Why You Can't Reform The Supreme Court
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ค. 2022
- Get free access to Nebula with your CuriosityStream subscription! Visit curiositystream.com/secondtho...
Unless you've been living under a rock (in which case, I envy you), you've definitely heard about the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding abortion rights. This is a good time to talk about how the Supreme Court works and what exactly makes it not only undemocratic, but anti-democratic. Is reform an option? Watch and find out!
Why You Can't Reform The Supreme Court - Second Thought
SUBSCRIBE HERE: bit.ly/2nFsvTS
New video every Friday!
Citations and Further Reading:
www.cnbc.com/2022/05/06/how-s...
www.npr.org/2022/05/05/109673...
www.desmoinesregister.com/sto...
www.politico.com/news/2022/05...
www.dissentmagazine.org/artic...
bostonreview.net/articles/sam... www.washingtonpost.com/world/...
jacobin.com/2020/10/us-consti...
jacobin.com/2022/02/judicial-...
jacobin.com/2020/10/supreme-c...
www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/...
nouvelle.news/2020/09/why-are...
www.vox.com/2018/10/12/179508...
www.theatlantic.com/ideas/arc...
Follow and Support Second Thought!
Twitter: / _secondthought
Patreon: / secondthought
BuyMeACoffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/secondth...
CashApp: $JTChapman
Watch More Second Thought:
Latest Uploads: • Playlist
Spaaaaaace!: • Playlist
What If...: • Playlist
Popular Videos: • Popular Videos | Secon...
About Second Thought:
Second Thought is a channel devoted to education and analysis of current events from a Leftist perspective. Welcome!
Business Email: secondthoughtchannel@gmail.com
"Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away." --George Carlin.
Now do Gun rights
It’s like we have an interpretive right to self-defense that should only apply to our own places of residence and it’s not a “right” that extends beyond that.
The government can, in practice, take every single one of them, just look at China.
@@Jose04537 That's the point. Carlin went on to say, "you don't have rights, just privileges."
Lol you’re right Roe v. Wade decision was the president not a right
Curiously, the Supreme Court originally had much lesser power than the other branches - it was only in one case, Marbury v. Madison, that the Supreme Court gained their power via setting that the court has the power of judicial review, the ability to rule if a law is constitutional. The Supreme Court used their abilities to establish their own power and that is an incredible turn of events.
yeah, this is why they're appointed undemocratically to lifetime positions. They were never supposed to be relevant as anything other than highest level of appeals courts. For such a relatively minor role, having the people go through the hassle of putting their names on ballots and voting on them would be a waste of time.
"We've decided to give ourselves more power."
"Can you do that?"
"We interpreted the laws as saying that we can."
".... uh...."
Actually, it's worse than that: In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Court ruled that Marbury made it the final and ultimate arbiter of what the Consitution means. In this case, it was in noble cause -- enforcing Brown v. Board -- but it set the table for what we're seeing today.
@@hisownfool1 Andrew Jackson: "Bet?"
The constitution also says that congress may determine the jurisdiction of the court (outside of her original purview which is much narrower). The problem is congress is perma gridlocked on issues certain issues which means the SC has the last word.
I remember being in middle school learning about the three branches of government and once I heard about the Supreme Court I thought it was pretty obvious that they were the most powerful branch by far at least domestically. They enforce the laws but can also change them based on their decisions. They are basically the judicial and legislative mixed together
Well, the senate would have more power because they can change the constitution and pass laws, if it wasn't so hard to get anything past the senate. The court can decide whether a law is constitutional, but the senate can decide what the constitution is. Too bad they'll never change it cause you need a vast majority to ever get anything done in the senate
They don't change law I believe, they just reinterpret them.
@@blugaledoh2669 There is no difference. They change what the law means.
@@zackaplowitz There is a legal difference and significantly so. You could easily solve the problem by legistulating for it and they the court can't stop you.
@@blugaledoh2669 well it changes how the law is enforced by precedent which technically is changing the law all but in writing
In Germany, our Federal Constitutional Court is an elected institution. One half of the judges is elected by the Bundestag (Federal Diet, the parliament) and the other half is elected by the Bundesrat (Federal Council, the body of representatives of the state governments). The judges serve for 12 years and can't be re-elected.
The court is sometimes critizised for some of it's decisions, but in general it is trusted and relied on by the public. Initially, it was subordinated to the Ministry of Justice, but then declared itself to be one of the supreme institutions of the political system. This wasn't a bad thing though (in my opinion), since it operates with a high degree of juridical self-control and professionalism. The court is seen as an independent guardian of the constitution and its principles and operates relatively independent from partisan politics. It too has "changed its mind" about some issues, but it has usually ruled in favour of progress and liberty. I don't know of any case in which it turned the wheel of progress back, so to speak.
Also, our Federal Constitutional Court deals only with constitutional questions, not with "ordinary" law cases like the US Supreme Court. We have a separate "highest" court for private and criminal law cases, the Federal Court of Justice. It's not subordinated to the Constitutional Court, but its rulings can still be overturned by the latter if they are unconstitutional. (It's a bit complicated).
Another factor might be that the german legal system is quite different from the anglo-american one (different legal traditions). In our system, there are no legal precedents. Laws are interpreted "newly" for each case, although there are of course references to prior rulings. But they are not legally binding, which increases the flexibility of individual courts. It also requires a very good appeal system. The Federal Constitutional Court acts as a supervising body in this context.
It's also very important that the judges have to be elected by a supermajority, which leads to consensus candidates, i.e. that you trust to act with integrity.
@@Kaepsele337 This is the fundamental American problem. A supermajority is impossible because one of the two major political parties has decided that its goal is to destroy the country.
I know I am biased as a German but Civil Law seems so much better than Common Law.
Like, I get the flexibility you get with Common Law but it just doesn't seem worth it to me.
@@Viperzka I think your statement is more pointed than this but I have noticed that no matter what the elected party wants do do the other party is always stricltly against it. Come next election and they go on about how the past period nothing got done. WHen the other party inevitably gets voted they do the exact same thing but also get blocked.
It's such a kindergarden.
@@Viperzka
The two-party-system in the USA is also a problem.
In Germany you have two votes. The first vote is for the representative of your voting district (direct seat)
When the candidate from party A has 40% and the candidate from party B has 39% candidate from party A is elected.
With the second vote you elect the party. With this you decide how many seats a party gets in %.
Because the numbers of the direct seats are fixed this means the size of the parliament is increasing the more parties you have.
We have now the second largest parliament.
This makes problems. But gerrymandering is impossible!
And extreme parties are not a (huge) problem.
Thomas Clarence swore to "make the lifes of Liberals miserable for 43 years like they made mine miserable."
That's what he said before he was sworn in.
Considering the fact that Centrists are sleeping on reforming, democracy only has to be defended for 12 more years.
There are no centrists in the usa. Usa 'centrism' is far-right. There is no Democracy in the usa to defend, and without roe v wade there isn't humanity in the system to defend anymore either. Its all evil now.
@@bmanagement4657 You know "centrists" equals "cooperationists" like Pelosi, the AZ-Senator or Biden.
People who aren't facists like the Reps tend to be, but rather supporting the extremists by not fighting the threat.
@@mr_sanchez but how are they centrist when they are politically far right? Democrats have just as much reason to protect far-right interests as Republicans. How are the VAST majority of democrats NOT cooperationists making the party just another version of Republicans? The entire party has the same macro-agenda as Republicans do. Even the squad cows to the establishment constantly. That's not representative, it's just more far-right submission. The difference between parties is an illusion. Democrats are LITERALLY controlled by catholics, so to even consider calling those people like biden and pelosi the catholics centrists is absolutely foolishness. They are there to ensure that no leftism comes to the democratic party and the reps toe the line.
