Legal Scholar Says Supreme Court Could Become a “Pointless Institution” | Amanpour and Company
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 พ.ค. 2024
- Growing numbers of Americans no longer trust the Supreme Court, and Stephen Vladeck argues that part of the reason is the rise of the so-called “shadow docket.” This refers to cases that are decided quickly, without written opinions or oral arguments. In his new book, Vladeck traces the transformation of the Supreme Court. He explains all to Hari Sreenivasan.
Originally aired on May 17, 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major support for Amanpour and Company is provided by the Anderson Family Charitable Fund, Sue and Edgar Wachenheim, III, Candace King Weir, Jim Attwood and Leslie Williams, Mark J. Blechner, Bernard and Denise Schwartz, Koo and Patricia Yuen, the Leila and Mickey Straus Family Charitable Trust, Barbara Hope Zuckerberg, Jeffrey Katz and Beth Rogers, the Filomen M. D’Agostino Foundation and Mutual of America.
Subscribe to the Amanpour and Company. channel here: bit.ly/2EMIkTJ
Subscribe to our daily newsletter to find out who's on each night: www.pbs.org/wnet/amanpour-and-...
For more from Amanpour and Company, including full episodes, click here: to.pbs.org/2NBFpjf
Like Amanpour and Company on Facebook: bit.ly/2HNx3EF
Follow Amanpour and Company on Twitter: bit.ly/2HLpjTI
Watch Amanpour and Company weekdays on PBS (check local listings).
Amanpour and Company features wide-ranging, in-depth conversations with global thought leaders and cultural influencers on the issues and trends impacting the world each day, from politics, business and technology to arts, science and sports. Christiane Amanpour leads the conversation on global and domestic news from London with contributions by prominent journalists Walter Isaacson, Michel Martin, Alicia Menendez and Hari Sreenivasan from the Tisch WNET Studios at Lincoln Center in New York City.
#amanpourpbs
Not only shadow docket, but evidence of bribes & other corruption by justices have also undermined confidence in SCOTUS.
True, but that's so insignificant compared to what is being discussed here. And, like everything that media stuffs down our craws it's ginned up and all the indignation and outrage is built in to the reporting -- what effect have any "bribes" made on decisions? No one cares -- people just love the hot gossip; they love to point fingers at other people and act holier than thou. It would be funny if all the finger pointers were actually of higher character than those who are being pointed at..
Scotus is corrupt. Thank you for further shining a light in this disgusting darkness.
The USA is run by 2 wings of a Corporate Party (Chomsky) Dems vs. Repubs
Why do Humans THINK there will be any worthwhile Legislation from a Corporate focus?
I think you missed the points...
It was observed more than a hundred years ago that the Supreme Court trends to follow the election returns. That has been true since the Constitution went into effect.
Honestly I see no reason at this point why the States or even ordinary people who should obey the SCOTUS. Congressional staff don't, so why should we?
The fascists of SCOTUS are just there to throw a monkey wrench into the federal government in the first place, the are just doing their job hobble this system.
SCOTUS is supposed to promote reason not treason
It's the best court that money can buy. Just as Uncle Tom.
Oh, very catchy! But nothing to do with reason.
@@SeattlePioneer Professor Pound has recently designated the stage in the development of law that follows upon
and corrects many of the abuses of the stage of strict law as that of equity or natural law. He says: "The capital
ideas of the stage of equity or natural law are the identification of law with morals; the conception of duty and the attempt to make moral duties into legal duties, and reliance
upon reason rather than upon arbitrary rule to keep down caprice and eliminate the personal element in the administration of justice." This appears to reinforce the importance of reason in law & judgment.
Good one!
The wife of Clarence Thomas supported the overthrow of our government.
It became pointless when it decided Bush v Gore. It became a joke when McConnell didn't allow Obama his nomination. Itis purely political now.
It showed itself to be corrupt with Bush v Gore.
It became pointless when it decided Dred Scott v. Sandford. Is your real name Rip Van Winkle?
At least in that instance the chief "justice" in question faced accountability.
Scalia picked dubya shrub for president. Just took one vote to deny election for gore. Millions of votes just theatre in this fake government. Mission accomplished. This is murica
Absolutely.
If they can't read income disclosure forms.. I can't trust their opinions about legal matters.
