661
Americans don't see Supreme Court as politically neutral, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
(www.reuters.com)
this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2025
661 points (99.6% liked)
News
35962 readers
5186 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The supreme court system as we know it needs to be replaced outright. I think that term and age limits (10 years, age 60), plus each state popularly electing 1 supreme justice to represent them, would be the right way to go. The president can elect a justice to represent their administration, who is replaced by the next president's pick. Also, a ban on gifts of any shape. No more motorcoaches!
This would make it much harder for justices to become politically captured, or culturally out of touch.
I think what we should do is have a max age for appointment, and then phase one out every 2 years.
This gives an 18 year turnaround, and every president gets 2 nominations. The senate must follow confirmation hearings and cannot pull that shit Bitch McConnell did on Obama.
The most senior justice in the one that goes. Unless One dies early for some reason.
Also mandate ethics and oversight.
Of course you need Senate confirmations, before Trump elects some billionaire, Fox host or family member to the Supreme Court
Yes. But under this plan, they would be obligated to hold them.
Rejection is a valid response, but freezing them out so your guy can appoint a corrupt bastard is not.
Got it, that makes sense.
One per state is not great. Like the senate, it will over-represent low population states and unless you include Puerto Rico it will be an even number.
We almost need a non-partisan judiciary oversight board that appoints supreme court justices and has the authority to remove them given concrete and well-defined rules to prevent them from acting against the public and judicial precedent.
There is a simple way to eliminate ties: the President's Justice can have a vote that breaks tied results. Otherwise, their vote is merely a +1. It is only when there is an exact split of votes that it becomes +2.
Anyhow, I don't think the amount of justices is about representing state population size. It is more about ensuring that there is a variety of minds to consider an issue, and to prevent Federal power from stacking the courts with their preferred type of mindset. The most important thing is to eliminate corruption, as that is the ultimate killer of morality and thoughtful deliberation.
Expanded the bench to 60 justices, and have a random panel of 15 hear any given case.