Neferic

Thank you for your reply.

In short, “weak ass arguments receive rebuttal for being weak ass arguments.” The Court is fine to actually start issuing judgement that follows in step with the history of the court. But then you have something like Dobbs and the majority opinion.

I completely agree. I think that I gave the impression that everyone needs to sing kumbaya and that is not what I meant to convey. Roberts I think is trying to respond to the increased scrutiny and while I disagree with his approach, I understand his reasoning/goals. The court is in the spotlight way more than it has been and he sees that I suspect correctly as unhealthy for the institution. To the question of if it should be, I think the obvious answer is yes, in light of recent actions there should be more scrutiny. There should be zero concern that there is influence peddling or neglecting precedent because of ideological lean of the justices.

At some point we just say in law “protect animals that might go extinct”, “fix our highways”, and “protect our armed forces” and let the Executive dictate how best to achieve those goals.

Yes, but with respect to reproductive health rights, that should have been legislated as an amendment long before the court was packed by the Trump administration. Congress is at fault for not enshrining those rights, especially given the long history of speculation regarding the “Legitimacy/Cleanliness” (eye roll I know) of the Roe decision. Instead numerous congresses preferred have campaigned on the very actual threat that those protections under Roe would be taken away and now here we are. I could see your point that there is benefit to a federal vagueness because on occasion because it allows the states to experiment but I think there are some decisions we just need to put to bed and move forward.

How are you left unserved by your supposed current model of governance? Yes, you might be unserved because the political party system is fucked but that is distinctly NOT a function of the balance of power between branches as outlined in our form of government.

If I use this gallup poll data from 5/2/22
Should abortion be legal

• Legal under any circumstance 35%

• Legal under certain circumstances 50%

• Illegal under any circumstance 13%

If that is where the general public is, why can’t congress pass laws? In, this sense I am unserved because every 4 years we are going to roll the dice on how federal laws will be executed. To have something lasting we need amendments and bills speaking to these issues with more specificity. I am arguing that the court while absolutely a problem is a symptom of the larger sickness that is our legislature.

Again I thank you for your reply and any further contribution the discussion. It is nice to talk through the ideas.

Thank you for your reply. What I am trying to articulate is that I see the trend toward extreme candidates cascading through many government systems. The origin being at the legislature in America’s circumstance. The legislature holds nominations of judges in it’s hands now which is why we are seeing the buck stop at the court. Congress gets to bemoan the fact that the court is responsible because they aren’t offering any practicable solutions. Please note, I am not saying the court is without fault. There are certainly ethics rules issues at play and the court composition as it is now is due to the faults of congress in how the nomination process works.

My thought is that if primaries worked differently legislative candidates would run more moderate campaigns and we would see less brinkmanship at the court. Roberts I think is correctly concerned about the perception of the court and is genuinely worried about the last branch of US government losing the respect of the populace. With the decision on Roe v Wade, I think he should be.

Can you give me an example? Some purple states have protected reproductive health in response to the court overturning Roe. My perception is that the primary races are selecting increasingly polarizing candidates who’s goal is just notoriety/fundraising over governing. MTG is a prime demonstration of this effect.

I am sympathetic to Kagan’s argument on standing and similarly I understand why Roberts is trying to lower the pressure. In any case this seems to come back to Congress no longer passing legislation and instead relying on executive powers for all political requirements. Not really seeing a solution until primary rules change. Centrists are left unserved presently.

Is there any sense when Congress went off the rails? Some folks I have listened to say it was around the 90s but there were obviously very contentious times before then.

Can you elaborate on the comparison to the church? You don’t like a panel having authority so you want to consolidate it to a president unilaterally ignoring the third branch? Would term limits on judges change how you see the court?