Brilliant
Mmmm
No transparency equates to no accountability. So much reform is needed. Corrupt, unethical and unjust.
We are witnessing the folly of lifetime appointments without any recourse for violations of ethics and laws. This is one of the foremost problems in this country.
The problems with the SCOTUS today is equal in being as problematic as the 5 reichwing sociopaths in 2010 in a case called Citizens United that decided, "Money is speech."
Personally I'd favor judicial appointments for a term of, say, ten years. Renewable if reconfirmed by the Senate.
But it's not a serious issue among Republicans or Democrats. Until it is, you can moan, groan and complain about it, but nothing will be done.
I'm not expert but what this guy said is spot on. The Justices have lost all credibility when we can't trust their judgement.
In my opinion they are part of a dangerous religious cult.
I, too, have lost trust in our judicial system. Equally distressing is the number of people who have also lost trust. If I had the money I would do something about it, but I don't and it takes money to make changes in our government.
i am not sure you heard what he said...
But no USA Citizen believed it when Dred Scott said it.
Credibility? Hilarious 😅
McConnell's shenanigans regarding filling seats is another factor undermining trust in the court
What does McConnell and Dump
& Ron DeathSentence & the domestic terrorists holding our country hostage & the 5 jurors on SCOTUS all have in common?
They are all reichwing fascists.
This is the seed Raygun planted over 40 years ago.
Now, they are letting their freak fascist flag fly!
Exactly right
Ever since he did that, I have considered the court to be illegitimate.
@@musicloverme3993 The court became illegitimate, when Ted Kennedy denied Ronald Reagan´s nominee Robert Bork a place at the Supreme Court.
The towering arrogance of Alito, Thomas and Roberts is truly infuriating.
Arrogance and malice.
they are evil incarnate
same with kavanaugh, gorsuch and the catholic cult member
I AGREE. Absolute arrogance, Absolutely UNFOUNDED !!!
The vast majority of judges are are quit narcissistic.
@@mdlmomma9167 A manifestation of the anti-Christ.
A Supreme Court Justice's job is to rule on laws based on only the Constitution. Not based on their personal beliefs, their religious beliefs or deposits into their bank accounts. Our current Supreme Court has failed miserably on all counts!
Are you 3 years old ? What is it with you dimwits who post this childish tripe about what people are supposed to do in a perfect world ... we dont live in some perfect world where crooks and judges all do whats right and ethical .... in the REAL WORLD Crooks and bought out judges have always done everything to fill their pockets .... so instead of acting like some 3 year old infant how about just saying they are bought out crooks on the court and we need to find some way to replace them .... talking about how they should act is as childish as you can get.
We have to be honest, both sides uses their biases & beliefs to craft their legal decisions based on their prior beliefs, as well as sometimes public opinions. Law is an intellectual exercise to scour historical legal documents to justify your opinions. It’s always been political & always will be, so let’s stop buying into the charade. The shocking thing is that many of their recent rulings clearly have no logical consistency, or reason that’s how you know they’re complete b.s.
To be clear, I think their recent decisions are an abomination.
@@jankelsey9738 Don't play both sides games ... on the Liberal side you have decent people ruling in favor of creating a better country for its citizens ... on the conservative side you have big business religious zealots who do their best to take away rights from Americans in order to make their big business backers happy ... there is simply no comparison ... and of course every human being is biased , but you have good biases and bad ones so stop the both sides do it garbage .
Dred Scott decision proves that.
@@wadestanton As well as many other historical rulings. Liberal minded people need to stop simply believing in an institution for the sake of institutionalism, instead of objectively seeing these institutions for what they are…which are elements to exercise power.
Essentially, the Roberts Court response is, 'We don't owe the American people a bloody explanation for anything that we decide.'
They do seem to believe that, and yet we pay their salaries. We are their bosses.
The Sotomayor/Jackson court you mean.
@@spir5102 I pay for the illegals. Do I get to boss them around?
@@imperialmotoring3789 What a stupid comment.
@@imperialmotoring3789 Yes, Sotomayor's statements about Jackson, were so disappointing. It's as if she beleives being a nice person socially makes up for the atrocious damage he's done to the American people.
I have lost respect for all three branches of the government. I have no respect for the Supreme Court since the Citizens United decision.
You are literally the problem, I mean, for how long was your brain oxygen deprived?
