissent rates.




Do we expect the coverage of the presidential election to have an effect on the decisions of an unbiased judge? Of course not. But it seems to have a remarkable effect on Kavanaugh. He's a Jekyll and Hyde. Normally he dissents 5% of the time, but during presidential election season Kavanaugh becomes a different justice dissenting a remarkable 15% of the time. These dissents are primarily focused on hot button issues discussed in the campaigns. That means his judicial philosophy is fairly mainstream on issues that aren't current hotbutton issues. But when those issues are front and center in a partisan campaign he becomes fairly radical.

When there's no political coverage Kavanaugh is likely a more moderate judge than either Ginsburgh or Thomas. But unlike Kavanaugh they are both consistent jurists. Ginsburgh is very liberal, Thomas is very conservative, but neither is very much affected by whatever hot button issue is in the news.

A pure conservative would be better for the institution of the court than Kavanaugh. The court needs to be seen as an impartial arbiter to maintain any credibility. Having a jurist that is affected by whatever Fox News happens to be covering is immensely destructive.

OK, three spins around the merry-go-round is enough.

I told you what was wrong with your nonsense. You choose to believe I've said nothing other than I'm right because I say I'm right, so you're clearly choosing to believe exactly what you want to believe no matter what.

There's no need for me to convince you otherwise. Enjoy.

 

[antiquity]

Since this is essentially a duplicate thread of the one in the General Politics subforum, I'll just use the same post here that I wrote there:

It's a bit premature to suggest abolishing the Supreme Court. However, if we're going to accept that the nomination and confirmation process is to be a completely partisan affair from here on out, then it at least makes sense to end lifetime seats. It makes a mockery of the court to stack it with unabashed political operatives who can never, ever be removed except by the most numerically improbable process ever.

I wonder if liberals will be saying anything like the above if they were in power and their president nominated a Justice to the court?

 

[Cardinal]

I wonder if liberals will be saying anything like the above if they were in power and their president nominated a Justice to the court?

If Democrats behave as Republicans did, and if the nominee behaves as Kavanaugh did, then you would be well within your rights to criticize them and the process.

 

[Gaius46]

I would certainly like to weaken the United States Supreme Court with a Constitutional amendment. It would have three parts:

First, any decision would require a two thirds majority. If a law is unconstitutional it should be more obvious; it should not be a matter of interpretation.

Second, it should be possible to overturn any Supreme Court decision with a two thirds vote in both houses of Congress and a presidential signature. It should not require a Constitutional signature.

Third, it should be possible to remove unpopular justices with a referendum.

1. All judging is a matter of interpretation. All reading is a matter of interpretation. That’s life. Anyone who says judges shouldn’t interpret either doesn’t know what judges do or doesn’t understand what interpretation means.

2. If Congress or any legislature doesn’t like the way courts interpret a law they can rewrite the law and make the law clearer. They’ve always had that option. If a court finds a law violates a Constitution the remedy is to amend the Constituion.

3. What does popularity have to do with anything. The whole point of giving SC judges life tenure is to insulate them from changes in popular opinion. Having judges bow to popular sentiment makes them no different from legislatures. One of those is enough.

 

[SmartCat]

1. All judging is a matter of interpretation. All reading is a matter of interpretation. That’s life. Anyone who says judges shouldn’t interpret either doesn’t know what judges do or doesn’t understand what interpretation means.

2. If Congress or any legislature doesn’t like the way courts interpret a law they can rewrite the law and make the law clearer. They’ve always had that option. If a court finds a law violates a Constitution the remedy is to amend the Constituion.

3. What does popularity have to do with anything. The whole point of giving SC judges life tenure is to insulate them from changes in popular opinion. Having judges bow to popular sentiment makes them no different from legislatures. One of those is enough.

I trust the wisdom of the majority of voters more than I trust that of nine Supreme Court justices appointed for life.

Supreme court justices nearly always come from privileged upbringings. They have never been the victims of the caprices of capitalism or of violent criminals. This shields them from the pressures most Americans face.

 

[Gaius46]

I trust the wisdom of the majority of voters more than I trust that of nine Supreme Court justices appointed for life.

Supreme court justices nearly always come from privileged upbringings. They have never been the victims of the caprices of capitalism or of violent criminals. This shields them from the pressures most Americans face.

So what? Most Congress people have similar upbringings. You don’t find many poor people in Congress.

The people are represented by Congress in our government and we have a say in who’s on the court based on who we elect to Congress and the Presidency. That’s as far as it goes. Your suggestion turns the court into another elected body that would not fulfill its role as a check against the Congress and the President.

