Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   How to fix the court without adding more seats (even if we should)   (news.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court of the United States, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, supreme court, Mitch McConnell, Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit  
•       •       •

2294 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Sep 2021 at 10:36 AM (17 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



126 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-09-21 10:21:36 AM  
Not a bad idea, but it would require the conservatives to a) recognize that something's wrong and b) take responsibility for it.

They're fairly good at a) if they can blame it all on the libs, but have absolutely no aptitude for b).
 
2021-09-21 10:26:10 AM  
If by "step down" you mean a supreme court justice dies in a horrible beer pong game gone awry.
 
2021-09-21 10:29:56 AM  
To protect the supreme court's legitimacy, a conservative justice should step down

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
2021-09-21 10:30:30 AM  
Lots of things could be improved in this country if powerful conservatives would simply do the right thing. But how many times in the last 50 years has a conservative done the right thing?

At some point, it is up to the non-conservatives to make things happen instead of hoping that a conservative will act in the best interests of anyone but themselves.
 
2021-09-21 10:37:11 AM  
What? And give up the fight of Roe v. GOP?  Stop smokin your funny grass and get a life hippie!
 
2021-09-21 10:37:27 AM  
The fact that there has been so much pushback against expanding the court has made me believe it is the only way to change things for the better.
 
2021-09-21 10:38:02 AM  

GardenWeasel: To protect the supreme court's legitimacy, a conservative justice should step down

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


My exact reaction, right down to the last 'H' and 'A'.
 
2021-09-21 10:38:07 AM  
you're right subby, it would make the SC seem so much more legitimate to watch mcconnell, manchin, and sinema refuse to vote on a replacement and hold the SC at 6 members for the next 3.5 years.
 
2021-09-21 10:38:56 AM  

GardenWeasel: To protect the supreme court's legitimacy, a conservative justice should step down

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Good. I'm glad we're both in agreement of how ridiculous that sounds.
 
2021-09-21 10:40:56 AM  
"Sir, I believe I have found a way to do nothing while making it seem like we're super responsible people who care about the welfare of this country and her citizens."

"Excellent!  I want the proposition on my desk within the hour."
 
2021-09-21 10:42:37 AM  
"A" ?
 
2021-09-21 10:42:45 AM  
A guillotine?
 
2021-09-21 10:43:06 AM  

EnzoTheCoder: The fact that there has been so much pushback against expanding the court has made me believe it is the only way to change things for the better.


the fact there was so much pushback against expanding the court was a sign that 'conservative' dems value the idea of having rules and functioning government even when its clear that they dont actually have rules and functioning government.  and they'll cling to that illusion while their house burns down instead of doing anything that might 'violate the rules' which are already being violated every day to fix the problem.
 
2021-09-21 10:43:18 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-09-21 10:45:47 AM  
HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA

Subby, I can only imagine being so naive. To actually believe that a conservative would relinquish even an iota of power.

Wow. I wish I lived in that fantasy world, I'd probably be a lot happier.
 
2021-09-21 10:46:39 AM  
If your "plan" is expecting the Reich Wing to do anything even close to ethical or moral, you've been asleep for the last 20+ years.

Play to win, or plan to lose. The modern GQP is bloodthirsty for a civil war, they're not subtle about it, and they are eager to kill their neighbors.

Meanwhile, their opposition, is hoping to debate their misinformation propaganda with harsh letters are well reasoned debate.

I'm in for trying to reason with the people trying to kill you, the problem really hit the pavement when they start actually killing you.
 
2021-09-21 10:46:41 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


Fark user imageView Full Size

 
2021-09-21 10:46:57 AM  
lol
 
2021-09-21 10:47:31 AM  
FTA: Clearly, this isn't going to happen.
 
2021-09-21 10:48:12 AM  
Unlikely, bordering on impossible.  See:  Never.
 
2021-09-21 10:50:31 AM  
Stopped reading after the headline. Had a chuckle.
 