You really should seek medical assistance and reevaluate your contribution to the human race.
In mechanical logic, such as an aircraft speed pitot, three systems exist to cross-check each other. If one's faulty, it stands out.
You could apply the same here. If two branches concur the third is adrift, then they should be able to replace the faulty components.
They have gone through this since Marbery vs Madison
@@georgesheffield1580 It's a good reason to recognise the original Constitution is in dire need of updating.
After the recent hearing on blanket immunity it's now publicly known by his own words that Alito's primary concern is not with insuring the nation's domestic tranquility but with the hypothetical of accomodating 'an' outgoing president to "peacefully retire and engage in other activities"
Absolutely. I'm even more impressed with Vladeck. The institution is utterly corrupted, unfortunately.
Agree 💯
The motto of the absolute Bourbon kings of France was, “never apologise, never explain!” The Supreme Court appears to have adopted the same motto.😊
I’ve lost all respect for the SC which is sad day for me. In the last few years my eyes have really been opened and it’s shattering to see how truly corrupt our govt is. We elect completely easily manipulated unqualified personalities to run the country. We allow mad men/women to dictate our rights.
Do you want anarchy?
Damn it at least impeach all justices who committed perjury to congress!!!
First prove they committed perjury
@@jwil4286 video on file!
Starting with Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Lifetime appointments, no mandatory age based retirement and no oversight is a recipe for complete disaster.
When you give 9 people absolute power and authority they no longer believe that they are pubic servants. This Supreme Court thinks that they are all kings and that we, the American public, should defer to our "betters".
I agree with you, they think they have unchecked power and authority to decide how we are going to live our lives. It needs to stop.
Agree also
Not all justices are so mercenary. We have had great legal minds with ethics and dignity. But they are mostly gone. Sotomayor seems to be a measured liberal judge. Even Roberts has sided with liberal justices, and vice versa. But Thomas is a hack and a grifting MAGA clown. Alito is completely partisan.
Especially "King" Sonia Sotomayor and "King" Ketanji Brown Jackson, who think that their personal opinion matters more than the actual text of the constitution.
SCOTUS IS POINTLESS ALREADY
The USA is run by 2 wings of a Corporate Party (Chomsky) Dems vs. Repubs
Why do Humans THINK there will be any worthwhile Legislation from a Corporate focus?
And a literal laughingstock.
I think many people are feeling the sharp point of their recent rulings.
No , actually it’s a major risk to our liberty
Yeah, right. As soon as the demokkkrats do not longer win every case at the Supreme Court, it becomes a pointless institution. 😂
The Supreme Court has no independent enforcement mechanism. If other branches of government decide to ignore its decisions, there is nothing that the Supreme Court can do about it. All that it would take would be for other branches of government to determine that Marbury vs. Madison was incorrectly decided, and the Supreme Court would be neutralized. This is a scary prospect, as we need a strong check on the legislative and executive branches, and especially on state governments, which are capable of the greatest evils. However, we need actual judges on the Supreme Court, but we currently have extremist priests masquerading as judges, and they need to be removed. The institution as it now stands is illegitimate.
Nailed it, "extremist priests masquerading as judges" is exactly what they are. It is a vast, right wing American religious cult bent on taking over our government using any kind of corrupt dirty trick or evil method. That strategy works OK as long as it is kept secret, but their cult has a big "metoo" type problem; sexual abuse is one of their basic values. That won't age well.
You are missing the point that logically the supreme court has power - marbury is just an example of that power and an example that is self referential. You might want to consider that what you think are extremist views are the middle of the road for most people... If the supreme court is illegitimate why don't we see you defying their orders?
@@tvviewer4500 The answer is we are defying the court by protesting their abuse of power !
No checks and balances to or for SCOTUS .
Absolutely.
This guest is outstanding! Knowledgable, articulate and fair minded.
Exactly. His point is not that they are wrong but that there is no explanation of the rationale behind the shadow docket decisions.
There is nothing in the constitution that gives the Supreme Court the power it claims to have.
guess it helps when you are the one to interpret the document.... totally ridiculous place the religious right have taken us...
@@Ryan-Fkrepublicnz It does bear a resemblance to "the word of God is the word of God because the word of God says it's the word of God"
@@Ryan-Fkrepublicnz religious reich....
@@cosmosofinfinity exactly.