 

[Bodi]

:shrug: It's what he does.

I haven't seen that side of him...

 

[Kreton]

Considering the SC is just used to push partisan agendas something should be done. Nearly a third of the justices are sexual predators. The ones who aren't play politics.

Abolishing the SC is not the right thing to do but it needs to be fixed. Start clean with SC justices that aren't there simply to help political parties. Our current SC is a disgrace and an embarrassment.

 

[Harshaw]

I would certainly like to weaken the United States Supreme Court with a Constitutional amendment. It would have three parts:

First, any decision would require a two thirds majority. If a law is unconstitutional it should be more obvious; it should not be a matter of interpretation.

The Supreme Court only very rarely rules on the Constitutionality of anything.

Second, it should be possible to overturn any Supreme Court decision with a two thirds vote in both houses of Congress and a presidential signature. It should not require a Constitutional signature.

Most Supreme Court decisions can be overridden by simple statute, because most, as I noted above, don't involve deciding on Constitutionality.

If the decision DOES concern Constitutionality, then what you're actually saying is that you want to do away with judicial review, and remove an important check/balance in the system.

Third, it should be possible to remove unpopular justices with a referendum.

This is even worse. It subjects the Court to the whim of a majority of the people and completely destroys its independence.

Good jurisprudence is not a popularity contest, nor is it an expression of popular will, but that's what you want to turn it into.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

I still trust SCOTUS more than Congress or the Presidency, so my answer is no. I would be in favor of getting rid of the Presidency before getting rid of SCOTUS.

that's the want it is supposed to be until republicans started cramming complete hacks that are shills for corporations and will deny civil rights to minorities, when the history of this country was the SCOTUS protecting people's rights.

It's already starting, saying it is legal to suppress native american votes, that's just the start. Kavanaugh is already saying immigrants don't have a right to a hearing, that's complete crap

 

[SmartCat]

Those who defend the Supreme Court often claim that it defends the rights of minorities. The minorities I care about are Orientals and Jews. If they were persecuted I would be in favor of any efforts to protect them. They were persecuted in the past. There are still people who resent them. Nevertheless, they generally perform better than white Gentiles and are more prosperous. That is why some people resent them. That resentment does not interfere with their success.

I also care about American Indians. I kind of like Hispanics, but I do not see much need for them.

Minorities that are unpopular are either minorities I dislike or do not care about. Therefore I am uninterested in efforts to protect them from the the widespread hostility that is directed against them.

The only minority the United States Constitution was written to protect was the minority of rich people. I do not hate the rich. I do want them to pay much higher taxes.

 

[Harshaw]

Those who defend the Supreme Court

What does that mean to you, "defend the Supreme Court"? Arguing that it should not be abolished?

The minorities I care about are Orientals and Jews. If they were persecuted I would be in favor of any efforts to protect them. They were persecuted in the past. There are still people who resent them. Nevertheless, they generally perform better than white Gentiles and are more prosperous. That is why some people resent them. That resentment does not interfere with their success.

I also care about American Indians. I kind of like Hispanics, but I do not see much need for them.

Minorities that are unpopular are either minorities I dislike or do not care about. Therefore I am uninterested in efforts to protect them from the the widespread hostility that is directed against them.

The only minority the United States Constitution was written to protect was the minority of rich people. I do not hate the rich. I do want them to pay much higher taxes.

You're basing your views on which minorities you like or don't like, or "do not see much need for"? Oh, boy.

 

[Logician Man]

Abolish SCOTUS? No.....End lifetime seats? Of course...

 

[Gaius46]

that's the want it is supposed to be until republicans started cramming complete hacks that are shills for corporations and will deny civil rights to minorities, when the history of this country was the SCOTUS protecting people's rights.

It's already starting, saying it is legal to suppress native american votes, that's just the start. Kavanaugh is already saying immigrants don't have a right to a hearing, that's complete crap

Who’s the complete hack shill for corporations? Kavanaugh? You do realize that he and Merritt agreed at least 90% of the time when they were on the DC circuit don’t you?

You do realize that the modern court renders 9-0 decisions a third of the time and 8-1, 7-2 decisions another third of the time? You do realize that there are 5-4 splits less than 20% of the time - which means “partisanship may play a role in an even smaller number of decisions.

Of course you probably don’t or don’t care.

 

[Gaius46]

Abolish SCOTUS? No.....End lifetime seats? Of course...

Why would you want to do that?