I propose the Supreme Court be reconstituted such that for each case a panel of judges from the appellate courts is chosen by lot. They hear that case, write their opinion, and then go back to that work. New case, new lot.
Having a permanent bench of judicial oligarchs made sense before telecommunication. It doesn’t anymore. Every ancient democracy used randomness to control corruption. I think it’s time we took a lesson from them.
(Note: this could be done by statute. How the supreme Court is constituted is entirely left to Congress.)
[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/
Systems always work to justify and perpetuate themselves. It's part of why our jobs can be such BS sometimes.
The right and left are both railing against our justice system. At different levels. For different reasons. But that’s political capital on the floor.
> Same with implementing ranked choice
We have multiple jurisdictions with RCV [1]. Your purported impossibility has happened.
> Systems always work to justify and perpetuate themselves
We have reformed our courts before in pursuit of seeking to perpetuate our American form of government. This is no different. Amending governments to make them more fit is not inherently in conflict with institutional prerogatives.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_...
True insofar as it goes… but this elides the detail that the right just won a generational battle for the Supreme Court. There is zero chance that any Republicans back reform here.
Even the minimum viable reform to enact term limits after this lot dies off is dead on arrival.
Ranked choice also has only been implemented in a few cases and generally by a ballot initiative (getting around the party structures somewhat).
To be fair systems do change but in general they use their power to resist it tooth and nail until change is inevitable and they collapse.
So is the constitution. But I think what also matters a lot is things like the Federalist papers. Where these aren't explicit laws but are the motivations and philosophy behind them. Ruling by the letter of the law will always be tyrannical because no thing is perfect.
Federalist 78[0]
> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
It's also worth mentioning here that this same document specifies that the judicial branch and executive branch are to remain distinct. That all the judicial branch can do is issue judgement, but are not capable of executing such judgement. I mention this because there is another question that arises if the one in charge of the executive branch is judged to have committed a crime by the judicial branch. But of course, this is back to the point that there are no global optima. There is no free lunch.
Good question. Perhaps a separate bench chosen once per session? Have the other circuits vote on it?
I.e. their job doesn't depend on them ruling the "right" way.
There are pros and cons to different approaches. There are differences at the state level for judges, being appointed vs elected. Each has problems. In TX, for example, judges are heavily influenced by mob mentality - they're afraid to practice sentencing restraint because next election their rival will run ads saying they love murderers/rapists/whatever because they let someone off lightly in extraordinary circumstances.
His job is safe, but much of his salary--no, not quite the right word--much of his overall reward is dependent on what powerful friends want him to do.
Ultimately, people don't care about keeping their job--who the hell likes their job?--people want to keep their compensation, and for the US Supreme Court, their compensation can easily be controlled by powerful third parties.
But what would be more fun is for the current Supreme Court to adopt the “emanations from penumbras” philosophy of judging, and do that for a couple of decades.
With how things shaped up, the innate de jure power struggle should have been "The People <> Legislative <> Judicial <> Executive <> Corporations"
We're still paying the price, as the Lochner era was incredibly myopic.
> But what would be more fun is for the current Supreme Court to adopt the “emanations from penumbras” philosophy of judging, and do that for a couple of decades.
Let’s see what “emanations from penumbras” we can find in the contract clause, second amendment, tenth amendment, etc. If only conservatives had the sense to use Roe as a template for how to judging should work.
There is a reference in the Constitution in the impeachment clause to the “Chief Justice” - which maybe implies justices with some sort of tenure, but I suppose that could be filled randomly as well, much like a jury foreman.
Not that I can find. (It’s already been flagged off the thread, granted.)
> a reference in the Constitution in the impeachment clause to the “Chief Justice”
Ministerial. The most-senior jurist on the appellate court.
I used it once. Because that’s why ancient democracies used selection by lot. My criticism isn’t of this ruling per se, but of the institution, which has swung from a stabilising branch of government to a constant source of chaos.
What are you talking about? The Supreme Court gutted the constitution in the mid-20th century, and anti-democratically reshaped society down to its foundations.
The supposed "chaos" comes entirely from liberals freaking out at the smallest retrenchment of their destabilizing prior precedents.
In 250 years, for 44 presidents, not one of them has needed immunity from criminal prosecution.
All this does is shield the man who attempted to use violence and a conspiracy to commit election fraud with a fake slate of electors to reverse the result of a legitimate decision.
To call this milquetoast is to continue the gaslighting. This decision has permanently altered the American Experiment.
The current system seems like it’s designed to aggravate politics in the very branch that’s intended to be beyond them.
The supremes don't always get it right. Dissenting opinions are the mechanism for expressing that reality.
This quickly becomes a standard ritual at the changing of each administration, and an accepted job hazard for incoming justices.
