Recent polling released by NBC News shows that only 22% of Americans have confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court. In the wake of that growing unpopularity, a new proposal in Congress would amend the Constitution to impose 18-year term limits on Supreme Court justices. Democratic Rep. Johnny Olszewski of Maryland joins "The Takeout" to discuss.
Literally the entire Senate. How many more hands are you asking for?
This is just the EU. Which… has plenty of its own problems.
Only a simple majority of the Senate, so 51 people. How about 2/3 instead? Would 67 people be too much to ask, do you think?
You’re just describing the filibuster.
Personally, I view it as an iterative improvement over the EU, and I am of the mind that the EU is much better than the US of today.
As to hands: rather than all the palms, it is more about separating them. Each region has its own judiciary, congress, and executive. These three branches place justices onto the national court. 2 judiciary, 2 congressional, and the current president appoints a justice to represent them during their administration. The next president’s chosen justice replaces the previous president’s pick.
This combined with the concept of regions, makes it much harder for any one voice to dominate the national court. Add in term and age limits to further prevent the consolidation of power and corruption.
I would not have said that ten years ago, when Obama was President of the US and Berlusconi was PM of Italy. I doubt anyone will be saying that in the UK, once Keir Starmer hands the gavel over to Nigel Farrage or in France when Emmanuel Macron concedes defeat to Marie LePenn.
Nothing in this plan prevents the current composition of court judges from being seated.
The court already consists of nine supreme court justices. While I’m all for court-packing, I still don’t see anyone explaining why the next four or eight or fifty SCOTUS judges won’t all be Federalist Society hacks of ACB caliber.
Why do I want Texas, Florida, Idaho, and Maine to have a louder voice in dictating who issues the final decision on the interpretation of legal statutes? How does regionalization help, when so many regions in the US fucking suck shit.
By “region”, I mean the continental US divided into three huge territories, with the fourth region being comprised of exterior holdings like Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, military bases, embassies, and so forth. That fourth territory is basically a diplomatic and trade master of the union, to help compensate for the lack of physical land.
The purpose of the national court, congress, and executive is to coordinate the things that the regions agree on, such as the highway system, weather stations, sharing disaster teams, free movement of citizens, ect. Anything they can’t really agree on, such as some laws, are restrained to their own territories. Once a law or the like has become well established, the national bodies may formalize it into a general rule for the nation.
Each region essentially becomes a laboratory of sorts, where rights, policies, and implementation can be demonstrated. If a region is much improved by an idea, the other regions would want to adopt them in order to remain relevant. People will move away from badly governed regions, draining those places of influence. That in turn gives regions incentives to compete.
0000
Anyhow, as to why Florida and company should have a voice: Because they are people, and the people within those places will change. California was once a place of Native Americans, the Spanish, then Mexicans, now Americans, and may become something different in the future.
Considering that Florida is home to many aged boomers, it is pretty likely that they will begin keeling over at some point. That will be a major source of change in the types of Floridians who live there.