The people liking your uninformed comments are why American leftism will NEVER rise. Bunch of incompetents.
@@bmanagement4657 Dude I get your point, there's A HELL LOT of things wrong with the Democratic Party.
America fcked itself by establishing a two-party system with an electoral college, first to the post, etc.
But there are significant differences. Just one example:
The Republican party today (probably since Reagan if not earlier) is a bunch of social conservatives, bigots and flat out racists and facists, wanting to destroy democracy and any basic human rights.
The Dems while they are infected with Oil(Pharma, put in what you want)-Money still try to act with a LITTLE BIT of human decency in their policies. Some of them are even really good politicians like "The Squad" with Bernie, AOC or Ilhan Omar really trying to better the country against all ods.
I'm Australian, and honestly for bad as we think our Government is, the whole Supreme Court idea that you guys in the US have just seems insane to me
It's good on paper (the constitution) to balance other branch, but when they chose side the average Joe get screw.
I learned and practice law in Vietnam, and US constitution always hail as the best all the time.
@@trieuhuan106 The US Constitution has some serious bugs in it.
@@qwertyTRiG I'm from Vietnam so you knows...
Starting with the fact that they can't even agree on how to interpret our nearly 300 year old piece of paper. And they have lifetime appointments.
If you want a fun time read the second amendment and look up DC vs Heller. Also compare things like the latest firearms ruling against the states vs their willingness to turn things like Roe v Wade and slavery back to the states. The goalposts are constantly moving.
As an American I look at Australia as a superior system. I'm sure it's got it's issues, but 8 years ago when I found out y'all make voting day a holiday I was like..."wait a minute? Why the fuck do I have to run around on a busy Tuesday just to vote."
"There is no saving it, you have to pull it by its roots"
Yep. The only way to even started 'reforming' the courts would be to remove every judge that's part of the Federalist Society. But, that's basically pulling it up by its roots.
It’s a cyst.... you gotta remove all of its contents INCLUDING the sac or else it’ll just keep on coming back!
little leftist is crying because the world doesnt agree with him :(((((((
@@XJ9sodypop ok troll
Senator Armstrong had some good ideas yo. US Government has some fundamental problems that can only be fixed by changing the Government itself
The Court won't stop here. Thomas explicitly stated that he wants to go after Gay rights and contraceptives next(And that's just what they're willing to admit) I can guarantee that in 10 years, Loving Vs Virginia will at least be considered to be overturned, if not overturned outright.
There is gonna be a civil war if Loving vs Virginia gets overturned.
No way loving is gonna get overturned thomas is in an interracial marriage.
Later this year, they're going to hear a case over whether gerrymandering should be restricted or not (which it currently is). If they vote to unchain gerrymandering, every election will become rigged to the point of being no more than a formality. Democracy itself will cease to exist, and Republicans will take control to create a one-party state with complete, unchecked, absolute power.
@@nicknmm09 I don't think that it would really matter if it is overturned as as others have pointed out, no state would reintroduce anti-miscegenation laws.
@@nicknmm09 Even without Thomas republicans still have a 5-4 advantage in the court.
We need a constitutional convention for a new constitution. Being governed by a 230 year old document (written by the richest people then in the colonies) is stupid and cruel to most of us.
Feel like it would end worse then the one we have now. At least the one we have now says if your a person you have rights--->if your a citizen those rights will be protected by the government.
Pretty sure any document currently will polarized and the right will won't authoritarianism and the left will fall for any rights that sounds right but won't protect anyone.
@@artypyrec4186 i think the goal is to come up with something better
As a Canadian Jamaican that’s shit always seemed ludicrously whack like nigga how about he fuck are they supposed to draft a set of laws that remain conventional and pragmatic in today’s time.
those old farts couldn’t even picture humanity today let alone Americans if their time 🥸
They're not even following it
@@glueplay I know. I don't think he meant we should make something worse
Hey J.T., I love that you've started "inserting" yourself into the videos. Trust me, it looks much better, and the effect is much stronger, especially when it comes to serious topics like the ones you cover so well, when you can look the person talking to you in the eye. Congratulations, brother, you are excellent, I wish you much success, greetings, and best wishes from Serbia, Southeast Europe.
Tako jeeee! 😀
Honestly, the "parasocial relationship" side to this stuff always felt weird and unnecessary to me, but whatever gets him clicks is fine. Dude needs to play to what people want, and I guess people are really lonely 🤷
I'd like to stop staring at a face taking up the whole screen, thanks.
For me it doesn't matter because I'm already happy if I can listen to him
Since to the Supreme Court overturned Roe Vs. Wade because to legal precedent no longer matters, there's nothing stopping them from overturning gay & interracial marriages, voting rights for minorities, rights for non-citizens living in the U.S., child labor laws & children's right to a public education, or what little gun control regulations we have, all of which can be determined & regulated by each state but can easily change should political party control switches after each election!
there is one thing stopping them from overturning interracial marriages
thomas.
roe v wade was a disgusting decision anyways
@@Sinaeb: Yeah, but he's alright with overturning everything else on my list as well as things I left out. Also, I believe it was Kavanaugh who mentioned Loving V. Virginia.
I would just like to say that I have seen your comments before, and I would like to say that you are awesome and extremely based! Have a wonderful day!
@@Sinaeb Who knows maybe he hates his wife enough to get rid of that too.
“This is a court of law, not a court of justice.” - Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (Justice of Scotus). That said it all.
I’d note FDR didn’t “try” to expand the court he really only threatened to do it in order to keep the Supreme Court in check, which composition at the time, was quite conservative.
Point being that FDR was a smart politician who knew how to bend things to his favour. While Biden just wanted to be President and acts as if he’s powerless to do anything about anything.
If democrats unilaterally pack the court with a simple mayority, then republican would just pack it even further, that's a short sight "solution" for a long term problem.
The right course of action would be:
-1 term of 20 years, no reelection.
-Require a 3/5 mayority to appoint
-15 justices, 3 justices appointment every 4 years (5 staggered cycles).
-2/3 mayority in Scotus for a ruling.
This is the only way you can ensure the rulings don't get political or one party control the court. We can only dream.
@@Jose04537 I think you have too many justices but I can agree.
@@Jose04537 what happens if democrats pack every single democrat in the U.S into the supreme court tho theres more democrats than republicans
Yeah, I can't believe I'm saying this, but the better and simpler solution would be to emulate Andrew Jackson.
@@Salsmachev You do know Andrew Jackson’s already dead right?
You're right about other countries not knowing anything about their own supreme court; I'm Australian, and I'm struggling to recall anything about ours.
He is right in the developed world, I'm in Brazil and people here know the names of supreme Court judges because we copy the US a lot.
It's called the high court.
We do t really have to worry, we change govts to fast for this shit to happen to us.
In Canada, Supreme Court Justices are carefully selected for their experience, knowledge and ability to make unbiased and unpartisan decisions based purely on the law, human rights and ethics.
So it amazes me that in the US they are selected precisely for their biases and willingness to make partisan decisions. They are selected to be political tools rather than for the protection and advancement of rights.