2021-09-21 10:53:03 AM  
So Thomas and Barrett want Gorsuch to step down.
He probably was caught eating other people's yogurt out of the shared lunchroom fridge.
 
2021-09-21 10:54:49 AM  

EnzoTheCoder: The fact that there has been so much pushback against expanding the court has made me believe it is the only way to change things for the better.


It is worth noting, however, this was basically the only fight FDR lost.  And he won farking World War II.
 
2021-09-21 10:54:56 AM  
There are two people on the bench who are entirely unfit.  They're hyper-partisan, incompetent, and they perjured themselves.  And there's a third who is arguable.

You don't fix that in any way that doesn't involve removing them from the bench, and it's not going to happen.  But until it does, SCOTUS has lost its legitimacy.
 
2021-09-21 10:58:18 AM  

Farking Clown Shoes: Not a bad idea, but it would require the conservatives to a) recognize that something's wrong and b) take responsibility for it.

They're fairly good at a) if they can blame it all on the libs, but have absolutely no aptitude for b).


We can't even get the liberals on the court to admit that there's a partisan breakdown of SCOTUS.  This author thinks a conservative is gong to both recognize that and do the right thing?  Come on.
 
2021-09-21 10:59:39 AM  
Impeach Justices that committed perjury.
 
2021-09-21 11:00:32 AM  

EnzoTheCoder: The fact that there has been so much pushback against expanding the court has made me believe it is the only way to change things for the better.


I think changing it to a term-limited position where each president gets to appoint a couple would be more fair in the long term.  In the short term, expanding the court would be effective, but then we end up in the same position over time as the GOP farks around more and more.
 
2021-09-21 11:02:35 AM  
Poor John Roberts.

He just wanted to preside over a professional, nonpartisan Court that tacked right wherever possible without being TOO obvious for history looking back on the horrible decisions of The Roberts Court.  5-4 was perfect for him.  Citizens United?  Yep.  We'll do that.  Of course!  Obergefell?  Damn, that's gonna look like Plessey years from now, so I have to flip on it.

But now?  The clowns are running the show.  Hell, Thomas is even TALKING now.  It's all kinds of Armageddon.
 
2021-09-21 11:03:54 AM  
Two words: Pelican Brief
 
2021-09-21 11:04:20 AM  
Didn't read the article but I assume it said something like "about 4 bullets"
 
2021-09-21 11:06:59 AM  

Geotpf: It is worth noting, however, this was basically the only fight FDR lost.  And he won farking World War II.


FDR didn't have to win the fight by actually adding justices. He won by threatening the court. And they backed down and stopped issuing decisions that would've hobbled the nation.

The Roberts court is actively trying to revert the US back to Gilded Age policies despite it being the 21st century.
 
2021-09-21 11:07:02 AM  
Who wastes time reading this nonsense?
 
2021-09-21 11:08:25 AM  
Constitutional amendment. 18 year terms. Justices appointed in odd-numbered years.  Temporary appointments may be made by the POTUS if Congress doesn't get its act together in a timely fashion.

And RBG should have retired in 2013 or 2015. Let's hope Breyer does the right thing and retire by 2023 at the latest.
 
2021-09-21 11:12:05 AM  

NeoCortex42: I think changing it to a term-limited position where each president gets to appoint a couple would be more fair in the long term. In the short term, expanding the court would be effective, but then we end up in the same position over time as the GOP farks around more and more.


Term limits make the bench more political, not less.  Age limits mean younger, less experienced justices to keep them on the bench longer.   And if each election comes with an 'appoint two justices' coupon, that means a huge incentive to put in place partisan judges to assist with your party's political future.

What is required is to build up a non-partisan committee from the senior legal community that provides a list of heavily-vetted names from which a POTUS can appoint his favorites.  And have a minimum age, retirement age, AND term limit (though a long one), as well as some rather high minimum experience requirements.
 
2021-09-21 11:15:13 AM  
I bet more people question the president's legitimacy than do the Supreme Court's.
 
