Unfortunately, most of political partisans don't know anything on their own, all they actually know is what they've been told to be mad about this week.
The courts, particularly at the federal level, are structurally an undemocratic system. You have people who have been appointed as judges, and in the case of the supreme Court they can stay there as long as they like. It is designed this way because you don't want the law interpreted based solely on which decision is going to win you the most votes in the next election, you want the law interpreted based on what is right. Now that doesn't always happen, you have partisanship in the courts, but the key here is that fundamentally the judiciary is undemocratic by design. As a result of that, except in extreme cases, that undemocratic system tries to keep its fingers out of the democratic systems for of governance such as elections for president and the Congress.
The Democrats still complain to this day about the supreme Court stepping in over the 2000 election, and all of us can only imagine what the last 4 years would ha
... Show more...
Unfortunately, most of political partisans don't know anything on their own, all they actually know is what they've been told to be mad about this week.
The courts, particularly at the federal level, are structurally an undemocratic system. You have people who have been appointed as judges, and in the case of the supreme Court they can stay there as long as they like. It is designed this way because you don't want the law interpreted based solely on which decision is going to win you the most votes in the next election, you want the law interpreted based on what is right. Now that doesn't always happen, you have partisanship in the courts, but the key here is that fundamentally the judiciary is undemocratic by design. As a result of that, except in extreme cases, that undemocratic system tries to keep its fingers out of the democratic systems for of governance such as elections for president and the Congress.
The Democrats still complain to this day about the supreme Court stepping in over the 2000 election, and all of us can only imagine what the last 4 years would have been like if they had stepped in to overturn the 2020 election in the same way that they are calling upon the supreme Court to overturn the 2024 election.
Let's imagine if these roles were completely reversed, and the Florida State Court found that Kamala Harris had mislabeled the line on an accounting document making her a felon and so the supreme Court stepped in and decided not to allow her to be president (and let's assume she won the election for this hypothetical) -- it would of course go down in history as the greatest Injustice in American history, and rightfully so!
The thing is, what a lot of partisans don't realize is the supreme Court has to think this way because every judgment that they make can and will be used against them. That's one of the reasons why you can have a split court with so many unanimous decisions in the past year, because at the end of the day what is right for everyone more or less stays the same.
volkris
in reply to RememberUsAlways • • •Well right, because it's not the role of the SCOTUS to address that in the US system.
Folks worried about this should have elected different representatives to Congress. THAT's where this could have been addressed properly.
sj_zero
in reply to volkris • • •Unfortunately, most of political partisans don't know anything on their own, all they actually know is what they've been told to be mad about this week.
The courts, particularly at the federal level, are structurally an undemocratic system. You have people who have been appointed as judges, and in the case of the supreme Court they can stay there as long as they like. It is designed this way because you don't want the law interpreted based solely on which decision is going to win you the most votes in the next election, you want the law interpreted based on what is right. Now that doesn't always happen, you have partisanship in the courts, but the key here is that fundamentally the judiciary is undemocratic by design. As a result of that, except in extreme cases, that undemocratic system tries to keep its fingers out of the democratic systems for of governance such as elections for president and the Congress.
The Democrats still complain to this day about the supreme Court stepping in over the 2000 election, and all of us can only imagine what the last 4 years would ha
... Show more...Unfortunately, most of political partisans don't know anything on their own, all they actually know is what they've been told to be mad about this week.
The courts, particularly at the federal level, are structurally an undemocratic system. You have people who have been appointed as judges, and in the case of the supreme Court they can stay there as long as they like. It is designed this way because you don't want the law interpreted based solely on which decision is going to win you the most votes in the next election, you want the law interpreted based on what is right. Now that doesn't always happen, you have partisanship in the courts, but the key here is that fundamentally the judiciary is undemocratic by design. As a result of that, except in extreme cases, that undemocratic system tries to keep its fingers out of the democratic systems for of governance such as elections for president and the Congress.
The Democrats still complain to this day about the supreme Court stepping in over the 2000 election, and all of us can only imagine what the last 4 years would have been like if they had stepped in to overturn the 2020 election in the same way that they are calling upon the supreme Court to overturn the 2024 election.
Let's imagine if these roles were completely reversed, and the Florida State Court found that Kamala Harris had mislabeled the line on an accounting document making her a felon and so the supreme Court stepped in and decided not to allow her to be president (and let's assume she won the election for this hypothetical) -- it would of course go down in history as the greatest Injustice in American history, and rightfully so!
The thing is, what a lot of partisans don't realize is the supreme Court has to think this way because every judgment that they make can and will be used against them. That's one of the reasons why you can have a split court with so many unanimous decisions in the past year, because at the end of the day what is right for everyone more or less stays the same.
volkris
in reply to sj_zero • • •I don't know why you went on at length about the courts in response to my pointing out that the courts aren't relevant to this in the US system.
@RememberUsAlways
RememberUsAlways
in reply to volkris • • •@volkris
This thread is a reference to Trump and Republicans crying to SCOTUS at every opportunity they can't accept the outcome.
volkris
in reply to RememberUsAlways • • •aaaah, I see.
Elsewhere I mostly see Democrats crying about the courts not stepping in, so that's why I interpreted it that way.
But yeah, both sides are barking up the wrong tree there.