Is it time to restore the Supreme Court to legitimacy?

Why is the supreme court so important for democracy in your opinion?

 

It sure is as many major problems inclduding mass shootings, curbing pollution/climate change are not possible with the right wing nuts who control. It is ridiculous to have to rely on the roulette wheel of lucky deaths of Thomas and the other nuts.
See a NYT Editorial on this

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/opinion/supreme-court-constitution.html

 

The right wingers Ozzie supports would be democratically outvoted on many of the issues dear to his heart. The S. Ct has throughout history has largely supported one minority -- the rich who views even ordinary Americans like Ozzie identify with thanks to most media.

 

that's just a moronic comment, honestly. looks like you need some civics education

 

Maybe that's because the forefather didn't take the time to define the Court in any detail and left it to Congress. Congress screw it all up! Time for Congress to fix their sh*t.

 

Fixing it requires a supermajority. Sabotage only takes a slim majority. Just sayin'.

 

It is ridiculous that 1/3 of the court is from a once elected President, that received heavy assistance from a foreign power, and still couldn't win a plurality of votes running against one of the most hated women in America.

 

How do you sabotage it (what does this even mean) with a slim majority?

 

Isn’t one of the key points of that book that the SC in large follows public consensus

Roe V Wade has been supported by the majority of Americans for a long time

 

not always, among other things he discusses school busing as an example where the Court went against the grain, and he is particularly critical of Roe

 

also you have to understand Rosen is a left-leaning scholar, he is arguing both that the Court is a democratic institution but he is also making the left-leaning normative argument that the Court should track with public opinion (for the most part). That's a different perspective obviously than, say, jurists who come out of the Federalist Society mold

 

this is a more direct response perhaps to your question--Rosen's book was aimed at the other guy

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/democracy/history.html

 

I can see why one could see it as beneficial, but key for a democracy, I still can’t.

I’m open to hear why you feel differently, if you have the time of care to share.

Edit- I’m not exactly explaining why I disagree just that I do. I don’t see how a body with the ability to strike laws that are supported (by whatever relative population) over a long period of time as being necessary or important for a democratic governance.

I can see one might like it or see it as beneficial, but that seems separate from the topic of democracy.

 

well, also again my comment that you responded to was aimed at "threats to democracy," rather than at the Supreme Court as a cornerstone of democracy, so to speak. But to the extent that an independent judiciary can serve as the ultimate check against government power (among the other things it can do, including upholding individual rights) makes it sort of the ultimate "pro-democracy" institution. It's the ultimate buck-stops-here place where citizens are protected from governmental overreach

 

also, if one looks to what might be called the founding document of "originalism" (I disagree with that label, but that's a separate issue for a different thread), Robert Bork's paper on the First Amendment, he does a nice job of stating what has been the underlying philosophical underpinning to conservative jurisprudence for the last 50+ years:

​

 

Repubs didn't win . .the Demos lost
The Demos gave the seats away
I have little faith they would not do the same again with an expanded S.C.
so no . ..leave it alone

Rocket River

 

related

Democrats Have Become A Serious Threat To The Republic

https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/27/democrats-have-become-a-serious-threat-to-the-republic/

 

The "Judges of Wisdom" and the "Mystical Aphorisms of the Fortune Cookie"
The Dobbs dissenters should have quoted that other passage from Justice Scalia about Justice Kennedy.

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/2...the-mystical-aphorisms-of-the-fortune-cookie/

excerpt:

We learn that Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter are "judges of wisdom." For evidence of this wisdom, let me quote from Casey.

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.​

I know that the joint dissenters are fond of quoting from Justice Scalia. His rebuke from Obergefell is apt:

If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: "The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity," I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.​

Casey did not exude "wisdom." Nor did it demonstrate judging for that matter. Casey demonstrated a political calculation of the worst sort--engage in blatant misreading of precedent, carve a new rule out of whole cloth, and hope things work out. Not much wisdom here. Perhaps, to borrow from Fifth Circuit lingo, they exhibited minor wisdom.

***
In my view, one of the most significant aspects of Dobbs is that we can move past the entire "stare decisis" and "legitimacy" debate. The Court did the deed. Roe is gone. The chips will fall where they may. The political process will work itself through. But the Justices themselves will no longer feel constrained by the Casey fiction that decisions must be made with regard to popular opinion. Courage "under fire" means ruling without regard to those public currents.
​

more at the link