2021-09-21 11:18:28 AM  

Unsung_Hero: NeoCortex42: I think changing it to a term-limited position where each president gets to appoint a couple would be more fair in the long term. In the short term, expanding the court would be effective, but then we end up in the same position over time as the GOP farks around more and more.

Term limits make the bench more political, not less.  Age limits mean younger, less experienced justices to keep them on the bench longer.   And if each election comes with an 'appoint two justices' coupon, that means a huge incentive to put in place partisan judges to assist with your party's political future.

What is required is to build up a non-partisan committee from the senior legal community that provides a list of heavily-vetted names from which a POTUS can appoint his favorites.  And have a minimum age, retirement age, AND term limit (though a long one), as well as some rather high minimum experience requirements.


How long do you think the non-partisan committee will maintain their non-partisanship so that they can vet people for a SCOTUS that was designed to be non-partisan?

I say one week. Then we'll have to create a non-partisan committee to nominate non-partisans to the committee to vet non-partisan justices.
 
2021-09-21 11:19:59 AM  
Put shock collars on the conservative judges and give them a big zap every time they say or do something that is rightwing crazy?

/didn't RTA
 
2021-09-21 11:20:26 AM  

Unsung_Hero: NeoCortex42: I think changing it to a term-limited position where each president gets to appoint a couple would be more fair in the long term. In the short term, expanding the court would be effective, but then we end up in the same position over time as the GOP farks around more and more.

Term limits make the bench more political, not less.  Age limits mean younger, less experienced justices to keep them on the bench longer.   And if each election comes with an 'appoint two justices' coupon, that means a huge incentive to put in place partisan judges to assist with your party's political future.

What is required is to build up a non-partisan committee from the senior legal community that provides a list of heavily-vetted names from which a POTUS can appoint his favorites.  And have a minimum age, retirement age, AND term limit (though a long one), as well as some rather high minimum experience requirements.


lol
 
2021-09-21 11:22:40 AM  
It's probably easier to accept that the Supreme Court is lost than it is to write fanciful tripe about conservative justices doing the right thing for the good of the nation.
 
2021-09-21 11:23:29 AM  

Kangaroo_Ralph: I bet more people question the president's legitimacy than do the Supreme Court's.


I 100% agree with this.  Those people want to kill police officers and smear their own sh*t on the walls of the Capitol while carrying Confederate or Nazi flags.  And none of those people even know what the Supreme Court is.
 
2021-09-21 11:24:30 AM  

SolderGlob: How long do you think the non-partisan committee will maintain their non-partisanship so that they can vet people for a SCOTUS that was designed to be non-partisan?

I say one week. Then we'll have to create a non-partisan committee to nominate non-partisans to the committee to vet non-partisan justices.


The big problem being that 'non-partisan' means 'Democrat' to Republicans, because they're "with us or against us" and don't understand or tolerate the idea of impartiality.
 
2021-09-21 11:25:12 AM  

Weatherkiss: conservative justices doing the right thing for the good of the nation.


It 👏 could 👏 happen 👏
 
2021-09-21 11:26:10 AM  
If any of the republican justices were going to ever prioritize the welfare of the country or even attempt to be slightly competent at their job, the situation wouldn't need fixing. So solutions involving the GOP's corrupt puppets doing either of those things just indicate that the person proposing the solution is a farking moron.
 
2021-09-21 11:26:16 AM  
Here's the thing: Kavanaugh, regardless of what you think about him was a legitimate choice.  But if ACB is legit, then Gorsuch is not, and visa versa.  Which is unfortunate, since Gorsuch seems to be a really stand up guy, and ACB may not be.  I think if it came down to it, he'd be the one to leave.

Frankly, though, Thomas should retire and save everybody the effort.
 
2021-09-21 11:28:41 AM  

TypoFlyspray: Here's the thing: Kavanaugh, regardless of what you think about him was a legitimate choice.  But if ACB is legit, then Gorsuch is not, and visa versa.  Which is unfortunate, since Gorsuch seems to be a really stand up guy, and ACB may not be.  I think if it came down to it, he'd be the one to leave.