@@Ryan-Fkrepublicnz Yeah, right. As soon as the demokkkrats do not longer win every case at the Supreme Court, it becomes a pointless institution. 😂
Nobody respects the court anymore. How could we?
Mmmmmm
I regained respect for the Supreme Court, when it decided Dobbs in 2022.
There will be a reckoning eventually because we can't go on accepting decisions the the court makes under this cloud of deceit and denial.
I'm looking forward to RFK Jr's comments on the topic. He has been hitting home runs on lots of issues.
"Could become pointless?" It is already there!
One would think the judges on the supreme court should be the wisest, finest and most impartial in the land, not swayed by bribes, politics or religion, and keen that their decisions are explained to the public in layman terms. Instead we seem to have a growing collection of third rate people, full of themselves, appointed to the bench. What a disgrace.
- third rate people who are full of themselves -
This description applies to many people now in Congress.
Young people who are not personality-disordered ignore politics, they don't even vote, let alone run for office.
They are born rich except Thomas who figured out how to get rich with Crow. They are too out of touch with American humans.
That’s what happen when you put known rapist in the Supreme Court ,we have two of them in there !
Judges should not be political appointees.
But what is better? Elections? Just look at Congress and it's easy to see what electing Justices would be even worse.
If they are, no President should be allowed to seat more than one justice per term. Trump getting three in in just four years is bull hockey!
You should get started proposing an amendment to the constitution right away!
Scandalous !!! how this institution still operates is beyond me
It operates exactly as it's now intended to act -- at the behest of its right wing owners.
I feel the same way about the Electoral College and the Senate. They are outdated institutions meant to protect the interests of slave holders. They should have been abolished decades ago. They are distinctly anti-democratic institutions and have no place in a free and fair society.
How it operates? With reichwing billionaires money. That's how.
It has already become that with the inept Republican lapdog judges!
Ever since inept Democrat lapdog judges decided Dred Scott.
@@wadestanton More of your delusional Republitard fantasies. Pathetic.
It be time for Congress to prohibit The Shadow Docket.
Except in cases of stays of execution. I think that still warrants merit.
the Gore vs Bush decision was a deciding moment that blatantly showed how partisan the court is.
Congress should stop funding the Supreme Court if the judges want to be non accountable to the checks and balances.
I like that, but somehow I doubt they have the willpower.
Apparently SCOTUS is being funded by others already. I have lost ALL my trust in anything it says.
Congress extremists are favoring SCOTUS desicions. They won't support ethics clarification
The constitution prohibits reducing the salaries of judges. It says so in so many words.
I'm afraid you demonstrates a lack of any understanding of the constitution -----or the subject you discuss.
Keep studying up, though.
Congress can impeach them…
Thank you, Prof. Vladeck! The selection of small numbers of cases referred to it alone is a strong reason for large expansion of the court and for overhauling its operations.
Not necessarily. Combattive parties often think the lower decisions are immaterial, they can keep climbing the tree until they have their way. In practice, starting from a presumption of innocence, the First Level Court's decision stands. Only the guilty need appeal, but they miss one thing, that they now have the onus of proving their innocence from the starting point of their proven guilt. If that's lost, then two courts concur and the guilt is established. But what if an important aspect of the wider Law has been disregarded, for example the opening presumption of innocence has been flouted in some good-ole-boy backwards courthouse such as that involved in the Murdauch case? "Save the judge's time, just hang the varmint" lynchings, as an extreme case? That's the job of the Supreme Court.
@@JelMain Not necessarily, but possibly, most likely probably. There have been 9 justices since 1869, when there were still thirteen states yet to be admitted to the union and the population (in the 1870 census) was 38.6 million, approximately 11% of our current population. Most of us would probably believe that today's society is more litigious than in the past, but that would need statistical studies, as would the prevalence of criminal cases, but it is entirely unreasonable to believe that the present load is not immensely greater than in 1869. The court are responsible for more than just hearing the cases brought before the full court, the individual justices having oversight duties of the judicial districts throughout the nation, 94 such districts contained within 12 regional circuits.
No doubt such discussion is moot anyway, as the whole issue of the Supreme Court's composition and size is now so poisoned by rabid partisanship that significant reform is not likely except as a winner's flag planting after securing unassailable control of the Executive and Congress.
