• @blackbelt352@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    256 months ago

    Honestly as much as the lifetime appointment wasn’t the worst idea the drafters had in terms of something for long term stability when the positions in every other branch have varying degrees of volatility, not having some process baked into the Constitution to deal with bad actors in the judiciary was a gross oversight.

    • @Chocrates@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      25
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      The Constitution seems to have been written with the idea that politicians will have good intentions. The checks and balances seem to be just to enforce compromise and prevent a single bad actor.

      It doesn’t have any protections about and entire political party colluding to grab power. I don’t know how we fix this without amendments or a brand new constitution

      • @A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        8
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        There is. The Military. Its why they swear to the constitutio to protect against all threats foreign and domestic. not a person.

        Now, The real question is, how to deal with it if the Military is at best indifferent, or at worst, complicit, and either way refusing to act.

        Which should also help shine a worrying light on why the right never wanted the military to investigate and purge white supremacists/fascists/etc

        • @grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          56 months ago

          If by “the military,” you mean the well-regulated militia (every able-bodied adult male) exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, then sure.

          ‘Cause otherwise you could only be talking about the Navy, as (from the founding fathers’ perspective) a permanent standing army was very explicitly and intentionally Not A Thing. (That’s why the Constitution limits for appropriating money to raise and support an army to a term of two years or less.)

      • @Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        56 months ago

        All democratic government relies on some amount of good faith. Many of the rules are set up to be guidelines for resolving disputes in a civilized manner, and preventing any single bad actor.

        The place where this was most respected was in the transfer of power between presidencies.

        That goodwill benefits everyone. If you break it, all hell comes loose. It’s why the Dems have worked so hard to stick to the good faith, even though the other party clearly hasn’t.

        • @grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          26 months ago

          It’s why the Dems have worked so hard to stick to the good faith, even though the other party clearly hasn’t.

          I’m not so sure the reason is quite so principled. I’m more inclined to believe the explanation in this video starting at about the 6:40 mark: the difficulty building a coalition in the Democratic Party (and especially the conflicting aims of Democratic voters and Democratic donors) causes the party to avoid policy and focus on process instead.

      • @Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        36 months ago

        And at the time people involved generally did. The only reason we perceive things differently these days is because we expect different outcomes easing a system designed for something else. Our system of government initially was drafted to protect the rights of white land owning males. And it still does this really well. We’ve scaffolded a lot of other things on top of that trying to make it more Equitable for everyone else. But it can’t seem to stop giving preferential treatment to White land owning males.

        The thing is the founders knew that they were going to be ignorant about the future. The further out you try to speculate the more wrong you’ll be. They knew that they wouldn’t be able to understand the needs of future generations. They expected things to change. They also expected the Constitution to be heavily amended or completely written every few decades. Instead the status quo has largely ignored their wishes instead deifying them and their original creation as perfect and infallible.

      • @blackbelt352@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        16 months ago

        It doesn’t have any protections about and entire political party colluding to grab power.

        I suppose I was a bit small in the scope of what were dealing with today and entire party willing to disregard democracy to accumulate power.

    • @Serinus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      56 months ago

      There is a process. They can be impeached just like the President.

      It’s more than just the Judicial branch that’s broken.

    • Schadrach
      link
      fedilink
      English
      26 months ago

      not having some process baked into the Constitution to deal with bad actors in the judiciary was a gross oversight.

      They can be impeached. That requires both houses of Congress to be on board with it though, and most people wanting a solution to that problem currently don’t want a solution that requires both houses of Congress or a supermajority of state legislatures to be on board because that’s not a kind of support they can get. the only other way to remove a justice from SCOTUS is one casket at a time.