Around the 3 minute mark the expert says "subject to good behavior they ( the Supreme Court Justice)are there for life." It's the subject to good behavior line that strikes me. I would argue not recussing yourself from a case that directly impacts 'a good friend' (much less a 'good friend' who owns your mother's house, paid for your reletives college and lets you use their private jet); is not 'good behavior' but there's no consequences.
Pick a voting system that doesn't hinge on a simple yes/no and allow people to more complicatedly express their views, by ranking or rating the candidates. (Either is fine, although these days I'm more partial to rating)
I like how this video ends with an open question after providing context, given that we don't seem to have a sole solution here. This then reminds me of a former Danish lawyer I met in a hostel who explains briefly how her government, a civil-law system loosely based on Germanic law, maintains their independent court system. Their source of law is codifications in their constitution or statutes passed by the parliament, which is different from our common law structure where our sources of law include amendments and decisions by judges; in that case our judges do determine how our constitution shall be enforced based on their interpretations of such--what policies can or cannot be implemented under our framework. In Denmark, the Danish Court Administration is responsible for managing and developing the country's court system, thus keeping it separate from their cabinet and other political influences. Judges are required to remain impartial, thus their roles are not viewed as political positions; it seems to me that their job is to determine if the law has been violated, but their decisions carry out the codified law rather than influence them. I don't fully understand what these actually mean, but it seems that Danish citizens enjoy a strictly impartial judicial process while the rest of their government systems may be subject to political interests. I wonder if an America from scratch could benefit if judges are appointed by a professional legal agency similar to the one in Denmark (though I also still wonder how we form this body).
The life-term aspect of the Supreme Court is fascinating. According to a NYT article I read, the average American male only lived about 35 years when that concept was established. I wonder if the Founders would have adopted the same idea if we lived 90 years back then?
That life expectancy of 35 includes a terrible childhood mortality rate of around 40%. 30 year olds usualy weren't expecting to die in the next 10 years. Presidents are required to be at least 35 in the Constitution, and John Adams lived to be 90.
Here’s an idea. A thought experiment, as it were. Instead of having one person tasked with appointing a Justice or Judge (to be then approved by the Senate), have two people appoint them - the Senate Majority Leader and the Senate Minority Leader. Take the power to appoint them away from the President and give it to two these two people. They’ll be forced to pick people they both can agree on, which would lead to a less ideological judiciary, in favor of one that’s at least somewhat moderate.
If you’re uninformed, you know about our political systems. If you are average-informed, you want proportional representation, parliamentary government, elected judges. If you’re smart, you realize the checks and balances we have work very well.
I think the Justices will always be political players, elections and term limits would only make it more volatile. To me, the underlying problem is political parties.
America From Scratch I think the reason political parties are an issue is information bias. Maybe that's not the right term. I mean the only candidates we hear about are the ones the Democratic and Republican parties want us to hear about. During the run up to presidential elections people get their information from the presidential debates. Which is sponsored, produced, and moderated by the Commission on Presidential Debates. The CPD is a bipartisan nonprofit that only allows Republicans and Democrats into the debates. For the rest of that four year span people watch, read, or listen to Republican news outlets (anything owned by Rupert Murdoch) or Democratic news outlets (anything owned by Ted Turner). There are virtually no alternatives. As for a solution? I see two ways. We either do something about the monopoly held by Murdoch and Turner or we flat out make political parties illegal. I know it would be difficult and there would be a lot of wordsmithing required in writing that law to close possible loopholes but why not?
Schmidty 91 Turner doesn't own anything anymore. Isn't AT&T buying Turner Broadcasting? Also, our monopoly laws are poorly written to handle situations with multiple large companies that can point to the others as "competitors".
CCRLH85 I know it was an extreme over simplification (cuz my comment was already long) but what I meant was that the businesses owned or created by Turner Broadcasting and whoever the "official owners" are push a biased agenda and the same goes for Murdoch side.
No, absolutely not. They become politically biased if they are elected therby politicizing the only branch of Gov. meant to be unpolitical in its conduct. Consider the system under which Supreme Court judges of India are appointed. We here have a collegium system under which the incumbent judges of the supreme court itself nominate judges to succeed them. However the preconditions are as follows: + He/ She must be judge of Highcourt (State Court) for atleast 5 years or an eminent lawyer for atleast 10 years at High Courts. + They retire at the age of 65 from Supreme Court.( A term Limit) Keep that in mind that India follows parliamentary system of Government.