@@frereM As a legist appointed by another Supreme Court, your Constitution is in dire need of an upgrade anyway, the cultural foundations on which it was built having long ago changed. Your explanation is an example of this: those tasks are a dangerous divergence from the tasks set.
It is not the population which creates the onus, but the corpus of laws, creating gaps and distortions the malign exploit.
You know who should have over sight of all government activities? The ppl who pay for it. Us!!!!
Good! Get rid of this corrupt court!! Most of these fools are there illegally! .. ALL conservatives need to go!
One can see that YOU are obviously the balanced voice of reason, lol 🙄
Add more justices. Some of integrity not chosen for their far right religious beliefs so we can get some balance. Federalist society should not be the selection process with McConnel etc.
@@lyndamedley543 To some degree, you can thank Harry Reid for the lack of moderate justice candidates at all levels. Previously, the 60 Senate vote req't (to avoid filibuster) usually meant those chosen had to appeal to some on the other side. (Of course in 2020 Dems then wanted to get rid of the filibuster 'cuz they hadn't learned their lesson "Going Nuclear" on justice approvals.)
Great interview. Important subject. I would like to see this interview on the PBS Newshour to reach a broader, more mainstream audience.
From the viewpoint of a citizen who has, for over 60 years, taken am interest in the workings of his government, this court *_STRONGLY_* appears to have been appointed by subterfuge and is not "conservative", but rather it was obviously hired to slavishly serve the oligarchy and religious extremists. It has worked hard to kill it's own legitimacy and it's work has paid off.
Yes indeed
Dominionism and corporate interests run this country today. As soon as Roe v Wade in 1973, I knew that the men in power would do everything to erode this access along with stymying any further progress. Young women seem to think that we have equal rights. ERA or an amendment never passed. And that is just one issue. We lost strong unions, small businesses, and are now enslaved by Walmart, McDonalds, Lowe's below living wages, a service economy. Corporations in Fortune 500 pay net zero taxes while making record profits. What the hell is wrong with people? They have no idea what government is all about, scary.
The Alito/Thomas/Roberts fast-food approach to jurisprudence. The death of transparency.
Thank you for an amazingly clear explanation of how the justices should work. This should be required ready by every member of Congress & the Supreme Court justices!
As eloquent, coherent, pithy, and convincing an explanation as I’ve ever heard. 🎉
Excellent! Thank you Professor Vladeck.
When the Justice goes back to a witch burning precedent, it's time to re-evaluate that Justice. The whole Supreme Court should be investigated. Alito and Thomas must be impeached.
Not enough judges to rule without one sentence orders in the shadows?
What a great reason to increase the number of judges! 13 or 18 comes to mind.
an even number?
@@certiorari We worked with 8 for two years.
“Politicians in robes” is an apt description of the Robert’s court.
Way to make a confession of just what the court is up to and why they are doing what they do - the court has been stacked by Christian conservative judges by the republicans, the Federalist Society and dark money. Thank Justice Alito, you were way off base with your 16th century defence of overturning Roe, but, I just have to say your current assessment of the state of the court is bang on! Thanks again!
It’s the best Court that money could buy…
Dred Scott said that.
Amen! The corporate influence, no corporate buyout and corruption have scuttled any chance of our 3 branches representing us, "We, the people". Now it's the highest bidder in The WH, Congress and the SC. Cui bono?
Brilliant report !! Presented so well .👌💪
In other words, they do politics not justice. Very interesting interview.
Really worried about the ICWA case, that was written to preserve, protect and honor Native American children by keeping foster and adoptive children with Native families to preserve all the things the government had banned for hundreds of years, language, traditions, culture, religion, dances, ceremonies, family ties, oral history. Paxten in Texas filed on behalf of a white Christian family that doesn't like Native American spirituality vs. religion.
Native American spirituality is a type of religion. To argue it is not is to argue that Native Americans are not humans, but some other kind of animal that only looks like a human. Every human group has some kind of religion. Some of them are more spiritual, some are more about rules, gods or rituals. It is practicing eugenics to claim that the Native American religions do not exist.
Haven't Native Americans suffered enough...is brutally to be our national policy.
