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.
Sure. Until recently, they were losing. De-politicising the courts could be electorally advantageous for both sides.
> the minimum viable reform to enact term limits after this lot dies off is dead on arrival
Because that’s obviously partisan. There are more Republican-appointed judges. Term limiting them obviously favours one side in a way drawing from appellate judges by lot does not. (The Fifth and Ninth are regarded as crazy by half the country.)
From someone most Democrats would consider "on the right" - it's more complicated than that, of course - you're right.
The right had _lost_ that battle for generations, though. I don't recall any serious efforts to reorganize the judiciary as a result of that.
The "Hawaii judge" has been a running meme on the right for _years_. Pretty much everything Trump tried to do that was even a little bit controversial was fought in the courts, and the left tended to practice "judge shopping" to place the cases in Hawaii's district. The Ninth Circuit has been known as the "Ninth Circus" for as long as I can recall.
Of course, the right also practices judge shopping. It's just part of how things are set up today. The difference in this discussion is that we're now talking about changing the system itself because the left feels like they lost.
> Even the minimum viable reform to enact term limits after this lot dies off is dead on arrival.
I wouldn't be opposed to reform of some kind, but keeping the current nomination process and enacting term limits doesn't seem viable. The problem here is that Justices are nominated by the President. As long as that's the case, all term limits will do is make the judiciary less consistent. The biggest impact of changing the makeup of the Supreme Court more often would be to have precedent overturned more frequently.
It could be argued that the entire point of the way things are set up is so that the three branches won't be controlled by the same zeitgeist at the same time. Presidents get four to eight years. Congress can serve as long as they're re-elected, in two or six year terms. SCOTUS serves lifetime terms.
The fact that the branches are at odds isn't a bug; it's a feature.
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.
