The Supreme Court was never intended to have this kind of power

[Marius25]

I encourage everyone to read this article. It shows how insanely corrupt the Supreme Court has become since the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln himself ran his campaign in defiance of the Court. Congress repeatedly removed jurisdictional powers of the court. The Court was largely subservient to Congress except on certain issues.

The Court never had the power to do anything they're doing now before the Civil War.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/supreme-court-power-overrule-congress/661212/

[GenXer47]

1. they also were supposed to die at 38

Lifetime appointment in 1776 meant you were dead by 40.
Kinda like the gun thing, isn't it? You want a crappy musket that may or may not even fire one shot? Go for it, Ted Nugent.
This document we live by isn't worthy of capturing pizza grease.

[brush]

7. I so agree. The fectless Roberts has been presiding since 2005 without seeing any need...

to rein in the corruption surrounding him by initiating an ethics code to cut down on the near-bribery-by-billionaire that is so scandalous now...and this MFer has at least a couple of more decades to serve, as do his fellow SCOTUS 6.

And let's not get started on the nation's second, original sin, the vaguely worded Second Amendment which the gun-nuttery crowd interprets as permission to own 900 rpm Uzis instead of the founding fathers prescribed one shot per two, muzzle loading muskets (you can't really blame them, who knew we would consider every tom, dick and you know who part of a well-regulated militia by just being a tom, dick and you know who.

[ITAL]

10. That's not really true

Average lifespan was lower back then true enough, but that factors in A LOT of people dying in childhood. If one managed to make it to adulthood, making it to your 60s (or at least your 50s) was fairly standard.

I mean quite a few of the Founding generation lived to old age, even by today's standards. Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, etc..

[Buckeyeblue]

24. That's right

There was a great deal of childhood deaths because of accidents and diseases (diseases we have vaccines for now). The morality rate for women during child birth was also high. And medical care was shitty--they still hadn't figured out that washing your hands reduced germs and infections.

But if you managed to make it out of childhood and didn't need hands on medical care, you had a good chance to live to be old. Especially, if you lived a life of privilege.

They ate better food then. And definitely got more exercise.

[onenote]

13. The idea that SCOTUS justice were expected to die at 38 is total nonsense

Here are actual facts (leaving aside that it requires a lack of knowledge of US history to think that Supreme Court Justices were being appointed at the time of the Declaration of Independence -- the first Supreme Court justice was appointed in 1789, not 1776):

John Jay, the first justice of the Supreme Court was 45 when he was appointed and while he resigned when he was fifty, he lived until he was 84. Indeed, of the first dozen of so justices named to the Supreme Court, only one was under 40 when named to the Court. Around half of them were in their 50s when appointed. And they lived a lot longer than your post claims. In addition to Jay, a couple lived into their 80s, including John Marshall, who served for 34 years, until his death at age 80. Most of the others lived into their 60s and 70s. For example, the third member of the Court, William Cushing, was appointed when he was 58, served 20 years before dying at age 78.

Facts. Not fiction.

[former9thward]

21. People did not die at 38 in 1776.

Look at the ages of death of the founders.

[Oneironaut]

22. The idea of shorter lifespans in 1776 is actually a myth.

Quite many people at that time lived a normal life span - 80, 90, or even 100 years. The common misconception comes from infant mortality heavily skewing the average lifespan of the time.

It’s true disease, child birth, etc. did take a lot of people at young ages. However, they were still not the norm. If you lived past infancy and avoided diseases, you’d have a normal life.

[Polybius]

23. I thought everyone knew that was a myth

Infant morality caused the average age of death to be lower. Take that away and we’re about the same as 1776.

[AllaN01Bear]

2. cant read the article

[dalton99a]

3. Kick

https://archive.ph/iGsgB

[Effete Snob]

4. Are we really going to recapitulate every 1970-2016 conservative argument against the court?

Black-robed dictators.

Activists on the bench.

If anyone has John Birch newsletters from the 70's and 80's, they won't have to write an original op-ed for months.

[sanatanadharma]

5. AI will do the writing for us and for those dead still seeking their salvation

AI will do the writing for us and for those dead still seeking their salvation by any means.

I fear AIbot will bring the end to online forums of real people (we claim), because AIbots will be ever-so more witty, right, and entertaining.
Just imagine AIbot trolling, flame wars, stalking, ... and don't get me started on AIbot 'ignore' gore.

