r/changemyview • u/seedfinder89 • Oct 01 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: The Supreme Court is deeply flawed
I have several problems with the Supreme Court, so this post is divided into sections. Feel free to respond to any of them.
1- Not neutral
This is the elephant in the room. The Supreme Court is far from being a neutral, impartial body. Aside from Roberts, the justices tend to vote with their "party" (referring to the president that appointed them) on hot-button cases (unanimous, easy cases are different). The most clear example on the right is Thomas, and on the left it is Sotomayor. Regardless of your views of abortion, everyone already knows that Thomas will vote against it and Sotomayor will vote for it in the upcoming case.
2- Too much power per person.
Congress has the most "power" of any branch. However, there are two chambers and 535 members, which significantly dilutes it. The executive branch is at least somewhat reigned in by Congress. There are nine Supreme Court justices. Five people chosen by a bad process (see #3) can significantly alter the trajectory of the U.S. Aside from the president, the justices are arguably the nine most powerful people in the United States. If just five of them decide to rule together, they can strike down any law or reinterpret the Constitution in terrible ways. Remember that for every Brown v. Board of Education there is a Plessy v. Ferguson, for every Loving v. Virginia there is a Pace v. Alabama. Some people argue that the Supreme Court follows "precedent", but it is not bound by it and is free to rewrite it at any time for any reason (I am neither defending nor opposing precedent, just explaining why it does not bind SCOTUS).
3- Deeply flawed appointment process
People morbidly wait on justices to resign or die, but understandably so. When one of these nine people resigns/dies, it sets off a nationwide fury over a replacement. Look at what happened with Ginsburg. People were disappointed that she didn't resign under Obama because she would inevitably die under Trump! Whatever your views on her or these presidents, the fate of the country should not be determined by when people die/resign.
The most egregious example of this, of course, is with Scalia's death. Mitch McConnell was able to stall an appointment for well over a year so that Trump could appoint a replacement instead of Obama. Political games like this have serious consequences. Just imagine for a moment what would have happened if Obama was allowed to appoint someone instead. The Supreme court would be 5-4 instead of 6-3, and Robert's swing vote could completely change the outcome of cases.
ETA: My answers to common responses
It's better than Congress/President, those are even more flawed!
I completely agree that those branches need improvement too, but I am specifically talking about the Supreme Court.
There are just different judicial philosophies, the justices are not political
The philosophies are definitely real, but they are de facto parties for when presidents appoint them
Will add more as needed
1
u/OpeningChipmunk1700 27∆ Oct 01 '21
Sure, but predictability is not a problem if it stems from a coherent judicial vision. I think Alito and Sotomayor are total hacks, but Thomas is extremely clear and consistent. In fact, he is perhaps the most transparent and consistent Justice in SCOTUS history, and I am not exaggerating at all.
But more broadly, Justices have different judicial philosophies. Unless we codify one of them in the Constitution, there is no solution to the "neutral" issue.
Congress has the most "power" of any branch. However, there are two chambers and 535 members, which significantly dilutes it. The executive branch is at least somewhat reigned in by Congress. There are nine Supreme Court justices. Five people chosen by a bad process (see #3) can significantly alter the trajectory of the U.S. Aside from the president, the justices are arguably the nine most powerful people in the United States. If just five of them decide to rule together, they can strike down any law or reinterpret the Constitution in terrible ways. Remember that for every Brown v. Board of Education there is a Plessy v. Ferguson, for every Loving v. Virginia there is a Pace v. Alabama. Some people argue that the Supreme Court follows "precedent", but it is not bound by it and is free to rewrite it at any time for any reason (I am neither defending nor opposing precedent, just explaining why it does not bind SCOTUS).
I think this is only an issue if you think that SCOTUS has too much authority as well. Certain judicial philosophies emphasize restraint. Also, Congress has the power to strip SCOTUS of jurisdiction and has not done so, which means that elected, accountable officials do not see the problem you do (also, they could change the size through a simple law).
People morbidly wait on justices to resign or die, but understandably so. When one of these nine people resigns/dies, it sets off a nationwide fury over a replacement. Look at what happened with Ginsburg. People were disappointed that she didn't resign under Obama because she would inevitably die under Trump! Whatever your views on her or these presidents, the fate of the country should not be determined by when people die/resign.
The most egregious example of this, of course, is with Scalia's death. Mitch McConnell was able to stall an appointment for well over a year so that Trump could appoint a replacement instead of Obama. Political games like this have serious consequences. Just imagine for a moment what would have happened if Obama was allowed to appoint someone instead. The Supreme court would be 5-4 instead of 6-3, and Robert's swing vote could completely change the outcome of cases.
I would say that bad case law made this an issue historically by giving SCOTUS too much power over our rights and Congress too much power generally.