416
Justice Neil Gorsuch took 10 minutes to approve Dobbs abortion opinion – report
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2023
416 points (98.6% liked)
News
23268 readers
2961 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Until the Supreme Court is completely overhauled, it's going to be extremely difficult to substantively change the heading of this country. Conservatives see this as a win, but they're too short-sighted to realize they shot themselves in the foot just the same.
We could also water it down, adding justices seems to be the only option since they don't/won't hold themselves accountable.
I'm no legal expert but I've always thought the randomized or rotating court idea (perhaps > 9) filled by lower circuit courts would be better and less partisan overall.
There are 13 circuit courts full of judges, all with their own lifetime appointments. I believe the proposed idea is that the current supreme court could be made up of random, rotating judges on temporary assignments from the 13 circuit courts. Currently, the 9 justices oversee one or more of the 13 circuits. So, we could expand the court to match the 13 circuits, and then, as justices retire/die, their replacements are randomly assigned to terms of 18-24 months from the circuits they oversee. It would still meet the constitutional requirements for the supreme court, as it only requires that there is a supreme Court made up of appointed justices in good standing.
I'm sure it's more complex than that, but those are the basics of the random appointments and rotating seated justices.
I've never heard of that option, but they're appointed too right? Not sure if that would fix it.
All of Canada's judges are appointed (which, iirc, isn't what happens in America).
It is rare to see any judge up here so politically partisan. Part of that may be that we repatriated our Constitution in 1982 (to formally acknowledge our independence from Britain) so judges are basing decisions on a newer document. The other thing is Canadian courts do not put "original intent" above all ... they consider the changes in society's mores and beliefs just as important.
Up here all judges abhor being reversed so work very hard to base their rulings on facts. I'm not sure if it's the same in America.
Who reverses them, do you have a Supreme Court type of system?
Yes, provincial and the Supreme Court of Canada (SCoC) ... just like America does (state/SCOTUS).
It looks like you're pretty similar, just not as corrupt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Canada#Current_members
They are but they tend to be constantly cycling out at a given time and so seem less concentrated or determined by individual presidents. They are also possibly subject to less lobbying targeting given which group presiding over a specific case would never be certain.