Now if everyone will excuse me, it is my time to toke again.

[MichMan]

17. The OP states "since the Civil War"

That gives us 160 plus years to argue about

[Effete Snob]

19. Well yes

The Civil War did result in the 14th Amendment, which certainly gave the court a lot of work to do.

But most folks believe the right side won that war.

[pwb]

6. At the very least the Supreme Court should remand everything back to Congress.

Give the people another chance to fix things. They should not be able to change laws or take away Freedoms. They are not for or of the people. So few should not judge for us all. Keep our laws and freedoms in place until we can vote on them or Congress can vote on them.. JMO.

[rubbersole]

8. The SC is just doing what Leonard Leo paid them to do.

[Lurker Deluxe]

9. Well ...

Then there would have been to Roe to overturn ... "should remand everything back to congress".

How far down the list you want to go?

Plessy/Brown?

Scott?

Lawrence?

[pwb]

11. The Supreme Court is not for or by the people

they are for and by the President who appoints them now. Any case that involved losing a freedom or a right or a law that has an affect on the citizens should automatically be remanded to Congress or voted on again. IT is my opinion like I stated If you disagree, so be it.

[stopdiggin]

12. thanks. thinking things through is an advantage.

(although sometime unpopular ... )

----- ------

[FakeNoose]

14. Congress needs to impeach those Justices who lied to be confirmed

Also those Justices who are illegally using their position for what amounts to bribery for favorable rulings.
Once those corrupt Justices are gone, we'll be fine.

[Marius25]

15. The Republican House will never impeach them

and we don't have enough Senators to convict anyway.

[slightlv]

18. Marius, I understand what you're saying...

but please understand that I'm so sick and tired of hearing it. ALWAYS there's another "roadblock" -- more senators, more HoR, a Democratic president, etc. There's always *something* we're lacking. I am so sick of tyranny by a minority. Especially after Trump had his "term" in office, where he blew off every norm there ever has been in government and society, and every rule and law that stood in his way.

I say Dark Brandon should start skating at least the edges of these. Even if we don't get anything through, it would show the R's that we're not laying down and taking it any longer. It might even throw enough of a "oh shit" in the R's that they could start backing off from their "in your face" attitude of making what they want law.

Otherwise, I fear we're living in the beginning times of a long-term theocracy in America, and worse... a dystopian future that will be generations before we can kick.

Democrats play by the rules -- even when the rules no longer matter to the other side. If you can't fight as well as the other side, you have to be creative. So far, I've not seen a lot of either in fighting the R's. And "more and better" just ain't cutting it for the reasons I stated above. You always have a roadblock that stands in your way where numbers are concerned. So, at the very least, the first thing that pops into my mind is redo the numbers. We can do that by adjusting the number of reps and senators to match the population in our states. Obviously, we're not being represented as a whole today.

Second, expand the SCOTUS to at least match the number of Circuits we currently have. This would be the very least, and least objectionable with facts behind it. All Circuits are pushed in number of cases. We need to expand the court system and SCOTUS, as a part of it.

These are just two things I can think of off the top of my head, after just crawling out of bed in a fibro-induced brain fog. Surely someone without my illness can do better. I would hope.

[Skittles]

16. most of the SC was appointed by assholes who lost the popular vote

yet another reason the Electoral College needs to be relegated to the history bin

[Effete Snob]

20. But that's because of the 14th Amendment

Granted, without the Civil War we would not have the 14th Amendment, which is the engine of equal protection and substantive due process issues, as well as applying the Bill of Rights to the states.

I do not see the antebellum US to be preferable.

[Buckeyeblue]

25. The problem with this court is the backsliding of rights and the way religious freedom is defined

It's beyond absurd that this court would allow states to restrict voting and reproductive rights. And their legal arguments amount to "because we say so..."

And introducing this notion of "moral objections" as religious freedom doesn't make sense. We have amazing religious freedom in this country. You can go to whatever church you want and believe whatever you want and government is not going to put you in prison for it. But in exchange for that you have to conform to certain norms of society. One of those is you don't get to mistreat people because of your religious beliefs. But this court has said, yes you can mistreat people based on your beliefs.

That's the problem.