Except even being appointed by left or right leaning president they are in for LIFE meaning they have no one they HAVE To please but their own conscience ...they are never looking for campaign contributions to stay in office ...they finally have the freedom to actually try to do what they think is right and THAT is a luxury politicians simply do not have except maybe in their final years of office when they know they want to retire anyway....but by then their integrity is at stake if they pull a 180 ....all their "friends" they don't want to betray and sh!t
I think this video (and some others on this channel) would greatly benefit from a comparison with other countries where things are done differently than they are in the States.
Thank you for watching FamilyRoyalty! I'd love to know what you think about our episode on rewriting the constitution. th-cam.com/video/cizJxeCMAos/w-d-xo.html&frags=pl%2Cwn
Seconded! I love the documentaries they broadcast as well. A recent favorite is Secrets of Spanish Florida: www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/secrets-spanish-florida-synopsis/3626/
If we want the process to give us more moderate justices, I would recommend that whenever a seat opens the part with the highest percentage of Congress nominates the replacement (more specifically the leader of that party) and then members of Congress from all OTHER parties are the ones that approve or deny the nomination. We'd never have another extreme justice seated again, they'd all have to be acceptable to at least the two major parties to get in there.
In general probably not. It would need to be sold well to be accepted, and if this were the only change being made then I'm sure both parties would be trying to block it and talk about how awful that idea is, because neither one wants their chance to seat a justice to go to someone the other side would have to approve of. But as part of a broader Constitution 2.0 it might have a shot.
*NO!!!* NEVER! This should never be implemented at the federal level. However, I kind of feel that states should provide what they feel are be the best candidates by dividing the country into 9, but unofficially because the President should still choose whoever they want to knowing the Senate will be the one deciding if yes or no on that choice. Basically, there isn't an obligation but instead a custom of making a choice from a select few states that is different from the last time a Justice needed to be selected. Also I think the justices should decide who the Chief Justice is from among themselves and not by the other two branches.
NO. And I never understood why DAs were elected too. Keep our Supreme Court Justices out of politics. I have no problem about unelected judges with lifetime appointments. The problem is is that the judicial branch is not acting like the JUDICIAL branch but rather just an extra legislative branch.
@@AmericaFromScratch what abbreviation DA does meaning? I can`t find it in google and the results that I will have found could be correctly. Thank you.
I think having the Supreme Court unrelated to the will of the people allows them to make much better, less biased decisions. As long as the "good behavior" clause acts to prevent or punish abuse, I think it's in a good place.
Here in my country, the Philippines, our judges and justices are chosen by the Judicial and Bar Council, which they are nominated and submitted to the President for appointment, in order to fill a vacant seat. This process is non-partisan because it assures judicial independence, but in reality, some of our judges are involved in acts that are contrary to the law, and really do we know that our justice system is somewhat but slowly eroded in its clear and present mandate to ensure justice for all, due to current situations that we've seen, especially the killings of lawyers.
Yeah no. The point of the supreme court is to give a unbiased view not based on political views but the law. That is the reason they are appointed and serve for life so they do not need to worry about the future and re-election. You have completely missed the point of the supreme court or any judicial system. Democracy should not extend to all the branches of the government.
@@rathernot6587 Judicial Desicions in the Court are political,since they have to do with interpreting and reinterpreting law always have been always will be.The myth of a non political SC is bs,they are appointed by the President to be partisan hacks and are allowed to receive donations by corporations.Hence why they take pro corporate decisicions,also the fact that they vote on decisions means they are political in the most competitive way.They don’t reach a compromise among themselves ,or even vote via a super majority,all that is needed is one judge siding with one side of the political debate and that decision become laws for the whole country.Overriding in many cases the political will of the people!
The Supreme Court I argue was the main cause of the Civil War when they implemented the Dred Scott decision and other pro slavery decisions which boldened the Southern States,and later they were the reason for segregation! Sure later on because of better appointments by New Deal presidents and massive protest by minority populations and those who were their allies undid some of those policies but the damage was done for 100 years.The Supreme Courts decisions today will also have major repercussions for the next 100 years.
