• underisk@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Because an unelected council of lifetime appointed politically motivated actors who can arbitrarily decide whether democratically instilled laws are valid on a case by case basis is fundamentally stupid and obviously prone to corruption.

      • underisk@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just the Supreme Court, thanks. Though I’m not super happy about those lesser courts being lifetime appointments either, so maybe they could do with some reform instead. We can always revisit those later, call it incremental improvement.

        • minorninth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          But the Supreme Court is part of the whole system of appeals courts. They all have lifetime appointments. It makes no sense. You’d just be giving regional judges more power and the country would have even more stark divided across state lines.

          • underisk@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            So you did read the part where I said that I’m not happy about the lesser courts being lifetime appointments? Why does it matter if the Supreme Court is part of the appellate court system? There are federal courts of appeal beneath the SC so idk how you think that’d be shifting more power into regional courts. And even if it did, so what? Breaking up concentrated sources of power is good, not bad.