Justice Thomas's concern about politicizing the SC.

The SC was conceived by our founders to be apolitical.

The politicization of the court is not to be taken lightly.

Even Thomas has stated so (though he is clearly the most politically driven justice).

 

I'm not actually clear on what Jefferson would have preferred.

There are many possible formulations.

 

From what I read, he didn't quite give an alternative, but he did foresee the issue with if a court would lean one way or another on a divisive issue and whether we citizens would actually like it. But honestly, it's not unique to Jefferson but it's a common fact: We claim as Americans to believe in individual values, freedom of expression and self determination. The SCOTUS basically spits on this in the face, whether it leans liberal or conservative. It is a diktat, not a 'check' on any power. It exists outside of the branches, it is not actually part of the branches.

The only 'check' that theoretically exists are constitutional amendments, but those require political will and effort, and we're not like our European counterparts, we don't have a 'national' politic. We vote D/R on election day because our parents told us to, or because the story both parties tell us is too endearing to our hearts.

 

Yes, the SCOTUS is intended to keep us close to the constitution. We have the House and Senate to cater to our will as Americans.

Your second paragraph is bothersome to me as more than anything it appears to spit on the very concept of representative democracy.

 

Same.

 

How am I spiting on the concept of 'representative democracy' by pointing out our failure as a voting public? Not only our failure as a voting public, but we've put too great a priority on voting, rather than the actual candidacies themselves.

The SCOTUS does not actually keep us 'close' to the constitution, it makes its rulings on what it THINKS are constitutional(through the various processes of citing previously decided cases as a justification.). And this utterly flawed system is what has animated both sides over ten years. It will animate us into the future. Because it has clearly and plainly failed. If we don't voice about those failures, the political developments by citizens will speak to that failure themselves.

I actually predicted that Dobbs or something like Dobbs would happen, because I appreciate the reality of what the court actually is, and not what people think it is.

 

Your claims about voters imply that voting is useless as a method to make decisions, don't they?

There is no way to get around the fact that humans will be involved in interpreting our constitution and defending our rights by that means.

We've done an outstandingly horrible job of selecting justices - liars, politically motivated actors, etc. We even have Thomas stating that the next objective is to end contraception!!

When did HE decide that we conferred on him the job of defining how our society will be change?

 

is voting useless, or do we make it useless? We do not make joint decisions as a collective citizenry. Now of course, we're all individuals but as a collective makeup our national political identity is foreign to us. That's why we can't get constitutional amendments. That's why the federal budget can be 50% geared towards the military, because Washington says 'F yall' and we say 'how hard'

 

Those decisions are being made by the representatives that WE voted for.

"Washington did it" is NOT an excuse. WE are Washington.

One problem is that we vote for candidates that do the bidding of party central, NOT the bidding of the constituents who voted them into office.

In fact, the single most hated feature of our representatives is when they work across the aisle. Yet, that is why we have a legislature in the first place.

 

Yes, Congressional committee confirms it. I read that even majors need such confirmation. I assume its pretty much a rubber-stamp confirmation.

 

Do have a link for that. I read that some will get Senate advisement, but not actual approval.

 

It is a 'confirmation' and apparently done en masse for lower ranks so there is no individual hearings. Highest ranks require individual approvals.

Military officers and secondary appointments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_United_States
Commissioned officers of the eight uniformed services of the United States—the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Corps, and Public Health Service Commissioned Corps—are all officers of the United States. Under current law, the Senate does not require the commissions of all military officers to be confirmed; however, anyone being first promoted to major in the Regular Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Space Force, or lieutenant commander in the Regular Navy, does require such confirmation. Additionally, military officers promoted in the Reserves to colonel (or captain in the Navy) also require Senate confirmation. This results in hundreds of promotions that annually must be confirmed by the Senate, though these are typically confirmed en masse without individual hearings.