@@mauricio9564 Yeah I agree with you on the point that it is political. In reality the supreme court is political. I meant that the entire point of the system was for it to be none-political and unable to be changed from outside influences ( the life long tenures since they wouldn't have to worry about their future after the term end so they could vote how they felt to. ) Even though tbh it was designed probably not to be.
Should we elect members of the House of Representatives through some form of proportional representation? Should the US switch to a parliamentary system? [Sadly, a surprising number of Americans think parliamentary systems and proportional representation are one and the same, despite the fact the US shares borders with two countries that contradict this misconception.]
What if every Supreme Court Justice received a judicial review every ten years they’re on the court? If they pass the review, they continue to stay on the court for another ten years (when they’re reviewed again), but if they fail, the process to remove them can begin.
Term limits and an expanded court would be the better solution. Only one non-renewable 21 year term. It still offers stability but removes the quirk of appointing very young justices that may stay on the court for 40+ years. An expanded court based on population size could in theory diversify opinion and puts less emphasis on specific justices deciding key cases. Have judicial review cases be decided on a supermajority opinion.
The people should elect Supreme Court with terms limits. And three more members. They are politicians in a robe. The needs to the people. I think all judge for local, state and federal, Supreme Court needs to be elected. We, people the get to vote.
Here's an idea. What if instead of a supreme court, we settled decisions by having a lottery to select nine (or more) random high-level judges? Kind of like jury duty, but you have to be an established judge to be eligible.
Absolutely or terminate all and do a civilian Grand Jury. One individual elected from each state to determine validity of the law according to the constitution. Also if criminal activity has been done by electors or appointees! Or by appointment by the Governor's of each state with knowledge of Constitutional Law but under the Governor's authority and paid for by the state. This way no political influence by federal government! Or a grand jury with the Supreme Court. The grand jury with subpoena power to look at all evidence and or proposed laws or Ammendments to find cause for determination for prosecution or implementing laws! Serves a one ten year term.
THIS is a scary as f*ck thought! We have a shirtload of people buying that Donald Trump is a good man and smart and honest and well intentioned enough to be president for 4 years ...and THEN a lot of them actually want the lying cheating phony imbecile BACK for 4 MORE YEARS??? WTH?? And THESE are the same voters that would elect supreme Court justices?... FOR LIFE? God help us if that ever happens! I can only imagine who they might want to elect! Trump's children probably! America would be RUINED
@@LordZontar I am not against judicial review in general. But you know it cannot protect you on its own. In Russia they have it and it doesn't help in the slightest.
@@veselinboyadzhiev4724 Russia's institutions are so weak to begin with that it's little wonder the whole country's wound up under the thumbs of the Mob and their controlling partner, Comrade Putin.
Ooo the supreme Court should have gender and ethnicity quotas if they are not elected. Answer: eliminate political parties, but leave the supreme Court as an appointment system just with the stipulation of demographic representative quotas. So for instance, there has to be at least 4 woman, 2 of the 9 judges should be of Latin decent, 2 of African American decent, and 1 of Asian/other decent. This would require the president to extend his search for a replacement to people who would more accurately represent the people, avoiding the need for elections and political pressures on the judges and if we remove political parties, allows them to remain impartial in their decisions.
Show idea: Should we eliminate the electoral college and how. Really enjoying the series!
Noted! Thanks for the suggestion.
*+*
Oh absolutely yes!
No
Around the 3 minute mark the expert says "subject to good behavior they ( the Supreme Court Justice)are there for life." It's the subject to good behavior line that strikes me. I would argue not recussing yourself from a case that directly impacts 'a good friend' (much less a 'good friend' who owns your mother's house, paid for your reletives college and lets you use their private jet); is not 'good behavior' but there's no consequences.
Pick a voting system that doesn't hinge on a simple yes/no and allow people to more complicatedly express their views, by ranking or rating the candidates. (Either is fine, although these days I'm more partial to rating)
I like how this video ends with an open question after providing context, given that we don't seem to have a sole solution here. This then reminds me of a former Danish lawyer I met in a hostel who explains briefly how her government, a civil-law system loosely based on Germanic law, maintains their independent court system. Their source of law is codifications in their constitution or statutes passed by the parliament, which is different from our common law structure where our sources of law include amendments and decisions by judges; in that case our judges do determine how our constitution shall be enforced based on their interpretations of such--what policies can or cannot be implemented under our framework.