@Somewhatskeptical No realistically the problem with the Canadian constitution is the things that the federal government can forcibly clam down the peoples throats. Look at the truck or convoy look at the way he’s taking all handguns and that’s all comes just from one man he gets to spend everybody’s rights that’s what’s wrong with that document
The problem with direct democracies is that it’s a majority rule and whoever is not a majority always loses rights. Example, there have been shootings in America on the extreme levels recently. So Justin Trudeau can just suspend your right to own a handgun. He can just take it whenever he wants. That’s what’s wrong with that place
Unbiased, doubt it. Canada might be far better than the U.S., but I'm sure they aren't perfect.
@Somewhatskeptical The best judicial system in democratic nations have at least two of the next to avoid been ultra partisan:
-You require a qualified/super mayority to appoint them.
-One finite term, no reelection allowed, so they don't have to worry about political favors to get reelected.
-The renewal of seats are staggered, so even if one party obtained a super mayority result, they can't fundamentally alter the composition of the court in just one election cycle.
The USA doesn't have neither of those.
@@dirrdevil Don’t worry they’re not a head of the US either
The best judicial system in democratic nations have at least two of the next to avoid been ultra partisan:
-You require a qualified/super mayority to appoint them.
-One finite term, no reelection allowed, so they don't have to worry about political favors to get reelected.
-The renewal of seats are staggered, so even if one party obtained a super mayority result, they can't fundamentally alter the composition of the court in just one election cycle.
The USA doesn't have neither of those.
Damn... your thumbnail game is strong!
Thanks! Glad you like it!
At 6:45 you're spot on! I've told people that the progressive court of the 50s-70s is the exception to the rule. Every other generation of the court has been both restrictive and regressive.
next on supreme court: should women be allowed to go outside?
Hmm the constitution doesn't explicitly give women that right so the only democratic solution is to vote no
That's a stretch
@@Remix2366 Not even
@@BobuxGuy that goes against the entirety of modern society
i hope they vote no
Gonna have to start suing the USA for false advertising.
"Land of the free" my ass.
We also have never had an ACTUAL right to life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It's always been a big fat con job.
There's a barely readable subtext underneath that says "Basic Standards of Living and Quality of Life not included"
@Jon Hudson in our dreams.
@Jon Hudson In any other first world country
@@BobuxGuybold of you to assume America still counts as a first world nation.
We need a constitutional amendment addressing the right to privacy specifically. For all the rights tied to it, and for issues involving big tech and surveillance.
@Somewhatskeptical Up until a couple weeks ago, "some people" included SCOTUS 😒
Let’s go on with us how should murdering a baby be private? There’s another human being here. There is another human being here that can’t tell you that they want to be killed. How is that private at all?
@Zaydan Naufal Not when you have the government involved. Anything you register with the government is not private anymore
@Zaydan Naufal As for marriage in its whole it’s not really private. It has a public ceremony, where you publicly wear a ring, and you’re supposed to publicly tell people. What part of that sounds private, on top of that religions have been talking about this for thousands of years and they talk about how it’s a public thing for the community.
@Zaydan Naufal Yes I won hundred percent agree with you on the religious sacrament that’s where I think marriage should’ve stayed in the first place
I'll do you one better: I live in New Zealand, have no idea who our Supreme Court Justices are, *but* I do know all of the US Supreme Court Justices and can list off all the cases they want to overturn.
I was always taught in middle school that there were checks and balances to make sure each branch did not have too much power. Taking away a federally protected right is an overstep yet no checking of power is being done.
The same people probably taught you that the founding fathers were benevolent, and only made the state undemocratic because they thought people weren't educated enough to make wise decisions... This education system is set up to serve the interests of the capitalist state
Because none of the branches have power to the people
@@atashikokoni you are not wrong there.
It’s weird in this case just because the right the court took away was a right *the court and only the court* gave us itself 50 years ago in the Roe decision. In a sensible society, if the court found that the right to abortion existed in our constitution, then the congress, if the people supported that decision, would pass legislation confidently enshrining that right which would be made the law of the land by the president, but of course that did not happen. I would argue that what appears to be the court overstepping is actually the court being the only 1 of the 3 branches of our government that is *actually still functioning,* and we’re just fucked because it’s the least democratic of the 3 and has recently had its appointments decided not by the will of the people, but by the politicial games of one old ass rich man who looks like a turtle from Kentucky with the help of president who spent most of his term shouting at children and civil rights protestors on social media
Then you have to change political party. The ability of check and balance only works when the branch see the other as separate from it self. If a republican becomes president then all branh es become the same thing
Like a number of things in this government, the supreme court was NEVER meant to have powers such as striking down laws. At least one of its framers went ballistic when they gave themselves that power through interpretation. Put simply the best way to "reform" the supreme court is to tell them that they do not and never did have the power of judicial fiat in the first place.
No, no. You can't say that. They have to be able to acknowledge that they got something wrong. Dred Scott, for example, would be a massive one. Ironically, Thomas used Scott v Sandford as his example for the court getting it wrong sometimes lol. Just shows you the mental gymnastics conservatives play there their voters don't even question.
There probably needs to be some kind of will of the people in order to push these sorts of things forward. 61% of Americans are at least somewhat pro abortion so you can't say the justification comes from the people. That's the bigger issue. No one asked for these cases to be changed.
Marbury v Madison
The Just Fucking Ignore Them approach. The only problem is a Democratic president would almost certainly deploy federal troops to enforce the ruling of an 8-1 conservative majority Court instead of daring to tell them yeah we're ignoring this, feel free to try and enforce it yourselves
@@syncswim Yeah. Unless the Supreme Courr has their hand forced by the american people,, they will continue to exert and abuse this power.
Maybe you americans should consider makinh use of that second amendment of yours. Instead of just letting neonazis like Rittenbitch, and the criminals with badges make use of them.
I know that's not your point at all, but I think we should also get out of that paradigm of "was it meant/not meant". Who cares what some people who have been dead for more than 2 centuries meant or not. Not only is there no way to verify what they meant or not (so it may be an entertaining waste of time to speculate about it, but absolutely not pratical), but we are the people living in the country, with the consequences of these laws, these constitutions, not those long dead people. Our opinions and needs should be what matter, not theirs.
I live in Canada and there are lots of things about how Canada's systems work that annoy me/that I don't like. However I'll take the Canadian systems or almost any other countries over the states. America is becoming one of the most insane, backwards and violent countries out there. Couldn't pay me to live there.
As an American I am constantly flirting with leaving for greener pastures, but looking at the history of America (Literally Hitler learned half of his extremist views from America) if it doesn't get stopped in it's tracks here, it'll be exported to the rest of the world. So it feels like my duty to the planet to stay here and fight the good fight, lest I run away and the problem follows me to the ends of the earth
Canada has the exact same system as the US; however, you need to have a parliamentary majority for your nomination to pass.
@@ghostnoodle9721 please don’t be afraid to leave we don’t want you here anyways
@@ShehuStebe Oh no no no no no they do not, all of the power in Canada comes down from the federal government all of it. It’s even wrote in your guises constitution that way. Our federal government is supposed to be extremely limited with all of the power going to state and local municipalities. A great example of this is how Justin Trudeau can just clam down lies upon you and there is nothing you can do about it. He literally just came out and decided that he’s going to ban handguns. You can have all of your rights suspended just out of Justin Trudeau. Don’t ever give me that garbage ass crap were you guys have a literal dictator running America’s hat
They could me, $100 Million for 1 year then back home to retire 😉🤣
Shoutout to the Supreme Court giving itself the incredibly strong power of judicial review, all while being an unelected body. I fuckin hate America
Are you a fool. They upholded constitution nothing more or less. We should blame democrats who did not pass those law when they were in majority. Executive don't get to make rules. Get your facts straight.
