People care when their drinking water is contaminated with lead. They care if their medicines aren’t safe and effective, or if somebody takes all the money out of their investment accounts. Those things don’t make people happy. Yet it’s administrative agencies that are guarding against that and protecting their rights. So when the Supreme Court starts to dismantle important features of these agencies, it matters because it’s destabilizing a really important part of government
Well I don’t get to vote for the Supreme Court and last time court expansion was talked about it couldn’t even get through the opposition within the Democratic party. All I can do is vote for this to continue of vote for it to get worse. Sorry.
You vote for the Supreme Court every time you vote. The people you elect appoint justices who work their way up,and approve justices in Congress. Local elections matter. Even there you are either voting for people who are working their way up or appoint other judges.
Yes and none of the people on my ballot want to expand the court that’s the point.
Probably because you don’t vote in the primaries. That’s where people with more fringe ideas are located. Vote them up if they share your fringe idea. You can complain about the “system” all you want, the people who run the system were put there through primaries and generals. Learn how to use the tools available to you.
The primaries were decided mathematically before my state got a chance to vote. My primary vote didn’t matter this year and this isn’t the first time this has happened. Downballot all the usual suspects won as well since turnout is always lower when this happens.
There’s been debate about changing the size of the supreme court for a long time. The problem is that if one party does it, the next one can do the same to stack in their favor. That said, just 9 members that are permanent installed with no oversight makes them arguably the most powerful body in the nation. Just one crooked member can be devastating.
I don’t have a perfect solution, but I’d start with something more like 21 members, strict oversight into their finances, a third party that mandates recusal, and a shelf life.
The damage of these 6-3 decisions could last decades or worse. They certainly don’t represent the people that are much closer to 50/50 conservative/liberal than 2/3 extremely conservative.
The issue I have with Dems NOT stacking the court given the chance is that the GOP absolutely would - and might still if they wanted to future-proof their stranglehold. Stack the court. Get a shim in place (SCOTUS term limits, oversight, anything). Don’t worry about what the GOP might do, worry about what they ARE doing and maybe try getting ahead of the problem for a change.
and that is what your parents were told by their parents who were told by their parents
same things your kids will tell your grandchildren who will then go on to tell your great grandchildren
“Kept voting the same party in and the outcome was always the same because of that damn other party! and that same other party is making sure my party can’t do anything!”
doing something over and over without changing any variables but expecting a different result than the one you keep getting is insanity not voting
The Supreme Court had consistently been moving many issues to the left over many decades until very recently, so I don’t know what you’re talking about here at all. This is the direct result of the Republican Party, from Mitch McConnell refusing to even entertain the possibility of Obama filling Scalia’s seat to Trump appointing 3 justices. There’s a dose of Ginsburg’s narcissism in there too, she should have retired.
You vote for the person who selects the people for SCOTUS. There are two very old members (Thomas and Alito) that will likely be replaced in the next 4 years. Are you willing to let trump replace them with 40 year olds and fuck us for decades to come?