Are the Supremes the Original American Authoritarians?

[Tommymac]

Perhaps this can be argued. At least by someone like me who is not a lawyer or legal scholar. I'd like to hear replies from those here with some of those qualifications. Prove me wrong, please!

They are NOT directly elected by The People. They are appointed and put in office by The Executive and Legislative Branches of Our Government.

They serve for life. The People have no recourse if they are incompetent or criminal as no mechanisms for direct recall, or even an actual or symbolic Vote of Confidence exist.

They have no Constitutional Code of ethics. No other formal Code of Ethics that applies to them, unlike lower court judges.

Their direct power over The People can be tremendous. They CAN effectively legislate and rule from their unassailable legal perch if they so desire.

The ONLY control on them The Constitution provides is the ability of The Legislative Branch to impeach and try them for removal from office. However, in a Two-Party system (The Constitution was written with the intent of our Forefathers that there should be NO political parties of any kind) this power is in all practicality politically unusable, as we have seen with the TWO impeachment Trials of TFG. In fact, there have been FOUR Impeachment proceedings against Presidents in Our country's long history, and none have been found guilty and removed from office. Their have been occasional successful Impeachments of lower court judges (and perhaps Cabinet Members - have not researched), but not very many.

So no ethical, moral, legal, political or other controls effectively exist that seem to apply specifically to The Supremes once they assume office. They are Authoritarian Autocrats in all practical respects.

They are Authoritarians.

Again, please, someone please walk me off this ledge - this unwashed person would love to see some expert analysis.

Thanks in advance

[Sneederbunk]

1. I was always suspicious of Diana Ross.

[unblock]

3. she's certainly been described as a tyrant by her detractors....

[Magoo48]

8. She did order us to "Stop, in the name of love".

[Tommymac]

10. Y'all

[unblock]

2. well, nixon as president and abe fortas as supreme court justice both resigned

rather than face impeachment. it's reasonable to assume that they wouldn't have done so had it not been for the impeachment mechanism. so i think these can be counted as a victory of the impeachment process even though neither was formally impeached.

as to your main point, i agree that the supremes are the least accountable and the most conservative branch, by design. they are meant to be slow and deliberate and reactive and to provide continuity and predictability in terms of what the constitution and our laws mean. that can be good or it can be bad; certainly they have often been an impediment to progress throughout our history.

that said, our constitution and our history has many elements of authoritarianism and a dubious implementation of democracy, so the supremes hardly stand alone in this regard.

we started off denying the vote to women and slaves, so, not much of a democracy when you deny the vote to so many of the people affected by governmental actions. we've fixed that officially, though voter suppression remains and of late has been coming back with a vengeance. the senate is not representative, nor is the electoral college, and certain rules make matters even worse.

better to recognize that we've never been the ideal democracy we like to think we are.

[brush]

7. Good points on the Senate (filibuster) and the electoral college. I'd add the 2nd amendment...

as a glaring flaw that needs attention as well.

[RobinA]

9. Democracy Is A Process

Or a system, not a frozen moment in time. What makes us a democracy is that, although women and slaves did not originally have the right to vote, the process was in place for them to gain the right to vote. We didn’t have to scrap the system to expand the vote, we just had to amend a document in a prescribed way. That’s Democracy.

[Tommymac]

11. Good points.

I am a strong proponent of a 'living' Constitution. I just wish the mechanisms in place were a bit faster and more directly accessible by and for The People.

I'm also in disagreement of your use of dubious in regards to Our implementation of democracy. I'd submit inefficient is a better word for what we both see as something imperfect.

We had the first modern Democracy; versions in use in Western Europe are a more perfect form in a lot of regards; but I also submit the Crown Jewel of Our Constitution is NOT Democracy but a firm and LEGAL definition of Humanity's Basic Human Rights in the form of The Bill Of Rights.

That is what makes the US special - the fact we have continued to modify THOSE aspects of the Original document in progressive ways that have led to less harm and less suffering among all peoples.

I submit that due to its Authoritarian nature, a far Right Supreme Court is a clear and present danger to The Bill of Rights, not just Democracy. It's term of power is measured in DECADES not years.

[lapfog_1]

4. The Federalist Society

where all repuke judges come from... is definitely authoritarian.

[MineralMan]

5. I thought The Supremes was a musical group.

Maybe you meant "The Supreme Court."

[treestar]

6. They serve for life so they can be independent of those

who appointed them. Something TFG did not understand.

They are to deliberate on the law. Their decisions have to be supported by a legal opinion. They don't have authority to do whatever they want, but to interpret the law. Granted a conservative judge can twist things, but in the law only so far - it's not like journalism where pundits or reporters can slant things. They have to have a citation to a previous case.

The rulings need rationales to support them. They don't want to embarass themselves by writing something incredibly stupid when they are on the SCOTUS. TFG would do it, but he's not qualified. Even his appointees will have a limit on what they would write and did not uphold his stupid lawsuits.

I would think they have a Code of Ethics - judges generally do.

[thatdemguy]

12. Yes they are by design.

Their job is to interpret cases as they come to them based on what the Constitution says. They are the last stop, if arguments on laws, or other issues get to them, they are the final answer. As it should be, since there is nothing higher than them.

Now congress, the states and the president can over rule them by changing the Constitution, the supreme court could do nothing to stop it. It is a co equal branch, they can be over ruled by changes in the law.

The problem is when they bring partisan politics in to the mix, and this goes both ways. They should not change the interpretation of the Constitution past changes in times and technology. Example being a laser printer, the first amendment applied to the manual printing press at the time, but it has been accepted that a laser printer has the same protections. ( ie some thing you said printed on a laser printer, not giving person hood to the printer )

[Tommymac]

13. Interesting.

The main flaw I see is that in practical experience the Original Constitution is very flawed at the foundations because it was written with an implicit assumption political parties as we know them today would never exist.

So while the mechanism it provides for The People's check on the SC is Impeachment, which has been proven that it just doesn't work in our past and current political realities.

[thatdemguy]

14. See here is the rub...

Congress is the ones with the power to impeach. And you used the words the "peoples" check. Congress no longer represents the people, they represent what will give them more power. Now that power is control, votes, personal agendas, and money.

Congress has been saying for years everything we want to hear, just to get us to vote them more control and power. Look at any long term politician, they grow richer, more powerful while we get promises.

Thats what got AOC elected, and same as rump. People wanted something different than the normal promises and lies. If both sides actually decided to work together, I personally think we might be even more screwed. We need people who will do the right thing even if it hurts.

Yes I lean to a less powerful .gov. Or maybe more accurately to a .gov for the people, not one for its self. Remember a black hole, as it sucks in more matter, it gets bigger and stronger. Same with a snowball rolling down a snow covered hill, at some point it cant even support it self and crumbles, and we maybe getting close to that.