@@nishant54 Judicial review is not written anywhere in the constitution. They gave themselves that power. Remember Marbury v. Madison from your civics class?
@@Gakulon They did not review anything. They just did what's written in the constitution. So, change it if you don't want.
@@Gakulon Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes that they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. Read the last few words carefully or have your eyes checked. Also, The Court's landmark decision established that the U.S. Constitution is actual law, not just a statement of political principles and ideals.
@@nishant54 "Upholded"?
The problem with throwing out laws based on whether they are ”constitutional” or not is that the constitution is not a solid entity. Something as simple as gay marriage should be constitutional and yet it’s somehow up to the arbitrary interpretation of a tiny-biased group of people with the power to effectively and unilaterally strip rights away from millions.
The supreme court is not a healthy entity, it needs to be torn down and remade so that they can do what they should be. Not stripping rights away, but constantly adding them and making them precedent that does not bend or break. Roe v Wade should have been set in stone from the start. If we’re seeing anything, it’s that the federal government must protect the citizens of all states, especially red, from ”states rights” as an excuse for oppression.
No. It should be up to the states. That's how it was designed in the constitution.
@@ghost2694 If that was always the case, we would still have slavery.
@@yee2631 Yeah, until an amendment was created that ban it. Although it is still allow for criminal.
I think the primary problem with the court is judicial review as it was established in Marbury v. Madison. The constitution never gave the court the power to overturn laws they deemed unconstitutional, SCOTUS essentially gave it to itself. Congress could pass a law that effectively takes away this power, which might actually be the easiest way to restrict the power of the court.
OK I’m ready to play with you, where in the constitution does it mention marriage at all? Why should the federal government be invested into any marriage? And more to the fact where in the constitution sense it should be enshrined in the law does it talk about abortion? Anything about it at all? But the constitution states that things that aren’t expressly permitted by the constitution is to be left for the states to decide. Explain to me how leaving the abortion debate more into the hands of the people in a smaller government is an “An excuse for oppression. “? Can you please explain me that.
All Congress has to do is pass a bill stripping the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. It's a power the Court gave itself in the Marbury v. Madison decision. Congress rarely if ever challenged it and the Court amassed more power.
Republicans might go for it. Democrats aren't there yet. Give them another decade.
Except that, you know, they will just say it's unconstitutional and shred it. You need to take away their actual governing power.
That is not going to happen at all. Republicans have and will have all the power, and Democrats will not do anything about this even if they do get the power.
Why would congress do that? Congress avoids governing for fear of loss of campaign funds.
@@Thormedor Which you can only do with a constitutional amendment.
The thing this video gets horrendously wrong, is that we are NOT a representative democracy. We are a Republic. And that means we are a nation of laws, and not majority rule.
The most supreme among those laws is the constitution, which was intentionally designed to be difficult to change by a small majority. The Constitution is designed to prevent the federal government from amassing enough power to address any issue that is not universally agreed upon. Said universal issues should be able to earn the most stringent of the Constitution's criteria, which is the 75% threshold of states for ratification.
The problem with our government is not the racist one outlined in the video, that rich white landowners control the country, but that the country is too divided to amend the constitution to adapt to modernity. If you were to suspend the intense hatred of the "other side" that exists as a core part of American politics, you could find wide agreement on a very large set of issues.
Take term limits for Congress, for example. 80% republicans, 80% democrats all agree on adding term limits to congress. That should be a no-brainer then, right? If 80% of both major political parties want something, what could possibly be standing in our way? The politicians. While 80% of the people of both political parties want term limits, the actual politicians who represent them do not. Politicians who would be directly affected by term limits in a negative way (they'd lose their jobs and political power). And because incumbency has such a strong effect on elections (95% of incumbents win), a vast super-majority of politicians will always be in congress because there are no term limits. Meaning at no time in the future will congress ever vote to add term limits.
There are checks for exactly this kind of situation. If 2/3rds of the states call for a convention (similar to the one that wrote the constitution), they can propose new amendments that congress doesn't want. The amendment still requires 75% of the states to ratify, so this method does not risk any partisan or otherwise bad amendment getting through. If even 13 states disagree with the amendment, it can't possibly pass.
However, this movement has never been successfully tried yet, in large part because people have never cared about congress's runaway power being disproportionate from the people. Recently, a new movement of states calling for exactly this convention has been spreading. As of March 2022, 19 of the 34 state legislatures required have passed bills calling for a convention of the states. In case you might be worried that the bill is secretly partisan or bad (and if it was partisan or bad, no such amendment would ever be ratified), I'll quote for you exactly what this is calling for:
"A convention of the states limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraint on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and members of Congress."
While this bill doesn't allow the convention to address every issue with American life, such as adding rights and powers to the constitution or reforming the supreme court, it WOULD make congress more responsive to the people. And that would be an excellent first step for moving towards more conventions to address more issues.
This bill has been proposed in an additional 21 states. In total, that's 40 of the required 34 states. If you live in any of those 21 states, or the 10 states that have yet to propose the bill, you should call your elected state representatives and ask them to pass the bill to bypass congress. Use this link here: conventionofstates.com/take_action
The only problem is too many people are waiting on the "perfect" convention before they support it. Or people inaccurately presume that a convention might be too powerful, since it can rewrite the constitution. What those people ruled by fear are missing is that it STILL requires 3/4 of the states to ratify. Calling the convention DOESN'T mean any of the changes the bill calls for will actually happen. But it allows the chance for elected representatives from each state to come up with a good amendment, and that amendment can start the process. We need to find what little agreement we can now, and work towards more agreement later. No one party will /ever/ have enough power to forgo finding compromises to overhaul the constitution. But together, we CAN do it.
11:00 Well France changed their constitution 15 times, 5 of which were republics. But that was only after (oversimplifying): The French Revolution, The Napoleonic Wars, restoring the old monarchy, another revolution, then another Napoleon taking over, a foreign invasion and a revolution, World War 2 and getting occupied, and then a governmental collapse which lead to one guy writing the current constitution. Then they’re currently still basically a colonial power. And thats skimming over a bunch of internal power struggles, mismanagement and counter revolutions.
Great video all in all, but the commemt at 3:18 is simply not true. The Brazilian Supreme court is a pretty big political actor and the judges are very well known and there appointment is also widely discussed. This is not an exclusively US American thing.
But That is only true for the ones who are biased. I am from India,a country of 1.4 billion people, but aside from Chief Justice and One or two others, I do not know the names of other justices , but I support the work Supreme Court does.
@@marky1173 All of them are biased, that's part of the problem. I can't say anything about Índia, but Brazil has a very similar relation to its Supreme court justices as the US.
Yeah, in Argentina is the same, we know by name all the 4 members of the supreme court, it's not that weird to have the Judicial Power to be as important player in Politics as the Executive and the Legislative.
@@marky1173 I'm very much aware about world and domestic politics buy seriously i don't know who chief justice of India is
It's not an exclusively US thing because we basically copied how the US Supreme Court works, that's why ours is just as bad.
1. End judicial review - Stop allowing the Supreme Court to veto laws
2. Implement term limits
3. Expand the court to at least 200 justices
4. Select the justices at random from lower courts
5. Institute a code of conduct for the Supreme Court
So you don’t Think that judicial review is necessary what exactly would be the Supreme Court’s job then? After you tell me how they are supposed to have a job if they don’t do any kind of review, why do you need 200 of them? Lastly how are you supposed to get decisive decisions when it can literally be ties? How are you supposed to get over 100 people to have some kind of a consensus Soundview could you imagine trying to get 200 people to even think on the same wave length? Select them from lower courts so you want the lady who has been busted for drunk driving here and has had to ride the bus in to the courthouse to do her job to be possible to be on the Supreme Court? Why is it only the Supreme Court that needs a code of conduct we literally have congressman asking for violence against our justices? Sidenote justices can be impeached, so there’s already got to be a code of conduct if you can be removed.
