What do people think of Biden’s Supreme court reforms?

Obama had two. He could’ve had three if RBG retired as well. The system was designed in a way where some Presidents have more appointees than others. Roosevelt had 9. Truman had 4. Ike had 5. People weren’t complaining then. The only reason they are complaining now is because of “orange man bad.”

The current system where massive swings in power depends on when an elderly person happens to die is insane.

but I don’t see how you could possibly do it in a fair way at this point.

First of all, why is the system even designed so some presidents get multiple? Why cant we make it better?

Second, the reason I wasn’t complaining when Truman or Ike got a bunch was because I wasn’t alive. It sometimes takes an instance of the system working badly to make you realize that it’s a bad system, but that doesn’t change that fact that it’s a bad system. It’s a logical fallacy to say my argument is invalid because I didn’t make this argument before.

Did you read the quotes from the Federalist Papers? Your answer is there.

But it’s not a bad system. It was intentionally designed like that so that precedent stays precedent except for a massive change because the Justice stays there. If we change the system, precedent means nothing. Stare decicis would mean nothing.

I would love to if you told me exactly where it was. There’s 85 of them, and you know how long Hamilton likes to write.

Well the “precedent” of Roe v Wade just got completely abolished. Besides, justices will end up changing anyways. I’m open to much longer term limits, that would solve the problem, but it just needs to be something uniform.

Read Post 114.

Anyways, the gist as I understand it from those quotes was that if the justices are life time appointees, then the court will be free of tampering from the other branches.  

The problem is that the opposite is actually happening. Clearly it is being tamper with because of life term limits. 

Like I said, I’m open to longer term limits, you have a great point about that, the problem is the randomness of presidential appointments.

How is it being tampered with if 2/3 of the 9 justices were not because of Trump.

The system is fine. You’re just mad that you don’t like it. Republicans hated it when the Dems controlled the court. But just admit it.

Yeah, but 1/3 of them are appointed by Trump, and it’s still not fair that he gets more than some other president.  

The whole point of a republic is that our leaders should represent our interest. When some sides can gain more artificial influence than others, then the Public is misrepresented.

The Constitution wasn’t designed to be fair.

Trump was elected by the people and he nominated the justices.

Well then it’s a bad constitutional. Since you’re basically admitting that this system isn’t fair, why can’t we make it fair?

Trump was elected by 46% of the people and the proceeded to change 1/3 of one of the most powerful bodies in our country. That’s not representative.

I don’t think it’s a bad thing though. I think it’s perfect, and it explains why we have been a successful country for so long and are at the top.

I don’t think it’s a bad thing though. I think it’s perfect, and it explains why we have been a successful country for so long and are at the top.

He won the election. The method of winning is irrelevant to the fact that he won and a whole different argument. Even if you don’t think Trump winning was representative. 

50+1 senators approved each nominee. Now you’re going to say the Senate is unrepresentative lol.

You just have a problem with losing.

The Constitution was never designed to be fair. It was designed to create a nation and ensure that it remains into the future. The EC and Senate are the primary reasons why small states agreed to join btw

There are so many other good reasons why America is a world super power, but how we elect our justices is absolutely not one of them.  Something so trivial as our court system can’t have contributed much. It’s a false correlation.

Apples are red, and apples are a popular fruit. Therefore, apples are popular because they are red.

 

False correlation.

I wasn’t complaining about the fact electoral college, I was just showing the difference between his support and the influence he had. This can all be prevented with term limits.

The senate only has the power to not approve a justice based on grounds of being corrupt or unfit for the job. They can’t block someone  just because they don’t agree with their views.

I don’t have a problem losing a basketball game, I have a problem losing a basketball game when the other team used trampolines.

Well why can’t there be both? Small states aren’t going to be leaving the union just because we remove the EC anymore. The time of the fragile, barely a nation has past, so we can remove the archaic laws from that time.

Slavery was left out of the constitution to appease the southern states, but we eventually got rid of it, because it wasn’t needed anymore.

Is it against the rules to use a trampoline? No. 

Our system of checks and balances was based on three branches. So it is an apples to apples connection. Imagine a world where Marbury didn’t happen. Imagine a world where the President basically controlled the court during his term. It’s laughable.

But it should be

How is my system enabling the court to be controlled by the prez? If anything, this system makes that much harder to do.

I haven’t heard any real reasons why this is t a good system yet, just some buzzwords about how the founders wanted it.

But it’s not. You can use a trampoline too when you can. It’s not a one sided think. 100 years down the road, you may have the majority. That’s what makes elections fun.

