A better idea than Court packing

There's chatter among Democrats of changing the size of the Supreme Court if they win the Congress and the presidency. Just like Republicans talked about changing the size of the Court in 2016 if Hillary Clinton won.

Obviously, this is naked power politics, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be some kind of reform.

I'm intrigued by what New York state does for appellate level courts: terms last 14 years and judges have to retire when they are 70 (I think this age limit applies to elected trial court judges too). I believe a term can be renewed but it is not automatic and has to be approved by the state senate.

I think this lessens the power of the presidency and the SCOTUS-stakes of a presidential election - which distort the race - because in this system, every presidential term is going to get a couple of picks.

And you don't have justices clinging on to a lifetime seat when they should be able to retire (especially if they're ill) because they want to see if a better president/replacement selector is chosen.

Obviously, both ruling parties like the current system because their policies and actions are terrible and indefensible and controlled by corporate money; SCOTUS fear-mongering is a great motivator  that prevents them from having to engage in representative governing.

Removing this excuse for corruption and facilitating some real accountability is perhaps the best reason for such a change to be made.

Suspending the right to common sense

So let me get this straight. According to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, it's perfectly fine to eradicate the most basic right in western civilization when it comes to those merely suspected (not even formally accused) of wrong doing but unacceptable when it comes to those actually convicted of a crime. And HE is the 'intellectual force' of the Court?!

"We, the corporations, of the United States of America..."

In a landmark decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that corporate money has too LITTLE influence over the formerly democratic process. In again affirming the fraudulent and legally incomprehensible notion* that money equals speech, the Court has illustrated the absolute imperative to change the Constitution. We need to pass an amendment whereby campaign 'contributions' should be restricted exclusively to those who are eligible to vote for the office in question. Or at the absolute bare minimum, federal, state and local legislative bodies should be constitutionally allowed to impose such attempts to guarantee democratic governance if they so choose.

(*-In every other circumstance under the law, money is treated not as speech but as property)

This Constitutional change would necessarily preclude outsiders from meddling in the election of other people's officials.

It would also necessarily preclude corporations, unions, religious organizations and other non-humans from buying their own politician playthings.

As employers of elected officials, we citizens should have the right to place an ethical code of conduct on our employees.

If politicians are going to be in hoc to anyone, it should be to the citizens they are supposed to represent.

This perversion of democracy and good governance is the most basic problem that needs to be resolved before any of the other issues American humans care about can hope to be seriously addressed

Supreme Court: rule of law not dead yet

If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.

A lot of the self-described defenders of freedom were disgusted by today's Supreme Court decision which declared that the rule of law was still valid.

However, they can calm down.

President Bush has stated that he disagrees with the ruling.

And Bush has made it clear with his past actions that he views the constitutional powers of other branches of government as mere suggestions, to be ignored at his whim.