Wow! That was a lot. I'll try to answer all of your questions, but no guarantees!
The Supreme Court should continue to settle disputes between states, hear appeals when they have jurisdiction, and offer advice to Congress and the President. This was their original mandate! They should not have the total power to override laws created by a body that has been duly elected by the people.
As it stands, the Supreme Court takes on very few of the cases that are sent to them every year. A more expansive Supreme Court could take many more cases than they currently do. They could break into smaller committees, and work through the entire docket. No more picking and choosing cases. Also, we do not currently get a consensus from the Supreme Court, so I don't see why we would need to get one from a Court with more justices.
If there is a federal judge where you live who has been busted for drunk driving, and they were selected at random for the Supreme Court, they'd be but one person out of 200. And that's assuming that the code of conduct I would like them to have would allow them to be on the Supreme Court at all. Now, imagine if a total drunk were sworn in to be one of 9!
The Supreme Court is not the only court that should have a code of conduct. However, it is the only federal court which does not have one. How is it that the people with the most power and authority have the least responsibility when it comes to how they conduct themselves?
Yes, Justices can be impeached. However, it is nearly impossible to do so. It's only been accomplished once in the entire history of our country. So the hypothetical drunk who gets sworn in to the Supreme Court cannot be removed. A code of conduct would hold Justices to some kind of standard, and could realistically provide consequences for bad behavior.
I will not comment on specific behavior by members of the legislature. Congress also needs to be reformed, and there are plenty of despicable people who need to be weeded out, but it is a rabbit trail that will get us far off topic.
@@CitizenPlane OK I’m not gonna be attacking and I’m not gonna be aggressive with this, let’s start at its top how many issues do you really think happened in between the states and all of the other things that happen that is mentioned in the constitution? My response is going to be in multiple segments because you gave me a lot to work with and I have to scroll back up to read it. Why should they not select their own cases and why should they have to have a full docket like a general courthouse? The supreme court was not supposed to rule and very many things.
@@CitizenPlane going on with my judge who is a drunk, if you can’t remove them what’s the point of the code of conduct? How do you enforce that? What exactly should it be how many of these things are subjective? In theory with your code of conduct I am assuming somebody can’t be a sexist, if someone says boys are not girls is that sexism? Code of conduct some things like this are kind of hard to work around because generally most of the terms in them are super subjective. On top of that we are losing more and more of the idea of language in what words mean today. In theory in your code of conduct should are justices know what a woman is? Should they be able to define it? I honestly don’t understand the point of the car code of conduct when you don’t really have a way to enforce it. Lastly you said with the most power the constitution really doesn’t have the most power. And the reason why they have the least amount of responsibility is because they’re supposed to do the least amount of things. Literally they’re only supposed to convene maybe once a year to settle a major dispute or go over a treaty. The idea of the framers was never supposed to have this many cases and deaths many things for the supreme court to do.
@@CitizenPlane Completely fair enough of a rabbit hole on the topic I can concede on that one.
"An organization interpreting itself into having less power" Ironically, this is exactly what the SC did with the Roe decision, as the original Roe and Casey ruling read much more like legislation than a court opinion. By reversing Roe, it removes this precedent of direct Supreme Court legislative authority.
Roe actually took power away from the people by creating a right to privacy out of whole cloth and using it to limit the reach of the normal democratic decision making provided for in the constitution. Dobbs merely returned the decision to the democratic branches where it belongs.
EXACTLY! Took way too long to find this comment. The SC deciding on a generalized abortion legalization despite any State's wishes is overreaching. The SC is only meant to stop constitutional violations and that's it. It's impressive how americans know so little of their history and constitution and how it was designed. The saddest part is the answer is literally in the name United States of America
@@dpg227
And what if the people's within their respective states' governments do not represent their interests? Are you just ok with blatant bigots and sexists making decisions that aren't popular? Or how about laws being passed that limit people's voice in government i.e. voter suppression? No? Then how is this decision returning things to democracy?
@@vitorcardoso7477
And has it? And what do you mean the state's wishes? The masses of each state or those few that sit within the legislatures of those states?
Man, I truly love your videos and I appreciate the amount of quality content you put out! Thank you so much for all you do!
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the Corporate states of America, and to the Republicans for which it stands, one nation under debt, easily divisible, with liberty and justice for *Oil.*
😂👏🏼
Land of the Greed and Home of the Slave.
The simpson did it better "One nation under the dollar, for liberty and justice for none"
what?
I thought austerity was an evil Republican/conservative thing?
I love how they don't even have to pretend to be non biased.
What you do is SOOOO important. Great content, please keep it up I share your stuff all the time.
The problem is that the common law doctrine shifts power from the elected legislator to the appointed judiciary.
With the Roman law doctrine the first thing a judge reviews if in doubt is notes and communications among lawmakers. If still in doubt about what the lawmakers intended she then looks at precedence. Common law reverse this and looks first at precedence, and if no precedence exist then they try to figure out what the lawmakers intended. This even enables precedence that no legislator ever voted for like qualified immunity. When the court encounters a void they can just make up stuff.
Common law have the advantage that you can allow more incompetent and sloppy lawmakers. With roman law the legislator will require professional help, so common law does have upsides.
Basing your ruling on "what did we do before?" is the very definition of conservative.
To almost every major action there are unintended consequences. The Court and GOP by extension should think very assiduously about what those might be considering the reversal of RvW and how it will affect them.
you can't logically argue with someone who hasn't based their positions on logic. traditionalists not only don't care about the mathematics of their actions, but to care would be to become a nontraditionalist in their eyes. "but that's absurd!" you exclaim, and yes, it is. nothing about them is reasonable, and thus trying to reason with them is not only ineffective, but wasted effort that could be used more effectively somewhere else. i say this as a former cult member of over two decades, depropogandization is a very intentional and individual process that takes years. please use your breath more wisely, and stop trying to appeal to the political mafia's nonexistent rationality. as a great movie quote goes, "some men just want to watch the world burn."
Kind of naive to assume the GOP just isn’t considering the consequences of their actions when in reality this is the culmination of decades of political maneuvering finally paying off against an increasingly ineffectual controlled opposition party. If they’re underestimating anything its how regular people will respond to this, not the democratic party. GOP knows full well *they’re* barely gonna do anything but read poems and fundraise. This whole thing looks more to me like the GOP calling the dems’ bluff and the majority of dems caved instantly. They can basically do whatever they want until regular people stop them.
It won't. This is what they do. They manipulate their voters to vote against their own interests because they use their wealth and power to hide their dirt.
I personally would love for someone to release the medical records for abortions conservative politicians have paid for. You want to take away right to privacy? Let's play.
@@ethanstump you are so right. I got into an argument with an old coworker about how obviously stupid it is to think the free market can adequately address education and healthcare. Then he went on this idiotic rant about the constitution and said it doesn't guarantee healthcare. He said the constitution only guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I responded, "right... To life..."
And refused to engage with him any further 🤣
The real sad thing is, we're both nurses. And this sort of brain rot within healthcare really hurts my soul.
