Should we Abolish the Supreme Court?

[Pryderi]

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17950896/supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh-constitution

If you look at the overall course of US Supreme Court history, the description that you’ve offered is basically correct. But there are exceptions, as there always are, to that kind of generalization. One is the relatively brief Warren Court era, which still occupies the imagination of many people who think about the Constitution.

We’ve had the Brown v. Board of Education decision and Roe v. Wade, and then, more recently, the Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage — and all of these decisions were empowering for different segments of the population.

The big question is whether the gains from those kinds of protections of minority interests are substantial enough to outweigh the Court’s interference with legislation on behalf of the most powerful elements of our society. If you’re focused on many recent decisions, like Citizens United, the Court certainly seems to be favoring corporate power, but the picture is less clear when you step back and evaluate it over a much longer period of time.

[marie999]

1. There are three equal branches of government.

If The Supreme Court was abolished then there would only be two. Besides, you could never get an amendment to The Constitution that would abolish The Supreme Court.

[A HERETIC I AM]

6. The Judicial Branch is a lot larger than just the Supreme Court.

Don't forget all the Appellate courts, etc.

I think the premise of the OP is silly, but....anyway...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. What a ridiculous question.

The entire structure of our government is based on three equal branches. Take away one of them and the whole thing falls apart because there is no entity that can check the other two. The fact that the Supreme Court hasn't always performed its checking duty as well as it should have doesn't mean it should be abolished - which in any event would require a Constitutional amendment that would never have a snowball's chance in Hell of being enacted or ratified.

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. The entire structure of the US government is part of the reason it's so fucking broken

ideally the whole rickety edifice would be torn down and replaced with a proper parliamentary government instead of the bastard elective monarchy we have now.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. We're kind of stuck with it for the foreseeable future, so

we have to figure out how to clean it up as much as possible. Any government is only as good as the people who manage it; the men who drafted the Constitution mostly figured it would be followed in good faith but tried to set up a structure that would balance out bad-faith actions of parts of it. I don't think they foresaw a situation in which the entire thing became corrupted. Parliamentary systems are imperfect, too. Just ask our friends in Great Britain, who managed to elect a moron like BoJo and are in the process of self-destructively withdrawing from the EU.

[Spider Jerusalem]

11. Yeah, except the system itself is fundamentally flawed

there's a reason that no other country uses the American system of government, and that none of the ones that tried it stuck with it. If it was any good, after 230 years you'd expect some imitation. I lived in the UK for over a decade; I would take the Westminster system over what the USA has now. And the problem in the UK is not so much the parliamentary system as Cameron's fuckwitted idea of having a referendum on EU membership, hoping Remain would win and it would shut up the Eurosceptic wing of the Tories (that worked out splendidly).

[CatMor]

3. It's now a court that runs on political ideology....

and that is not a good thing. Justice is supposed to be blind but it will now be based on right wing, evangelical thinking which is not good for the nation. Also, there should be term limits instead of lifetime appointments. Unless changes are made I say yes, abolish it.

[Sherman A1]

4. No

Reforms are in order, but to abolish which is unnecessary, would require a considerable effort.

[Roland99]

5. Congress can limit its jurisdictions over appeals

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6935&context=penn_law_review

[PJMcK]

7. Sure, go ahead and try to amend the Constitution

There are instructions on how to do that within the document.

Good luck.

[Casual User]

16. Yeah, right?

It's not like it's never been done before. /sarcasm

[mahatmakanejeeves]

9. Should I start day-drinking right now, this minute? Or should I bother with the

pretense of waiting until I've logged out from work?

[maxrandb]

12. No, but we should make sure that they know there are limits on their power too

From Thomas Jefferson


You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps ... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

[House of Roberts]

13. A caller to Hartmann had an interesting suggestion.

Changing the LAW to require a 7-2 vote on rulings. This would be legal, per Thom's reading of the Constitution. Downside would be a lot of lower court rulings with a lot of Trump judges that would stand.

You could simply require the 7-2 majority to overturn precedent, which would save Roe, Obergefell, and the ACA, but it wouldn't solve all the problems.

[Fiendish Thingy]

14. Impossible nonsense- just expand court to 15-21 seats, thats doable on 01/21/21 Nt

[Warpy]

15. It needs to be expanded to 13

so that each justice oversees only one district court instead of having 4 justices double up.

The current number was set according to the number of courts at the time.

[beachbumbob]

17. silly question at best

[melm00se]

18. This is one of the most asinine questions I have heard

One of the biggest reasons that the Supreme Court exists is for situations were 2 (or more) Circuit Courts are in conflict over similar issues. Who will decide which is right and which is wrong?

Furthermore, the Supreme Court, when not ruling on really big, super high profile cases, is ruling on a lot of smaller cases that have clear and definable impacts but they just don't have the marching band, confetti and streamers associated with them.

Most of your 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th etc Amendment rights stem from a lot of small, quiet cases that, unless you are a Supreme Court junky, you have never heard of.

Having said all of that, eliminating the Supreme Court would require at least one Constitutional Amendment and that Amendment would have to be the most sweeping ever considered as you would be impacting not only Article III (through elimination) but Articles I & II as well.

Article III, § 1
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Article I, § 3 further supports the existence of the Supreme Court.
"When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside..."

Article II § 2:

"he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ...judges of the Supreme Court

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

19. How about getting rid of the refs in football?

Or the umpires in baseball?