You’re reducing the independence between branches. If Kamala becomes Prez, no Justice will be appointed by her. It promotes independence of the the coequal branches. Separation of powers is out friend.

Which is why it’s a good system. They were geniuses. I’ve already said ur system reduces independence between the branches. And it throws the concept of stare decicis out the window. Precedents aren’t a thing anymore.

But only one side has the trampolines at a time. You’ve basically admitted that it’s not fair at this point, so why can’t we balance the scales a little?

Well Kamala might be separated, it Trump sure wasn’t.

Many founders also supported slavery, and created many bad systems.

Just look at the original electoral college. It was so horrible that it got ditched in just over a decade.

They included the amendment system so we could correct their mistakes. That was their best idea, knowing that they weren’t perfect. Saying that something is perfect because the founders made it is a false appeal to authority.

Ya, and under your policy, no President would be separated.

I never said it was fair, nor should that be the ideal. It was designed this way on purpose. Seperation of powers and precedent is important to the success of this nation.

If you’re talking about the 12th Amendment, then that barely changed anything. And that’s the whole reason the amendment process was put in the first place. 

I’m saying 95% of the time, they were correct. Separation of powers is a key facet of the Constitution. You just want to get rid of that. So basically what you’re saying is that you’re against the Constitution.

Ya, and under the current policy, some presidents are more spectated, and others are less separated, but it balances out, so not munch really changes. Like I said, I get your point about the separation, but this could be fixed with just longer term limits. Say we double it and make it 36 years. Then every president has less impact, but the same impact. 

I absolutely agree with you,  but I’m saying that it  might be possible to have both separation, and fairness.

What do you mean barely changed anything? The original system was so bad that Arron Burr accidentally became the VP! It created the whole system of running mates which is much better.

I’m not against separation of power, I’m trying to keep the separation and make the system much more fair.

Also, how can you say we have good separation now when one president affected 1/3 of the court over the course of one term?

I’m just trying to even put the appointments, not make them more frequent.

Also, the average justice stays on the bench for only 16 years! This wouldn’t even stop that many people from going over the term limit.

Cause Kamala won’t have any influence if she wins. Lots of Presidents didn’t make appointments. Independence. 

That by definition reduces independence if every President makes appointments.

So why do you want it? If they’re going to retire in an average of 16 years, it’s already cyclical.

No because now every President makes appointments so there will never be independence like there will be if Kamala becomes President.

Four president have not made any appointments, and three of them were removed from office early. Willian Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Andrew Johnson, and Jimmy Carter. 

No, it just averages it out. So far we have some president who have more separation from the court, and other presidents that are hyper connected to the court.

No it’s not, because that’s an average. There is a element of randomness that I’m just trying to flatten out.

I have a few problems with that.

For one, remember that there was only one president who completed a full term and didn’t appoint anybody, so your argument doesn’t work on that grounds. There will almost always be some appointments per prez.

The only thing this system enables is some presidents that are less connected to the court and some that are extremely connected to the court. All this amendment would do is smooth out the randomness. The court is already connected to the executive branch whether you like it or not, and this amendment won’t make that more so, it will make it more fair in its connectedness.

The choice is between a court that is sometimes less connected and sometimes way more connected, but always connected, and a court that is always equally a little connected.

Who cares. The Constitution was designed to not be fair.

Oh, so every President is already making appointments. You just want more for your party is what I’m hearing.

Yes, but there’s still independence. If every President appoints 3, there won’t be independence.

Sure, so the system is fair. Every President gets to appoint someone. Some more than other, but that’s just cause people die. You can’t control when they die.

The first is always better because separation of powers is greater under the first.

The constitution was also designed to not enfranchise anyone but rich, white, male, landowners.

The constitution was also designed to not enfranchise anyone but rich, white, male, landowners.

No, I want the same amount for everyone. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

How? Also it’s 2 appointments.

yeah, but we can can control when they have to resign. Now you’re starting to get it.

The whole point of that is that separation of power is the same either way. My way just makes it fair and as separate as possible.

How can you possibly claim the court is separate when Trump can influence 1/3 of the court during his term?

Mostly true, but again it just proves my point. By large the Constitution was designed to not be fair. We are a nation because it wasn’t designed to be fair.

How? You’re joking right? A 2 term POTUS would make 4 appointees. That’s almost half the court. “Independence.” Now let’s say the VP gets 2 terms. 8/9. “Independence.”

Also, you still haven’t addressed the stability of the law argument, so I assume you concede that. And just based on that, your argument becomes invalid.