Frankly, though, Thomas should retire die and save everybody the effort.


Fixed
 
2021-09-21 11:29:19 AM  

Unsung_Hero: And if each election comes with an 'appoint two justices' coupon, that means a huge incentive to put in place partisan judges to assist with your party's political future.


However, it seems unclear there is any marginal incentive relative to the present system. Supreme Court Judges already are limited in term to their lifetime, which averages out over the court's history to about one appointment every two years. The current option for justices to resign and trigger a new lifetime appointment allows more partisan judges to resign when there is a more partisan president, which would seeming tend to increase court polarization over time relative to fixed-term appointments. It also seems to make any unexpected additional appointments the subject of greater partisan controversy during the Senate confirmation process, which may also contribute to more partisan membership of the SCOTUS bench.

Unsung_Hero: What is required is to build up a non-partisan committee from the senior legal community that provides a list of heavily-vetted names from which a POTUS can appoint his favorites.


However, the GOP appears to have demonstrated a preference for not restricting their appointments to nominees considered "well qualified" by the legal profession. Under such conditions, there appears no obvious political means to achieve such a "requirement".
 
2021-09-21 11:29:22 AM  

EnzoTheCoder: The fact that there has been so much pushback against expanding the court has made me believe it is the only way to change things for the better.


Can't argue with that logic.
 
2021-09-21 11:29:42 AM  

TofuTheAlmighty: Geotpf: It is worth noting, however, this was basically the only fight FDR lost.  And he won farking World War II.

FDR didn't have to win the fight by actually adding justices. He won by threatening the court. And they backed down and stopped issuing decisions that would've hobbled the nation.

The Roberts court is actively trying to revert the US back to Gilded Age policies despite it being the 21st century.


This is true.  In some ways he won by losing.  Maybe Biden needs to do this then.  Problem is, he still needs permission of Manchin here, and he might drag along five or six more moderate Democrats, and if the threat isn't realistic it's no threat at all.

And here is the issue which I bring up constantly: FDR could do FDR-like things because he had a 20% majority or so in both Houses of Congress.  Biden has a Zero Percent majority in the Senate and barely more than that in the House.  Expecting exciting things from this setup is a bridge to far.  Biden's main job with such a slim majority is to nominate judges and justices, undo Trump's executive orders, and to generally not be Trump.  Anything that passes is gravy.  Which is why I'm hoping AOC et al accepts whatever shrunken infrastructure package that Manchin et al endorses, because, frankly, it's more than we really should be able to get with a zero seat Senate majority.
 
2021-09-21 11:29:53 AM  

Unsung_Hero: Term limits make the bench more political, not less.


I hate term limits generally, but life appointments introduce extra randomness which is unnecessary.

I'd argue term limits would make the bench less political.  Each approved justice would have a judicial bent that is a snapshot of the political landscape at that point in time.  Not all appointed justices get approved.  If one party held both the White House and Senate, then we'd have a more distinctly left- or right-leaning appointment. If the White House and Senate were in opposite parties, we'd have a more moderate justice make it through.

The longest time one party has held the White House was 20 years between FDR and Truman. I think it unlikely that we'll see that again for some time.  But if we did, then why shouldn't the SCOTUS represent that time in history even if it is a lagging indicator?
 
2021-09-21 11:30:21 AM  

TypoFlyspray: Kavanaugh, regardless of what you think about him was a legitimate choice.


Well, that's enough to know you've never even heard of the concept of impartiality.

There's zero chance he's an appropriate choice for that job.  None. Zip.  Nada.  He's a stain on the bench and a joke to anyone paying attention.  If you feel otherwise you're either blinded by partisan beliefs or guided by partisan beliefs.   Fooled or lying, either way wrong.

And no, I'm not a partisan Democrat.  I'm not even American.
 
Displayed 50 of 126 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.