In Denmark, the Danish Court Administration is responsible for managing and developing the country's court system, thus keeping it separate from their cabinet and other political influences. Judges are required to remain impartial, thus their roles are not viewed as political positions; it seems to me that their job is to determine if the law has been violated, but their decisions carry out the codified law rather than influence them. I don't fully understand what these actually mean, but it seems that Danish citizens enjoy a strictly impartial judicial process while the rest of their government systems may be subject to political interests.
I wonder if an America from scratch could benefit if judges are appointed by a professional legal agency similar to the one in Denmark (though I also still wonder how we form this body).
Love u peter
The Supreme Court thus far has worked very well.
The life-term aspect of the Supreme Court is fascinating. According to a NYT article I read, the average American male only lived about 35 years when that concept was established. I wonder if the Founders would have adopted the same idea if we lived 90 years back then?
And once aging has been cured, they will sit there for hundreds of years.
I hadn't thought of that! Whoa.
That life expectancy of 35 includes a terrible childhood mortality rate of around 40%. 30 year olds usualy weren't expecting to die in the next 10 years. Presidents are required to be at least 35 in the Constitution, and John Adams lived to be 90.
Here’s an idea. A thought experiment, as it were. Instead of having one person tasked with appointing a Justice or Judge (to be then approved by the Senate), have two people appoint them - the Senate Majority Leader and the Senate Minority Leader. Take the power to appoint them away from the President and give it to two these two people. They’ll be forced to pick people they both can agree on, which would lead to a less ideological judiciary, in favor of one that’s at least somewhat moderate.
If you’re uninformed, you know about our political systems. If you are average-informed, you want proportional representation, parliamentary government, elected judges. If you’re smart, you realize the checks and balances we have work very well.
I think the Justices will always be political players, elections and term limits would only make it more volatile. To me, the underlying problem is political parties.
Any ideas in how we might deal with the political party issue?
America From Scratch I think the reason political parties are an issue is information bias. Maybe that's not the right term. I mean the only candidates we hear about are the ones the Democratic and Republican parties want us to hear about. During the run up to presidential elections people get their information from the presidential debates. Which is sponsored, produced, and moderated by the Commission on Presidential Debates. The CPD is a bipartisan nonprofit that only allows Republicans and Democrats into the debates. For the rest of that four year span people watch, read, or listen to Republican news outlets (anything owned by Rupert Murdoch) or Democratic news outlets (anything owned by Ted Turner). There are virtually no alternatives.
As for a solution? I see two ways. We either do something about the monopoly held by Murdoch and Turner or we flat out make political parties illegal. I know it would be difficult and there would be a lot of wordsmithing required in writing that law to close possible loopholes but why not?
Schmidty 91 Turner doesn't own anything anymore. Isn't AT&T buying Turner Broadcasting? Also, our monopoly laws are poorly written to handle situations with multiple large companies that can point to the others as "competitors".
CCRLH85 I know it was an extreme over simplification (cuz my comment was already long) but what I meant was that the businesses owned or created by Turner Broadcasting and whoever the "official owners" are push a biased agenda and the same goes for Murdoch side.
No, absolutely not.
They become politically biased if they are elected therby politicizing the only branch of Gov. meant to be unpolitical in its conduct.
Consider the system under which Supreme Court judges of India are appointed.
We here have a collegium system under which the incumbent judges of the supreme court itself nominate judges to succeed them.
However the preconditions are as follows:
+ He/ She must be judge of Highcourt (State Court) for atleast 5 years or an eminent lawyer for atleast 10 years at High Courts.
+ They retire at the age of 65 from Supreme Court.( A term Limit)
Keep that in mind that India follows parliamentary system of Government.
Except even being appointed by left or right leaning president they are in for LIFE meaning they have no one they HAVE To please but their own conscience ...they are never looking for campaign contributions to stay in office ...they finally have the freedom to actually try to do what they think is right and THAT is a luxury politicians simply do not have except maybe in their final years of office when they know they want to retire anyway....but by then their integrity is at stake if they pull a 180 ....all their "friends" they don't want to betray and sh!t
Yes...every official should be elected by the people.
