People care when their drinking water is contaminated with lead. They care if their medicines aren’t safe and effective, or if somebody takes all the money out of their investment accounts. Those things don’t make people happy. Yet it’s administrative agencies that are guarding against that and protecting their rights. So when the Supreme Court starts to dismantle important features of these agencies, it matters because it’s destabilizing a really important part of government

  • AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    There’s been debate about changing the size of the supreme court for a long time. The problem is that if one party does it, the next one can do the same to stack in their favor. That said, just 9 members that are permanent installed with no oversight makes them arguably the most powerful body in the nation. Just one crooked member can be devastating.

    I don’t have a perfect solution, but I’d start with something more like 21 members, strict oversight into their finances, a third party that mandates recusal, and a shelf life.

    The damage of these 6-3 decisions could last decades or worse. They certainly don’t represent the people that are much closer to 50/50 conservative/liberal than 2/3 extremely conservative.

    • Jackie's Fridge@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      The issue I have with Dems NOT stacking the court given the chance is that the GOP absolutely would - and might still if they wanted to future-proof their stranglehold. Stack the court. Get a shim in place (SCOTUS term limits, oversight, anything). Don’t worry about what the GOP might do, worry about what they ARE doing and maybe try getting ahead of the problem for a change.