@@RedScareClair can you show me where government control worked? Plus on top of that when we seen school voucher systems go across Sweden which pretty much opened up the market for schooling we have actually seen increased amounts of productivity out of the people as adults and the children. When you give people choice is it raises competition when you raise competition you have to have a better product in order to keep the people. Yes the open market can do a lot more for education than federal government control
Imagine how life would be if we used healthcare standards from 200 years ago. We shouldn’t use a 200+ year old constitution either, not without some updates at least.
Conervatives don't believe in evolution. They will fight and kill to keep things from changing.
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet You do know that the federal government never stopped into abortion until 1973 in the stethoscope is definitely invented before 1973
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet 18th century government in a 21st century world. Really effective for addressing modern societal problems. We go the way of all calcified empires throughout history. 🏴
We have to see it not work in order to get the impetus to change it. Like how 1/2 the Senate can represent 43% of the public. Or the winner of the popular vote has not won the majority of electors. The problem is that the radical minority won't give up power easily. I was surprised to find that the Constitutional obligation to have representatives based on the 1920 Census was overlooked in the 1920s (due to Republicans being against immigrants) and only the 1930 Census was used to change districts after FDR and the Democrats took control of Congress.
If the court can say that corporations are people and campaign contributions are free speech then it can probably interpret the Constitution to mean anything it wants. It's the same as people interpreting the Bible.
Do you believe that my speech should be suppressed because I am wealthier than you?
@@rt_huxley9205 No. What makes you think I would believe that? I was talking about corporations, not people.
@@SolidAir54321 Corporations are a group of wealthy people. So why should we restrict how they spend their money?
What really is your core issue with let's say Elon Musk, donating to Joe Biden vs a Local Plumbers Union?
@@rt_huxley9205 Do you believe that bribery of politicians should be legal, ethical, and should be a protected freedom?
Do you believe in "one dollar, one vote"?
If my house is on two acres of land and yours is one one acre, should I get two votes while you get one?
@@SolidAir54321 Bribery is already illegal.
In the land scenario, both of them in real life get one vote. How exactly would a person double vote, without violating the law?
Thank you as always for your brilliant words
“It has often been suggested to me that the Constitution of the United States is a sufficient safeguard for the freedom of its citizens. It is obvious that even the freedom it pretends to guarantee is very limited. I have not been impressed with the adequacy of the safeguard. The nations of the world, with centuries of international law behind them, have never hesitated to engage in mass destruction when solemnly pledged to keep the peace; and the legal documents in America have not prevented the United States from doing the same. Those in authority have and always will abuse their power. And the instances when they do not do so are as rare as roses growing on icebergs. Far from the Constitution playing any liberating part in the lives of the American people, it has robbed them of the capacity to rely on their own resources or do their own thinking. Americans are so easily hoodwinked by the sanctity of law and authority. In fact, the pattern of life has become standardized, routinized, and mechanized like canned food and Sunday sermons. The hundred-percenter easily swallows syndicated information and factory-made ideas and beliefs. He thrives on the wisdom given him over the radio and cheap magazines by corporations whose philanthropic aim is selling America out. He accepts the standards of conduct and art in the same breath with the advertising of chewing gum, toothpaste, and shoe polish. Even songs are turned out like buttons or automobile tires--all cast from the same mold.” Emma Goldman
The changes that come from those social groups that stay the course are so amazing, for me, simply because they do so at the threat of their lives ending. I really do love the awareness this channel is brining. Can't wait to see the subscriber list eclipse 2 million and then so on and so on.
I love how watching your videos makes me look at things in a completely different light!
Another great video, man. Thanks for the great educational content, JT, I always send your videos to my more liberal family members. You do such a great job being palatable to people who are normally prone to plugging their ears when confronted with these realities.
Hold on you send this to your more liberal family members. This guy is already pretty much liberal as it gets holy cow how bad is your family
@@MacNCheezeWhiz No, he's not a liberal lol. He's a communist. Communists are not just super liberals. Liberal actually means something, and it has NOTHING to do with leftist thought.
"We're the only country in the world where people know who their supreme court justices are?"
No... no you're not, over here in Brazil we also know who OUR supreme court justices are, for similar reasons admittedly, there's been some conflicts between the president and the court in recent years...and some other snags before that, but we do also know the names of our supreme court justices here.
Finally back on Nebula and very happy to do it. Thanks man.
Thank you for taking on this difficult subject.
You pictured Germany as "one of the normal countries" but the court system works similarly here, but is just more obscure. The supreme court overturned a law in Berlin mandating that landlords have to comply in reducing rents to a reasonable price, in order to prevent overcharging as unconstitutional. For some context, milk, bread, and butter are commodities that are price fixed as well in Germany.
At least the solution there is to build more housing to bring the rents down. Of course America's having a hard time doing that. Zoning laws help stop multi-family residences. Or get new and more justices that will uphold rent control.
Your videos are so hard to watch but are really important if we are going to save this country from itself.
Keep up the good work!
Hard to watch?
@@dirrdevil I think they mean in the sense that his videos show the gravity of our situation. None of the problems we face have easy solutions, and the easier ones, like mass uprisings, seem very unlikely.
@@dirrdevil Hard to watch because I have lived in the US my whole life (60 years) and I didn't realize just how far off track it is and how insanely difficult it will be to remedy it.
It makes me feel helpless.
I’ve gotta say, and this may sound silly if you say this in every video, but just having started watching your content creator, hearing a content creator welcome us to dislike their content has to be one of the most refreshing things I’ve heard in this platform in a long time. Lol.
Another banger absolutely. Love your channel!
Well, the US is not alone in this. In Brazil the average citizen knows all the Supreme Court's justices names. Furthermore, the judiciary in Brazil has its own television that transmits live all the trials the Supreme Court does...
All I think is a little exaggerated but yeah.
Furthermore, as Brazil's Constitution touches about a wide variety of issues, sometimes in deep detail, STF essentially is called to pass judgement on almost every piece of legislation
This is why we need a national referendum. We need the ability to make laws directly.
@Somewhatskeptical Well they seem to work well for Switzerland. Granted it is a much smaller country, than the US, and it already has a functioning multiparty democracy, but this is a human rights issue to me.
Yes, the polarization around Brexit was singularly bad, but that's what you would expect in a messed up system. Referendums give the people real power in their hands, not just through an intermediary who never listens to you anyway.
With that power, we could enact strong campaign finance reforms, even end all political ads if we wanted. We could pass term limits for all legislators, ranked choice voting ,etc. Those things are unthinkable in the current system because politicians are bought and paid for.
So I think any potential polarization is worth the trade off if we can accomplish the above mentioned reforms.
That's what the second amendment is for if you try hard enough
a national referendum for what? so we can all scream obscenities at each other? have you been paying attention AT ALL to the political discourse? there are very few moderate civil people left anymore. a suggestion that is grossly unworkable isnt a suggestion at all. its an exercise in ego inflation. were way past a referendums, its time to just let this beast die instead of propping up trash. thats not a suggestion, its a statement of opinion.
@Somewhatskeptical Well, nothing is perfect. I just don't see a way to radical reforms through elected representatives. Pick your poison, I guess.
It's crazy that even though I hit the notify button I don't get your videos surfaced to me without digging for them even though I've watched just about every video you put out lol
Coming from Iceland, I have NEVER thought of looking up the people on the Supreme court, maybe that's lucky on my part to never have had to think about it but now I can't NOT think about it - thank you for that hahaha
It’s not so much here that people have to look it up the problem is that’s pushed in front of our face as if no matter what person gets on the Supreme Court it’s life or death. Thomas went through a show trial live on public TV Cavanaugh did Comey Barrett did Merrick garland did, And in some ways can Tangi brown Jackson did too but not nearly as much as the people previously mentioned.