@@kindGSL Natives weren't allowed to practice our religions until, 1978 because they are not Christian religions. Our church is the outdoors/environment and are sacred spaces. there is no organized "religion" per say, but spirituality where we see life in all things and all things are connected and given to us by our creator (God) to preserve, protect ad care for. I practice both Native religion and Catholicism. Pope Jon Paul was the first, to see the connection between the two and allowed simultaneous practice. The Texas case was filed because they are Christians and think they know better. Just like the forced Indian schools (last closed 1996) designed to wipe out the core of the Indian. I am Native and practice both.
@@kindGSL religion doesn't make you human it makes you a brainwashed fool
Thank you for this explanation! Well done!
As a criminal defense attorney who recently conducted a voir dire in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, in a carrying a conceal gun case, I found the jury panel of 28 overwhelmingly against the U.S. Supreme Court's gun decisions. Maybe three were strong 2nd amendment supports. Jurors were smart about this topic. One person viewed the 2nd Amendment as providing rights to bear arms when it comes to militias, but not when it came to a personal right. What if people could possess arms within a militia, where guns were stored in armories for people who from time to time could go and shoot their guns at a range and then return their guns to the armory. The militias would have rules to follow but they would be private and licensed organizations and where people knew one another and where gun safety could be emphasized. People would be required to place their guns in these armories when they would join their own militia, or sell them to a militia or to the government or have them destroyed. Our community is being destroyed based upon flawed reasoning by a few men on the United States Supreme Court. I am sick and tired of hearing about children being shot and children shooting people with guns they get on the street, from friends, from their parents and others.
I think it's Switzerland that does not allow the sale of ammunition. You have to buy it from a gun club at a range or event, and all unused ammo has to be surrendered. But, military service is compulsory for every Swiss.
But...if they have to explain their decisions, it will be harder to claim they weren't bribed.
mmmm
It may be irrational to beleive the powers that appointed the majority of this court are even interested in maintaining a constitutional system.
It’s basically a monarchy. Something we thought we left behind in England.
I see it as a political takeover by an anti-Christ religious cult.
not even close to a monarchy...
Kangaroo court.
Fascism
PBS is now kicking ass with these great anchors. Well done!
We're way past the justices wanting anyone wanting to know why they make their decisions. They are drunk with power.
When you say drunk with power...
It definitely appears to me that they're testing limits - like a toddler or a sociopath.
- What else can I get away with?
when the court decided bush v gore...it was the beginning of the end
President Gore would have been a much better timeline.
It was a planned takeover.
when the court decided Dred Scott v. Sandford... it was the beginning of the end.
@@wadestanton
You really need to go away.
@@avishevin1976 are you the YT police?
Very interesting interview, thank you both very much for providing such clarity.
This conversation is worth revisiting today, March 4, 2024, in regard to the legitimacy of the Court when they've handed down their Section 3 ruling and are slow-walking the immunity claim to delay justice before the general election. It is appalling how political the Court has become.
-What an extremely interesting and thoroughly informed guest and scholar.
-RS. Canada
Because I don't have any hope for America's Future, I'm trying to leave the US for Canada. I'm working very hard to try and get a Canadian Job offer. That said. Due to what's happened the last few years, we know the impeachment and conviction system doesn't work.
It all goes back to elections. We need publicly funded federal elections, and then ban private contributions higher than $5 per person, per candidate, per election, and ban outright dark money and anyone not an individual (no, corporations are not people as the Court has ruled). Ban all paid lobbyists. Set term limits for Congress and SCOTUS. If we did those things, it would be a game changer. But the Court would have to reverse its Citizens United ruling and Congress would have to change the laws about elections and term limits, and neither one has the balls to do it. So, here we are.
It can only work when you have decent, moral people in the government. Republicans and some others drank the MAGA kool-aid. They have no respect for the law, the constitution or American values.
How do they get away with this without the people in the US attacking them? Corruption is just allowed to go unchecked?
Because US Citizens celebrated the Dred Scott decision. US Citizens love a corrupt court if it harms black people.
You can remove the question mark, its now a statement of fact.
@@writerconsidered
I don't know. I just look back to how our country was founded and then look at other nations and think to myself: "What sets America apart is that we fought for our independence, our freedom, our way of government, our social security, and our proper government". By hastily answering yes, you're suggesting that Americans will follow in the cowardly footsteps of the Russian militaries. I feel like if this continue, average citizens will absolutely organize and rise up. We have a very strong counter-culture. I think it's been very flaccid way too often, but the corruption and the gerrymandering, especially after the abortion thing? I think at some point people are going to get into partisanship (civil/domestic anti-government combat). The same way Epstein was slain, most likely by some good-hearted prisoner, I can't imagine the Chief Justices not meeting their end(s) if they don't quickly straighten up and make things right.
