@kims @Urban_Hermit @mattblaze I have a hopeful feeling that they'll be prosecuted.
-
@sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze I know for a fact that some judges have been publicly saying "what's the point?" and have been writing rulings based on sound legal principals while believing that no amount of justification and precedent will prevent this Supreme Court from potentially over ruling them.
And the far right has been promoting religion and racism in the military ranks for decades and trying to get the learned generals of principal fired for being "too woke".
@Urban_Hermit @sparseMatrix @kims @mattblaze Impeaching and removing the corrupt Supreme Court members is going to have to be one of the first things they do, or nothing else is going to work.
-
@Urban_Hermit @sparseMatrix @kims @mattblaze Impeaching and removing the corrupt Supreme Court members is going to have to be one of the first things they do, or nothing else is going to work.
@BernieDoesIt @Urban_Hermit @kims @mattblaze
We can do better than impeach them. We can leave them sitting right where they are, acknowledge their humanity, and expand the court into a large panel from which judges are selected by lot to impanel a sitting bench on a per case basis.
This entirely divests them of any opportunity to carry out a hidden agenda.
This has the benefit that it does not remove any of the assholes cherished by the right; it simply removes from them a power that they were never intended to have.
-
@BernieDoesIt @Urban_Hermit @kims @mattblaze
We can do better than impeach them. We can leave them sitting right where they are, acknowledge their humanity, and expand the court into a large panel from which judges are selected by lot to impanel a sitting bench on a per case basis.
This entirely divests them of any opportunity to carry out a hidden agenda.
This has the benefit that it does not remove any of the assholes cherished by the right; it simply removes from them a power that they were never intended to have.
@sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @Urban_Hermit @kims @mattblaze
Unpack the courts:
redistrict the appellate circuits into 15 according to census data and caseload history, make justices ride circuit only one each (appointing six new), then your proposal to hear cases with 9 justices selected by lottery -
@sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @Urban_Hermit @kims @mattblaze
Unpack the courts:
redistrict the appellate circuits into 15 according to census data and caseload history, make justices ride circuit only one each (appointing six new), then your proposal to hear cases with 9 justices selected by lottery@pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze
I was work shopping this idea: every 4 year presidential term gets one supreme court pick. Exactly one, and the number of justices on the SC expands or contracts naturally, according to mortality.
If the country chooses 60% conservative presidents then the court reflects this, as is appropriate in a democracy, but it is gaming resistant.If the court is tied on a decision, 4 to 4, 8 to 8, 12 to 12 - then the lower court decision stands.
-
@pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze
I was work shopping this idea: every 4 year presidential term gets one supreme court pick. Exactly one, and the number of justices on the SC expands or contracts naturally, according to mortality.
If the country chooses 60% conservative presidents then the court reflects this, as is appropriate in a democracy, but it is gaming resistant.If the court is tied on a decision, 4 to 4, 8 to 8, 12 to 12 - then the lower court decision stands.
@pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze
I stopped working on this idea because I wasn't sure if the SC would constantly expand. What would a court of 200+ justices look like. Would it be manageable? Would there be benefits if a SC basically replaced a legislative branch, as all laws are basically already written? Going forward through history, there is a point were the interpretation of existing law becomes more important than legislatively passing new tax loopholes. -
@pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze
I stopped working on this idea because I wasn't sure if the SC would constantly expand. What would a court of 200+ justices look like. Would it be manageable? Would there be benefits if a SC basically replaced a legislative branch, as all laws are basically already written? Going forward through history, there is a point were the interpretation of existing law becomes more important than legislatively passing new tax loopholes.@Urban_Hermit @pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze
This might sound crazy, but what if we expanded the Supreme Court to include every voter in the United States? It's not like they need to meet in person anyway. And lobbyists and billionaires would have to bribe the whole country, or a substantial portion of it. I think it's a tempting idea!
-
@Urban_Hermit @pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze
This might sound crazy, but what if we expanded the Supreme Court to include every voter in the United States? It's not like they need to meet in person anyway. And lobbyists and billionaires would have to bribe the whole country, or a substantial portion of it. I think it's a tempting idea!
@Quasit @pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze it is a version of absolute, direct democracy.
What if we replaced the Senate with direct democracy. Every person electronically votes on every bill, and the House exists just to write the bills and vote them up for review.
It would have many problems, what if some parties are for simplicity, while others pack bills with deceptive language or make them too long to be adequately reviewed. But all reforms have problems to work out.
-
@Quasit @pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze it is a version of absolute, direct democracy.
What if we replaced the Senate with direct democracy. Every person electronically votes on every bill, and the House exists just to write the bills and vote them up for review.
It would have many problems, what if some parties are for simplicity, while others pack bills with deceptive language or make them too long to be adequately reviewed. But all reforms have problems to work out.
@Urban_Hermit @Quasit @pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze
Bills can be hundreds or more pages long. I don't want to read all that. Before voting. -
@Urban_Hermit @Quasit @pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze
Bills can be hundreds or more pages long. I don't want to read all that. Before voting.@Oldfartrant @Quasit @pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze we have ballot initiatives in Oregon, it wouldn't be all that different.
-
@Oldfartrant @Quasit @pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze we have ballot initiatives in Oregon, it wouldn't be all that different.
@Urban_Hermit @Quasit @pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze
A ballot initiative is usually a one issue bill which is digestible by most people. A wide ranging bill making multiple changes in multiple areas is a completely different entity. It could be possible but would it be worth the trouble? Only if pork and favours could be stricken before voting. -
@Urban_Hermit @Quasit @pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze
A ballot initiative is usually a one issue bill which is digestible by most people. A wide ranging bill making multiple changes in multiple areas is a completely different entity. It could be possible but would it be worth the trouble? Only if pork and favours could be stricken before voting.@Oldfartrant @Urban_Hermit @pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze
Seems to me that giant complicated bills are always used to sneak in a bunch of unrelated stuff that is terrible for the people. Maybe that means that bills should be required to address just one topic each. Need to address more topics? Write more bills. But none of those thousand-page monstrosities written by industry lobbyists.
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