@@MacNCheezeWhiz I think it's actually strange that even I have heard some of those names before and your Supreme court system is very technically none of my business, so you are must definitely very correct!
@@birtarb07 Oh I wasn’t trying to debate with you I by any way shape and form I was just trying to point out that the only reason why we know about our supreme courts at all is because of how disgusting our media and our congressman are. Open till about 1920 or so most Americans didn’t even know who the president was that’s how unimportant our federal government used to be
My dearest most beautiful JT,
please start posting thumbnails with links to your videos onto instagram so I can start sharing them in my story🥳🥳🥳 I’m tired of screenshotting and manually posting every cool video there 🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰
Thank you comrade 🥺❤
Just to add that people in Brazil are aware of who their justices are because of how many important decisions have been taken by them in the past decade and how Bolsonaro has created animosity towards them because sometimes they kinda defy his wishes. Anyway, I think justices unfortunately end up having more power than they should when the congress simply stops passing meaningful legislation.
I was looking for this comment but I think he means no other developed country.
Fantastic video and an extremely important subject!
Man this was so good! I feel like I’m relearning how the US government actually works.I don’t know if this would be possible but could you do a video reframing our US government from a leftist point of view? I know that’s a lot. If not are there any other books, like the one you mentioned, or channels that contextualize American law from a leftist point of view?
Regardless much love from a fellow Texan and keep up the good work JT!
P. Andrew Torrez does an excellent job of breaking down the law in excruciating detail in his and Thomas' podcast Opening Arguments. Wouldn't exactly call it 101 type content though, if that's what you're hoping for, but it is intended to be digestible for the layperson.
@@pattyspanker8955 Dope! I’m definitely going to check it out! Thank you!
@@tireedean9956 Always refreshing to see people motivated to get informed perspective, in Texas no less! From the way you've written, definitely hope it speaks to you as it has for me, coming from a deep red county, blue state. 😆
France: "I am a ridiculous country."
USA: "Ahem..."
France: "... Very well. I concede."
I’m so glad you put in there his campaign promise for evaluating the efficacy of the court, because the report only indicated that the experts of the report were torn and came to no conclusion.
That was such a weak statement, it was hard to reconcile that with his following remark that Biden was for expanding the court. Say what?
I could believe any bipartisan commission would come to no conclusion. Republicans have the power and won't give it up without kicking, screaming and having a Jan 6 insurrection.
@@sandal_thong8631 And the funny thing is the commision was not political, it was supposed to be legal scholars. They shouldn't have weighted any of it over if it were plausible politically, but in terms of the broader long-term implications of constitutional definition and/or adherence with additional judges. The commission was not a political strategy and shouldn't be misinterpreted as one, at most it quelled democratic supporters into thinking something was being done about the more recent malapportionment of historically conservative-ruling judges.
Thanks for the video :)
-I would love to see a video about the best countries in the world in terms of politics and quality of life (education, healthcare, economics). Why they are great, what systems do they use and how can more countries achieve this also.
Yes, get me outta this hell hole.
Great video! I just would like to add that Brazil does have a deeply familiarity with its Supreme Court Justices also, besides USA. I would argue that we have even more recognition of our 'Ministros' than the United States (and even more power). Other than that, excellent work!
Makes sense, the Brazilian Supreme Court structure was basically copy and pasted from the SCOTUS
The problem isn't the supreme Court, it's the USA inability or unwillingness to reform the constitution. You amended it in the past, but have now given up on doing it again.
Years of acculturation and social engineering designed to make people see the US Constitution as a divine document have done their work. Mere humans can't better the work of the divine, the logic goes, so it must remain unchanged. A nifty ploy.
It is the Supreme Court. We got the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments after the Civil War and the court decided in favor of Jim Crowe and "Separate but Equal." People who say we've never lost rights before forget that.
Another banger as usual!
Thank you so much second thought you are a true warrior
Bless you 🇺🇸
The right course of action would be:
-1 term of 20 years, no reelection.
-Require a 3/5 mayority in both chambers of congress to appoint
-15 justices, 3 justices appointment every 4 years (5 staggered cycles).
-2/3 mayority in Scotus for a ruling.
This is the only way you can ensure the rulings don't get political or one party control the court. We can only dream.
You do know that the court would’ve been much more balanced if after Merrick garland the Democrats didn’t get a rid of the Judicial filibuster. Mitch McConnell told him he was going to make them pay for that and he did they triple scooped em. If not for that the Democrats had a majority in the Senate they could’ve just held out until Joe Biden became president and they had a straight majority. The only reason why the court is set up like this is because of the Democrats incompetence.
As for Your proposal, I’m pretty staunchly conservative but I like it I just wish you didn’t have 15 justices I think that’s too many in order to come up with consensus opinions. Too many viewpoints to debate out I wish they would go back down to seven or five. It would be much better that way other than that I really do like the rest of it. One more thing I would add to that, I would permanently leave them as public servants and keep them out of things like the private sector After retirement or in theory forced retirement
@@MacNCheezeWhiz The European Court of Justice has 27 members, one for each country. India's Supreme Court has 34. So 15 for the third most populated country in the world is not that high of a number.
@@Jose04537 It’s not supposed to be based on population the smaller the groups in the justices the less wide ranging of opinions do you get and you will get more and more concise can opinions. It’s much easier to read three dissents verses 8 descends. And honestly why do you need 15 people to be a Supreme Court justice like why expand the court at all? What do you think expanding the court is going to do or is it just because you want to get liberal justices into those slots?
@@MacNCheezeWhiz More opinions equals more viewpoints that can be taken into consideration and be debated on. Of course there's a point where it's too many people, but 15 ain't it.
"Don't call us political hacks," says the political hack.
5:36
>Controlled by as few people as there are fingers on a woodworker's hands.
I realize this is a serious topic and I am enraptured. Still that gave me a good chuckle.
Great work guys thank you.
3:15 As a brazilian, i must disagree. Here we face much of the same problems actually. Most of the LGBT rights we have came not from the legislative passing laws but by by our supreme court STF rullings, making homophobia equal to racism and extending marriage to same sex couples. And the judges have increasingly became very public figures, including frequent squabbles with current president Bolsonaro, but that's a quite recent phenomena, 30 or so years ago no one knew who the judges were.
So in other words? They forced change on everyone?
Who else has the power to stand up to radical-right presidents and legislatures?
This is one of those really disturbing issues for me, since the courts were (for some naive reason) were one branch I didn’t perceive as corrupt until very very recently
Interesting take on this topic.
Nice to see your face! Keep up the good work.
We have a constitutional court with the same powers in South Africa. Fortunately for us the judges are very progressive. They abolished the death penalty, promoted equality and constantly hold elected representative to account for the fulfilment of socio-economic rights and freedoms. It is pretty scary what's happening in the US. We have a fear that our constitutional court may one day turn on the people
I know my comment is probably getting ignored, since there are a lot, but let me correct two things :
-no, France isn't in its fifth constitution. It's the 14th. Five is the number of Republics, and the first Republic had three constitutions.
-No, France isn't a "ridiculous country", it may be smaller than Texas but we're a major power still AND furthermore, speaking about laws, France is one of the countries that have been the most influencial on lawmaking. A third of the world (including Louisiana) use the Napoleonic Law system. You simply cannot talk about law and say France is ridiculous at the same time, it's just precisely not the good topic to say so.
