Social Question

JLoon's avatar

Should we defund the Supreme Court?

Asked by JLoon (7657points) June 25th, 2022
24 responses
“Great Question” (9points)

If the so-called “justices” plan to toss personal rights and individual liberty back to the states like a political football, do we really need this judicial country club?

What’s the point and why pay for it?

Observing members: 0
Composing members: 0

Answers

Blackberry's avatar

I love how you suggest this like it’s a switch we can turn on and magically fix corruption.
How are we going to tell a bunch of rich people isolated in their ivory tower what to do with their money?

People have disappeared for less.

It’s like asking to defund the military:
It’s ran by the government, which can always use “national security” “the preservation of law and order” and other phrases to justify anything.

gorillapaws's avatar

Maybe defund their secret service details?

chefl's avatar

When is the Suprme Court doing a good job? When they judge for our side, whichever side.

HP's avatar

The flaw in this question is in the assumption that the court does more harm than good. To my mind the great and glaring fault with this particular court is not about the glaring political partisanship of the justices. It is far more significant that just as with our politicians, the majority of the judges cannot be reasonably regarded as our best and most capable legal minds. This regrettable trend first jumped out at me with the very shrewd yet appallingly irresponsible appointment of Clarence Thomas by the first Bush.

Brian1946's avatar

I think the suggestions offered by the abundantly alliterative topics, would be delightful starting points. ;)

hat's avatar

Burn it down. I’m serious. There’s no reason for this. It’s a political entity comprised of unelected dinosaurs. Don’t lecture about “democracy” unless you’re willing to dismantle undemocratic institutions.

seawulf575's avatar

I just saw an article that talked about elected District Attorneys refusing to enforce the laws. Let’s defund them. Or fire them. After all, isn’t that what was called for when Kim Davis asked for a reasonable accommodation to avoid conflict between her job and a new SCOTUS ruling she didn’t agree with?

This garbage from the left of “defund them!” is ridiculous. Someone does something you don’t like and you want to do away with the institution. Places that you got your way and they defunded the police saw a huge spike in crime. Look at Portland OR as a prime example. Stop acting like liberal snowflakes.

hat's avatar

^ I love the “snowflake” thing. Conservatives paint anyone willing to stand up for justice as a “snowflake”. Snowflakes seem pretty cool.

flutherother's avatar

The Supreme Court isn’t guided by public opinion, logic, science or anything that belongs to the Age of Enlightenment. This decision comes from religious dogma and reduces abortion rights in the USA to the level of those in Iran where such decisions are made by a conclave of Ayatollahs.

jca2's avatar

Supreme Court is the highest court of appeals, and also, is the decision maker for things on the Federal level. State Courts can’t decide things that are on the Federal level (i.e. the military).

I don’t like the Supreme Court’s decision at all, but I do recognize that the Court is necessary.

What’s unfortunate about the dismembering of Roe v. Wade is that now, if a state has a Republican Governor, abortion is going to be up for grabs in that state.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 Mississippi, the state that brought this case to the SCOTUS, has a Republican governor and they were not trying to do away with abortion, just limit it. And if you go back and look, they are pretty much right in line with what RvW put forth. Not what PPvC changed it to, but what RvW had in place.

kritiper's avatar

There are three branches of our US government: The Executive branch (President), Legislative branch (Congress), and Judicial branch(Supreme Court.) You can’t get rid of the Supreme Court as it is, normally, the final place of judgment after (appeals) local/lower courts where cases are heard primarily.

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

~With the deficit and debt everything will be defunded soon.

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

Actually I would think that the opposite would help. I would like more pay to Supreme Court justices to help attract talent. Also I would ponder making the positions elected, and 4 year terms.

jca2's avatar

@RedDeerGuy1: They probably get paid handsomely plus they have a lot of power.

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

@jca2 I’m thinking when compared to a CEO of a Fortune 100 company. I would like pay to be high enough to attract the top talent to the courts.

What power do the justices have? Other then deciding yea or nay?

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

$267,000 is the top pay for a Supreme Court justice in the USA in 2022. When compared to millions for a CEO.

Blackwater_Park's avatar

Sure, because defunding the police worked so well~

The rioting and threats to officials going on I view just like what happened on Jan 6. It’s treason.

The solution now is to go vote in large numbers in your state and local elections.

@hat You really need to go live somewhere else. You offer no solutions, you would burn something down in anger with no plan whatsoever for what comes next. That’s THE most dangerous and reckless thing to do and the end consequences to that can be profound.

Demosthenes's avatar

No, but let’s not kid ourselves that the SCOTUS is some kind of sacred institution that bestows truths upon us mere mortals from on high. It’s a political, partisan entity just like any other. The dismantling of Roe didn’t happen now by coincidence; many people voted for Trump just so this would happen.

jca2's avatar

@RedDeerGuy1: A CEO may make a ton of money but he’s only going to be in the job for as long as the company is making a profit, there are no scandals, things are going well, etc. A Supreme Court justice is making the amount you quoted (Which, by the way is no small change) for the rest of their lives. They’re getting summers off and all the other benefits,they don’t have to produce anything, they don’t have to fly around the world like a CEO, hustling, giving speeches, visiting job sites, impressing people with their knowledge and charisma.

Think of your average CEO – say, the head of a fast food chain or a department store chain. He’s hustling, visiting places, having meetings, maybe going to other countries for meetings and visits, making speeches, away from home for days or weeks at a time. He’s tired! He’s working really hard. He has to look great, speak well, charm people. He’s like a salesman.

Supreme Court justices just show up, confer, make decisions, write things up. I’m not saying their job is easy but it’s probably easier in a physical sense than a CEO. So their getting 250k per year is not too shabby.

HP's avatar

It does sound like nice work if you can get it. But considering the importance and significance of their output, they are grossly underpaid—a characteristic we have come to accept as the norm regarding civil service. There was a time when the sacrifice compared with the earning power alloted comparable minds in the private sector was recognized by the society at large. Civil service workers were granted generous benefits as some compensation for their sacrifice in the interest of the public good. The downside to public service however is in the bureaucratic aspects of the trades.
And that is that unlike the private sector, folks of very little aptitude can be promoted far beyond their talents for reasons of political utility. And if ever there was a mascot regarding this particular drawback, it is Mr. Thomas.

Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

Mobile | Desktop


Send Feedback   

`