534
US federal judges consider creating own armed security force as threats mount
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 25 May 2025
534 points (99.1% liked)
politics
23680 readers
4789 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
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
I think the US is in need of 3 capitals like in South Africa, one for each branch of government.
I was thinking that maybe the US could use three presidents - West, East, and Center, each heading up a major chunk of territory. SCOTUS could be expanded to have 50 justices, each state appointing a single justice to represent them on the supreme court. The presidents each could select a single head justice, whose job is to communicate the viewpoint of the executives, and to write up the conclusions that SCOTUS factions have reached.
That sort of thing should help maintain the intention of the Constitution, where branches - or rather, interests, constantly jockey against each other, thus being equal. The problem with our current politics is that too much power has been concentrated into the hands of too few people, essentially destroying the balance of branches.
Yeah I'm starting to think that a triumvirate is the way to go for the office of the president. Let's have a head of state, a head of government, and a head of _____ idk. But the job is too intense for one individual and we need an escape hatch while also having stability. So we could impeach the head of state but keep the head of government so shit still gets done during that transition.
That's been tried in a certain republic of the past, but the idea is fine generally.
Isn't that what the states are for? The federal government is supposed to maintain basic security and then the states are supposed to do all of the actual societal work but it all seems to have fallen apart. To be honest it had fallen apart long before Trump.
Yes that’s how it’s supposed to work. People like to point at Trump but Trump would not have been able to do this were it not for the fact that every president before him has given itself more and more power. He’s simply an opportunist.
This is also the thing Republicans have been harping about for ages. They don’t want to tear down the federal government because they want people to die or because they’re “fascists”. They want to tear it down because its current iteration of it has far more power than was ever intended when the constitution was drafted and it empowers and makes tyranny possible.
The New Deal needs to be replaced with something new that decentralizes power from the federal government while keeping the social nets that were established.
Fuck no. Don't lump us minnesotans in with basically exclusively red shithole states.
Giving each state equal representation without a population distribution that is exactly equal across every state inherently devalues the representation of those in population centers, giving disproportionate power to a party that is outnumbered but is spread out over the much emptier land. Equal rep must be based proportionally off of population to avoid devaluing individual voter influence.
I think that in the case of the judiciary's supreme court, having a huge amount of people would be a 'too many cooks in the kitchen' problem. The important thing is a diversity of viewpoints who can argue on the technical (and moral) merits of the topic. Each state should send their most capable justice who can persuade their peers.
The way I figure, such an expanded SCOTUS would naturally form four or five cliques of 10-20 members apiece, who work with head justices to articulate their viewpoints into a dissertation on the topic. These proposals are examined and held to a vote, with the weakest being removed from the running - at which point, a rewrite is done on the remaining proposals by aligned cliques, voted on, and repeated until only one remains. Head justices do not get to vote, unless there is an exact tie among rulings.
...honestly, it would be good if there was a scientific research institute, dedicated to trying out political concepts like this in a simulated setting. The big problem of theoretical political systems is that they typically have to be applied to real-world people, which causes no end of social chafing. Having an MMO or roleplay to research these things, may go a long way towards healthy implementations.
15 Justices, 30 year term (so its long enough, but not "lifetime"
Each seat is staggered 2 years apart, exporing on odd number years, approximately 6 months after the year begins (Maybe make it July 4th for the symbolism?).
Appointments are approved by simple majority of both houses (I don't like the senate, but getting rid of them is unrealistic at this point), except in intra-term vacancies, which would require a 3/4 supermajority in both houses (to prevent sudden changes in the composition of the court). Each presidential term is expected to apppont 2 judges, a 2-term president appoints 4, unless they somehow find a supermajority to fill those vacancies, otherwise, they have to wait until the original term expires to do a regular, simple majority appointment. Filling a intra-term vacancy only lasts for the rest of that seat's term, not a full 30 years.
How's my proposal?
That sounds remarkably similar to the court reform proposal by Pete Buttigieg. Although I don't remember the specifics enough to say with confidence exactly how similar, I know he wanted each presidential terms to get a nomination and to remove the lifetime appointment in favor of a lengthy term. Although I think he wanted a portion of the court to be nominated by the justices themselves, including Chief Justice, but that was probably a more naive mindset that stemmed from a time when we had significantly more faith in the impartiality and apolitical motivations of the SCOTUS. I don't know if that would be a good idea anymore, considering how easy it was for Trump to ratfuck the composition of the courts.
I personally don't like it, but that is because I am biased in favor of popular public voting and a term that is a decade long, plus age limits. IMO, we want our representatives in all branches to have a relatively short shelf life, so that they can change with the times. Justices were given life terms to insulate them from the need to defend their office and politics, but I have the impression that modern life moves too quickly for the timespan you proposed. The internet has more or less been around for 40 years, and much has changed in technology and society within that time frame.
To me, the ideal term and age cap is 10 and 50 years, respectively. While a 51+ year person would almost certainly still have a sound mind, they would likely have difficulty when it comes to relating with the younger members of society. Say, for example, sexting. We have (stupid) laws that treat minors as creators of CP pornography when they share dick pictures with each other, putting them on sex offender registries for life - but they could boink each other in person, and not be charged. This example is an intersection of changing technology and social norms, that an older justice might not grasp.
Anyhow, setting aside my bias: Your concept is fine, and seems to fall within line with how things have traditionally worked. 👍
While nice in theory, that's not how partisan politics works in practice. What's going to happen is that the absurdly large proportion of judges from conservative states will simply shout over opposition like they currently do in all other branches of government and stonewall any attempt to compromise. Gods forbid you try to push progressive ideas.
That's such an EU thing to do 😄