@@writerconsidered eventually the sense of shame conflicts so dissonantly with the sense of righteous patriotism that you have to be willing to lay it all on the line to be sure that things are set right. Checks and balances amongst three coequal sections of government: this is very cogent and to any soundly thinking adult, irrefutable. They need to start making major concessions. If they continue to act as-if, you have to stop and say to yourself, "They don't have a military."
Of course, the time to act is now. I mean we can't give them two weeks. They keep doing more and more irreversible damage. Is it just a poison pill to really eviscerate any white supremacist and totalitarian sympathy? Because I don't think so. I see an 8:1 minority voter advantage in some states due to gerrymandering, and only about 15% of people are convinced to have a violent worldview to the extent that no amount of evidence can convince them to change. Because 8:1>15%, I feel they're actually trying to permanently consolidate power as bipartisan. But bipartisanism is absolutely against our national philosophy. Even George Washington stated to avoid bipartisanism. I don't think we can wait until it's too late and see a Trump presidency and a red house and red congress. If everything is minority rule, it will require too much aggression to turn the tables back. So either they need to change now, or we need to start seeing real, physically imposing action by ordinary citizens.
Most countries have some kind of neutral body controlling or mediating appointments to the judiciary. There’s no reason the American Bar Association can’t do that job. They already assess and rate all nominees to federal courts. That’s how we know Barrett is Unqualified. The ABA could be asked to establish a floating committee of many senior members with relevant experience. When a position comes open, randomly pull a subset of the members, maybe about 10, who will produce a short list of qualified candidates, say 15. The President can then choose any candidate from the list.
It is a nice thought but, if such a system was implemented, the Republicans would just infect the ABA or try to ensure that more right-wing leaning students peruse law degrees.
At their very core, the Republicans just DO NOT BELIEVE IN FAIRNESS ! Their see most things as a zero sum game, I win, you lose. From that perspective, their motive is to “win” AT ANY COST !
This is the best solution I have heard yet. Bravo to you.
I have very little knowledge about the system, but what has become obvious is that this is no longer the Roberts court but the Alito court
Well done. Thank you.
Simply expanding the court is far from adequate to fix anything. Thomas is likely closer to the norm, than the exception.These people are more remarkable because of their low character than anything else, and there is nothing honorable about them as they are all made corruptible by their lack of accountability. It is long past time for the US to move away from relying on the integrity of a few politically appointed individuals for the stewardship and administration of Justice. Dilute the court down the to the level of the Appellate Court, and rely on a larger number and a greater diversity among the justices. And, do away with lifetime appointments, as no individual should ever be trusted with this much power and influence, including presidents, justices and all public servants. Let the justices from the Appellate Court select the Supreme Court Justices with simple and open processes, and then use a system of rules (e.g., can't work on cases with vested interests, etc.) and a transparent process defined, controlled and enforced by experts and legal peers to deploy the justices to specific cases. Kinda like most of the rest of the world does it. We will be better off relying on an 'averaged interpretation' of the law by qualified experts and professionals who operate within a system of rules and peers who monitor and enforce the rules and norms of the court, rather than a broken political system's pick of political hacks who have no real constraints on their behavior. We don't need no stinkin' kings and that's what these 'fat cats' really aspire to as evidenced by their choices and behaviors.
I have an easier strategy, prosecute them for their sex crimes. We know they are guilty because of the rules they pass and the company they keep. It is just a matter of digging it up.
The Founders said the Supreme Court was not a "co-equal" branch of government. It was "next to nothing" in their view. Today, however, if you'd like to amend the Constitution, then you get 5 people who agree with you on the court and bring a case amending the Constitution.
Wait until Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh & Coney-Barrett rule in favor of Moore in Moore v Harper & unleashes the "independent legislature theory."
🟥⚡️⚡️🟥
You haven't been keeping up. In December, the justices heard oral arguments in Moore v. Harper, in which a group of Republican legislators from North Carolina argued that the “independent state legislature theory” - the idea that the Constitution’s elections clause gives state legislatures nearly unfettered authority to regulate federal elections - barred the North Carolina Supreme Court from setting aside a congressional map adopted by the state’s legislature. But late last month, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed its earlier ruling, holding that it does not have the power to review the challenges to the map at all.