I think this video (and some others on this channel) would greatly benefit from a comparison with other countries where things are done differently than they are in the States.
Thank you for watching FamilyRoyalty! I'd love to know what you think about our episode on rewriting the constitution. th-cam.com/video/cizJxeCMAos/w-d-xo.html&frags=pl%2Cwn
Very educational. I'm every weeknight watchin' the NewsHour with Judy Woodruff, the quintessential authority of news on public television. #PBSNEWS
Seconded! I love the documentaries they broadcast as well. A recent favorite is Secrets of Spanish Florida:
www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/secrets-spanish-florida-synopsis/3626/
If we want the process to give us more moderate justices, I would recommend that whenever a seat opens the part with the highest percentage of Congress nominates the replacement (more specifically the leader of that party) and then members of Congress from all OTHER parties are the ones that approve or deny the nomination. We'd never have another extreme justice seated again, they'd all have to be acceptable to at least the two major parties to get in there.
Do you think the public would go for that?
In general probably not. It would need to be sold well to be accepted, and if this were the only change being made then I'm sure both parties would be trying to block it and talk about how awful that idea is, because neither one wants their chance to seat a justice to go to someone the other side would have to approve of. But as part of a broader Constitution 2.0 it might have a shot.
*NO!!!* NEVER! This should never be implemented at the federal level. However, I kind of feel that states should provide what they feel are be the best candidates by dividing the country into 9, but unofficially because the President should still choose whoever they want to knowing the Senate will be the one deciding if yes or no on that choice. Basically, there isn't an obligation but instead a custom of making a choice from a select few states that is different from the last time a Justice needed to be selected.
Also I think the justices should decide who the Chief Justice is from among themselves and not by the other two branches.
NO.
And I never understood why DAs were elected too.
Keep our Supreme Court Justices out of politics.
I have no problem about unelected judges with lifetime appointments.
The problem is is that the judicial branch is not acting like the JUDICIAL branch but rather just an extra legislative branch.
Interesting point about DAs - Scratchy
@@AmericaFromScratch what abbreviation DA does meaning? I can`t find it in google and the results that I will have found could be correctly. Thank you.
I think having the Supreme Court unrelated to the will of the people allows them to make much better, less biased decisions. As long as the "good behavior" clause acts to prevent or punish abuse, I think it's in a good place.
Here in my country, the Philippines, our judges and justices are chosen by the Judicial and Bar Council, which they are nominated and submitted to the President for appointment, in order to fill a vacant seat. This process is non-partisan because it assures judicial independence, but in reality, some of our judges are involved in acts that are contrary to the law, and really do we know that our justice system is somewhat but slowly eroded in its clear and present mandate to ensure justice for all, due to current situations that we've seen, especially the killings of lawyers.
"Should democracy extend to all branches of government?" Yes. End of video.
Yeah no. The point of the supreme court is to give a unbiased view not based on political views but the law. That is the reason they are appointed and serve for life so they do not need to worry about the future and re-election.
You have completely missed the point of the supreme court or any judicial system. Democracy should not extend to all the branches of the government.
@@rathernot6587 Judicial Desicions in the Court are political,since they have to do with interpreting and reinterpreting law always have been always will be.The myth of a non political SC is bs,they are appointed by the President to be partisan hacks and are allowed to receive donations by corporations.Hence why they take pro corporate decisicions,also the fact that they vote on decisions means they are political in the most competitive way.They don’t reach a compromise among themselves ,or even vote via a super majority,all that is needed is one judge siding with one side of the political debate and that decision become laws for the whole country.Overriding in many cases the political will of the people!
The Supreme Court I argue was the main cause of the Civil War when they implemented the Dred Scott decision and other pro slavery decisions which boldened the Southern States,and later they were the reason for segregation! Sure later on because of better appointments by New Deal presidents and massive protest by minority populations and those who were their allies undid some of those policies but the damage was done for 100 years.The Supreme Courts decisions today will also have major repercussions for the next 100 years.