Last point, but please note that what is the Supreme Court alone in the US, is in France reprensented by three different insitutions. The State Council, the Constitutional Council AND the Cassation Court.
I'm not surprised by his ignorance.
JT, you plugged The New F Word at the end of the video, but I haven’t seen a new episode added since November. I wanna see more of it. It’s quite literally the reason I started a Nebula subscription!
Great work
Get ready to fight. First: look up "fight" and "vote" and notice these words have nothing at all to do with one another. "Speak" is also not even close.
I always love how Republicans forget how Lincoln's Rep. Party is our times Democratic party. Ya know, cuz the whole Great Swap thing that happened during the Civil Rights movement. Oh and lets not forget those oxymoronic "Log Cabin" Republicans... 🤦♂️😅
Nope. Democrats and Republicans have both been far-right fascists since 1968. The democrats watched as the Civil rights act was dismantled.
Hypocritical, not oxymoronic
No. they know. They just hope YOU won't know because they're using Lincoln as shield from criticism.
They don't forget. They just want to undermine the sources that say it so that you'll swallow their shit.
Honestly neither party today is Lincoln’s Republican Party tbh. Lincoln’s Party was bold in the defense of civil rights. I don’t think that describes the recent Democratic administrations very well ☠️
love seeing you. keep deprogramming comrade
Thank you!!!
I don't think we could codify Roe. Say Congress passes a bill that does, what would stop a state from passing a law that violates it. Ensuing court cases later this makes it to the supreme court which declares it unconstitutional and the new federal law is cast down. Am I missing something here?
Yep, you missed the supremacy clause in the constitution. Congress laws are Supreme to the states laws. Its actually in the constitution.
Yes they certainly could and women's rights advocates have been asking them to since 1973.
What stops states from passing laws contravening federal law is Article 2 clause 2:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
IOW federal law supersedes state law.
@Zaydan Naufal That's an excellent question with a very, very complicated answer. A significant part of that answer is simply that the federal government hasn't yet decided to press the issue, but that doesn't mean they can't or won't.
@@jarvisaddison8560 Unless the Supreme Court then goes on to apply the right to life protections to the fetuses which therefore makes the federal law unconstitutional and the state level law is therefore upheld
I still feel that if we have a 2 & 1/2 term limit (or 10 year maximum) for the Presidency and a majority of Governors have term limits, we should have term limits for all members of the House (I say 10, 2 year terms), Senate (3, 6 year terms), and Judicial Branch (at most 20 years). I feel this is the only way to ensure we prevent complicity in our government by constantly changing it!
What is a half term? Do you win a half election?
That sounds exhausting lol
@@zombiefacesupreme: The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that if a President dies or resigns from office, their Vice President becomes President and that new President finishes out that 4 year term. If there were less then 2 years left in that term and that President runs and wins an election, that is treated as a 5 to 6 year 1st term. That President can then run again for another 4 year term, which would total less then 10 years. No President since this Amendment was ratified has experienced this, but both Calvin Coolidge and Lyndon Johnson served a 6 year 1st term when their predecessor died in office, and they chose not to run for a 2nd 4 year term. Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency from Nixon with about 3 years left, so he could have run for 1 full 4 year term but not another since that would have been greater then 10 years. I hope this long explanation helped.
None of those terms are short enough to create a meaningful impact. Everyone should get a flat 5 years in their role of choice, while immediately becoming permanently barred from serving in any other branch subsequent to that.
the reason we dont do that is because no one wants to vote once a month. i see a lot of ideas posted on leftists videos that are just rehashes of already tried and failed policies. we went over what you just said in civics class, and we went over rent control and price ceilings in economics class already.
Another banger, second thought 🙌
phenomenal video 👍
9:10 - Speaking of Lincoln, it's sad to know that back then, the Republicans were the progressive party founded by Lincoln, while Democrats were the conservatives. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but the KKK not only persecuted black people and Catholics, but also heavily disliked people who supported the Republican party.
If Lincoln were alive today to see how his party has completely flipped its ideology, he would struggle for words to describe his shock.
Woah woah calm down don’t get ahead of yourself. 😂Linoln was the progressive of his time like banning slavery. He doesn’t support things like taking it up the bum that’s a big stretch in your logic 😅
Indeed he would now the republicans have become the kkk
I think the ideology flip started during and after WW2, then fully happened when Reagan took the mantel.
@@Nephalem2002
Why are all the responses getting shadow-banned?
@@GTAVictor9128 can you see my reply? I wrote Lincoln isn't a progressive in today standards
I see the point of your video and I surely support it. But the part about other countries and their supreme courts is misleading.
Continental Law is the one of the two main law system used in the world. In opposite of British, American, etc. Common Law systems which are heavily using judicial precedents, it lies at the system of written laws, e. g. statues. Most of the supreme courts can abolish these laws adopted by lawmakers, at least in some sort of way. Some procedures are similar to the American ones, others are very different. Their power is also limited by the constitutional law and the possibility of a control by another branch of the government (but vastly different, e. g. in some countries there are limited mandates of supreme court judges). But often it is the impossibility to make decisions which are on the same level as laws. Of course there are still another Common Law systems in the world like in the US. But almost every on of them is trying to restrict the power of judicial precedents.
This whole text has been simplified as it is just a comment on a YT video, there is far more factors and differences at play.
good shit JT
Starting around 7:22 I'm 95% sure hats the Mass Effect 2(?) menu music in the background. Nice
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this video but the Australian High Court absolutely does have the power to invalidate law as unconstitutional. I would assume any country with a Westminster system has this, that is literally how the judiciary is meant to function as a check on the powers of the other 2 branches. Our High Court has struck down our fair share but I suppose most of it isn't as unpopular as overturning Roe. There is an easy way to fix it, and its something the US should have done a long time ago but I suppose with how fractured and insane it is now that is not likely, and that is for their Parliament to enact legislation protecting abortion rights. If correctly drafted, the courts cannot lawfully strike that down. And whether it is correctly drafted will depend on whats in the US constitution and whether their federal government has powers to make laws in relation to healthcare/crime.
Roe v Wade was alway problematic to rely on to protect a right because it is just case law, which is overturned frequently by courts.
Here's hoping President Biden gets a chance to replace Justice Thomas before 2024 so that makes the Supreme Court 4 Liberal, 4 Conservative, and Roberts as the swing vote. That said, it shouldn't even be a 6-3 Supreme Court now considering the fact 4 of the Conservatives were appointed by Presidents who didn't win the popular vote in their elections!
The electoral college is trash!
And Barrett said she wouldn’t let her religion and beliefs affect her judgement
And therefore she LIED
another day another second thought banger
It's refreshing to see a thoughtful channel that criticizes the establishment no matter what side of the political spectrum they are on. We have not been holding our leaders to account, and that's part of why we are in this mess in the first place.
Let's just re write the constitution already.
Very dangerous idea. Who gets to write it? What it's ideology? Private property rights or human rights? I think its like a box of chocolate you never know what you'll get.
@The Metamodern th-cam.com/video/vXeEIBPuAxs/w-d-xo.html
And, what exactly do you propose will be written?
Please listen to the podcast FiveFour to get a fuller understanding of why the supreme court sucks. I've already binge-d the first 15 episodes and I've got a long way to go! Basically, they use a lot of fancy legal words, but it's all just a fancy stage for what they wanted to do anyway.
I’ve gotta say, and this may sound silly if you say this in every video, but just having started watching your content, hearing a content creator welcome us to dislike their content has to be one of the most refreshing things I’ve heard in this platform in a long time. Lol.
Love your videos ❤️💖❤️💖