Thus, current North Carolina state law by virtue of the state supreme court's most recent ruling, effectively "moots" the case in which SCOTUS has previously heard oral arguments. At this time, there is arguably no need for a ruling by SCOTUS although various principals in the case are still pushing for a ruling. It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court will agree.
@@larryk1865SCOTUS will eventually have to rule on this issue. The conservative Justices WILL rule in favor of 'independent legislature theory.' Leave it to the NC Republicans to lead the march in killing our democracy.
What an informative and convincing interview!
Supremes with billionaire care. 🤮
Very well said !
When McConnell blocked Obama’s appointment, we all know why McConnell hated Obama, that rendered the US Supreme Court immaterial. That the members of the Supreme Court accepted it and trump’s choice accepted the appointment was even worse.
It's obvious that our court needs to expand so that every district is represented in the supreme Court. Also, they need to be transparent about everything and they're instead doing the opposite!
Elections have consequences! I figured that out at the age of 13 in 1968.
Another source of distrust of the Supreme Court is the way it manufactures "doctrines", e.g., Scalia's doctrine of original intent and Alito's abuse of the major issues doctrine.
Yes. Highly manipulative. “Originalism” is new…and it’s wrong. The framers wrote into the Constitution the mechanisms for growth and progress! They understood that. These framers were of Science and Reason.
“Pragmatism” was the method. Until these “originalist” clowns.
"All of these pathologies have become normalized." Yup.
Excellent interview. Thanks!
Real news 👍👍
Germany fell to fascism when their political institutions became completely ineffective at representing the will of the people
And Rome fell when they became too drunk from power, thinking they could rule the world. We are failing in that way too.
Wow this guy is good!
We don't need them!~
If this is the case, it's not a Supreme Court at all, but a Higher Appeals Court. The facts of the case are argued out, initially at primary court level. If material facts have been misconsidered, that is the business of Appeals Courts. The Supreme Court's only business should be if a point of law has been misapplied.
Yes, but just like in religion, that point can be imagined in nearly any case. Dobbs case is case in point. They claimed the Roe v. Wade case was "misapplied."
A study of the Constitution, and a dispassionate survey of our current situation, really shows that our Government is designed as a mechanism by which a small group of elites can control national policy.
This was super helpful. Thank you.
excellent interview! well done explanation for the ordinary citizens!
Great and important interview
When the judges on the highest court act as if they don't know the difference between right and wrong when it comes to ethics there is a definite problem.
THANK YOU!! STEVE!! for your work PLEASe help us /America needs you
There should be a hold on all case reviews from now till they get the dirt swept out of the court.
Maybe if Democrats would take the justices on more really great vacation trips and buy the justices parents houses they could win more cases… Or for Kavanaugh, a case of beer. 🍻
🤣😂😂 that's hilarious 👏
He does like beer.
I believe Kavanaugh's preference is a KEG of beer.
A mere case gets him only through breakfast.
@@keep-ukraine-free528 I stand corrected.. just back up the Coors truck.. I think they’re owned by Nazis
Except for the little fact that we're stuck with their rulings, they've already become a pointless institution.
Docket 22-380 is an example of a case at the Supreme Court without lawyers. It gives a list of government oath breakers. Imagine an oath that has consequences.
Everything you're reporting makes so much sense. Thank you so much.
The supreme court exists to reinterpret the plain letter meaning of the bill of rights to allow certain states to operate as theocratic oligarchies and undermine the union. It's been pretty successful so far at that.
UNLESS, the PEOPLE step up and enforce their rulings!!!
We've put blind trust in ethical government way too long. These exposesures are alarming, sickening but yet give hope.
Finally someone is covering this!
True, with power comes corruption. With absolute power comes absolute corruption.
If you can do what you want, how you want and have no accountability.....I believe even a supreme court justice can have that "kid in classroom, when teacher leaves for a minute mentality" we look around, start smiling, throw a paper airplane, get out of our seats until autbority is back in class and holds us accountable.
Yaa a right way and a wrong way and the BILLIONAIRES who own the court got THEIR WAY!
And their way is ALWAYS the 'right' way.