@@mauricio9564 Yeah I agree with you on the point that it is political. In reality the supreme court is political. I meant that the entire point of the system was for it to be none-political and unable to be changed from outside influences ( the life long tenures since they wouldn't have to worry about their future after the term end so they could vote how they felt to. ) Even though tbh it was designed probably not to be.
All long-term public service should be elected by the people
Should we elect members of the House of Representatives through some form of proportional representation?
Should the US switch to a parliamentary system?
[Sadly, a surprising number of Americans think parliamentary systems and proportional representation are one and the same, despite the fact the US shares borders with two countries that contradict this misconception.]
1) Yes.
2) No.
What if every Supreme Court Justice received a judicial review every ten years they’re on the court? If they pass the review, they continue to stay on the court for another ten years (when they’re reviewed again), but if they fail, the process to remove them can begin.
Term limits and an expanded court would be the better solution. Only one non-renewable 21 year term. It still offers stability but removes the quirk of appointing very young justices that may stay on the court for 40+ years. An expanded court based on population size could in theory diversify opinion and puts less emphasis on specific justices deciding key cases. Have judicial review cases be decided on a supermajority opinion.
The people should elect Supreme Court with terms limits. And three more members. They are politicians in a robe. The needs to the people. I think all judge for local, state and federal, Supreme Court needs to be elected. We, people the get to vote.
Excellent video, I cover this in my own video: "What if the US Constitution Was Never Ratified?", it was the biggest flaw of the Founders!
Here's an idea. What if instead of a supreme court, we settled decisions by having a lottery to select nine (or more) random high-level judges? Kind of like jury duty, but you have to be an established judge to be eligible.
Interesting idea! Would there be term limits or anything like that?
@@AmericaFromScratch I was thinking just like a jury, one court would be selected per case.
Absolutely or terminate all and do a civilian Grand Jury. One individual elected from each state to determine validity of the law according to the constitution. Also if criminal activity has been done by electors or appointees!
Or by appointment by the Governor's of each state with knowledge of Constitutional Law but under the Governor's authority and paid for by the state. This way no political influence by federal government!
Or a grand jury with the Supreme Court.
The grand jury with subpoena power to look at all evidence and or proposed laws or Ammendments to find cause for determination for prosecution or implementing laws!
Serves a one ten year term.
And I see many crossings
THIS is a scary as f*ck thought! We have a shirtload of people buying that Donald Trump is a good man and smart and honest and well intentioned enough to be president for 4 years ...and THEN a lot of them actually want the lying cheating phony imbecile BACK for 4 MORE YEARS??? WTH?? And THESE are the same voters that would elect supreme Court justices?... FOR LIFE? God help us if that ever happens! I can only imagine who they might want to elect! Trump's children probably! America would be RUINED
The answer is just eliminate the concept of judicial review.
Great way for the United States to become a totally autocratic sink of corruption just like countries like, say, Russia.
@@LordZontar I am not against judicial review in general. But you know it cannot protect you on its own. In Russia they have it and it doesn't help in the slightest.
@@veselinboyadzhiev4724 Russia's institutions are so weak to begin with that it's little wonder the whole country's wound up under the thumbs of the Mob and their controlling partner, Comrade Putin.
Substantive due process is the main reason Supreme Court looks like a third house of legislative.
Ooo the supreme Court should have gender and ethnicity quotas if they are not elected. Answer: eliminate political parties, but leave the supreme Court as an appointment system just with the stipulation of demographic representative quotas. So for instance, there has to be at least 4 woman, 2 of the 9 judges should be of Latin decent, 2 of African American decent, and 1 of Asian/other decent. This would require the president to extend his search for a replacement to people who would more accurately represent the people, avoiding the need for elections and political pressures on the judges and if we remove political parties, allows them to remain impartial in their decisions.
interesting thought
Not that anyof my words will be seen until my demise then at least I have the guts to say it
If you really wanna get mad get mad at the law for crossing the path of aboriginal law
If we really want to take them out of politics we should have the Supreme Court appoint its own members when one retires.
Do you think that would have the potential of creating one specific mindset for the whole group instead of 9 separate voices?
First! -Scratchy The Eagle
What the hell do we know?
Me and Jesus do it alone without your help so when you see me alone then me and Jesus 'got" it!!!!!
So we should eliminate political parties. Not the supreme Court.
no
No.