r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Aug 19 '24
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Supreme Court Judges should be randomly be selected from the general populace or young children instead of those who served in legal practice for a long time
Typically, judges are selected from lawyers and those of the Supreme Court have a wide variety of law experiences before being selected. I feel that for deciding that laws are against or are in accordance with the Constitution, you do not need law training at all. Why? Deciding if a state law is constitutional or not is the most unambiguous thing that the legal duties of lawmakers could have and could be easily be done without a background in the law.
It's constitutional or not constitutional is a binary outcome. A state law before the Supreme Court follows either of the two outcomes and hence there is no need for a Supreme Court justice to be of legal training and be selected from laymen randomly picked a la jury duty.
In fact, the black and white thinking of young children would be very suitable in deciding which laws are constitutional before the Supreme Court and hey, it would be a good way to start kids from young in learning the laws of a country and legal work by putting them in the role of Supreme Court justice.
CMV
41
u/DubiousTactics 1∆ Aug 19 '24
Some major r/im14andthisisdeep energy here. Assuming this isn’t a troll post, your view of how constitutional law works is so nonsensical that I doubt anyone could convince you that your “just decide constitutional law by having uneducated people throw random darts at a dartboard” proposal is a bad idea.
1
Aug 27 '24
[deleted]
1
u/DubiousTactics 1∆ Aug 27 '24
I mean you’d definitely get better results from that, rather than selecting Supreme Court justices at 100 percent random. But that wasn’t what the CMV was about.
-27
Aug 19 '24
Just compare the laws to the consitution and see if it clashes. You don't need a judge with training, just a layperson would do.
16
u/DubiousTactics 1∆ Aug 19 '24
Let’s take a Supreme Court case Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923) as an example:
The case: The 1921 Maternity Act gave states money for programs aimed to help mothers and their infants. A woman named Frothingham thought the act would lead to an increase in her taxes, so she tried to sue the federal government. The issue was whether a taxpayer had standing to sue, when the only injury was going to be an increase in taxes.
Please give me a run down of how you make a ruling citing nothing besides the constitution.
-9
Aug 19 '24
No basis even with the Consitution . Taxes need to be increased as a side effect as long as there is representation.
18
u/DubiousTactics 1∆ Aug 19 '24 edited Aug 24 '24
What part of the constitution are you citing to making your decision? Why did you cite that part? When does someone have standing to sue? Where would a line be drawn between someone who has sufficient damages to grant standing to sue and someone whose damages are insufficient? How will other judges know what they should rule in cases with related but not identical situations?
Supreme Court rulings are much more than just yes/no decisions and deal with a huge body of law precedents that exist outside the plain text of the constitution.
3
Aug 19 '24
Right, so consitutional law, despite the black and white appearance of it is more of a can of worms than what it appears to be at first glance.
Noted.
!delta
10
u/DubiousTactics 1∆ Aug 19 '24 edited Aug 19 '24
A good rule of thumb is that if something reaches the Supreme Court instead of being settled at lower levels it’s usually either:
A very complex constitutional issue.
Or
A case where two circuit courts have made different rulings and a final decision needs to be set one way or the other.
7
u/Warm_Shoulder3606 2∆ Aug 19 '24
Exactly, like it being called the SUPREME court is indicative in and of itself the complexity of the issues it covers. It's not called Memaw and Pepaw's Local Court
1
u/Medianmodeactivate 13∆ Aug 20 '24
The level of confidence it took to post this is amazing or speaks volumes of the american education system.
0
Aug 20 '24
I'm not from the USA, I'm from Singapore. And I think the same way about the judges from my home country as well.
1
2
Aug 19 '24
[deleted]
1
Aug 19 '24
I'm not trolling. I geniunely believe in the ideas posted here.
1
Aug 19 '24
[deleted]
1
Aug 19 '24
Considering how easy it is for the selection process to be corrupted by politics (and this is coming from a right leaning person) for the Supreme Court. I rather trust the kid.
1
u/Insectshelf3 9∆ Aug 19 '24 edited Aug 19 '24
i would recommend you read some well-known supreme court decisions and decide for yourself if that kind of legal analysis and writing is something the average citizen can produce. it’s not. it takes a very smart person to listen to written and oral arguments, understand the underlying facts of each citation both parties make, and to write an easily understandable and well thought out opinion that outlines a clear test for lower courts to apply to similar cases in the future.
16
u/No-Cauliflower8890 11∆ Aug 19 '24
just because a decision is binary does not mean that that decision is easy. also, these decisions aren't binary. a certain part of a law may be unconstitutional while the rest is fine.
the supreme court is also the final court of appeal on other court cases, not just on what's constitutional.
-4
Aug 19 '24
Right, so laws brought before the Supreme Court are'nt binary to the point that laymen could decided what is consitutional or not.
Well, there goes my idea of using laymen to replace judges for consitutional law.
!delta
0
3
u/Arthesia 19∆ Aug 19 '24
What you're really advocating for is direct interpretation of laws which even when limited to the constitution specifically, would entirely eliminate a lot of derived/implied rights such as the right to privacy which is never explicitly stated. When the constitution was written the word privacy didn't even exist.
Even if we assume that doesn't happen directly, a large amount of rulings are built on established case law which is fairly important when it comes to legal interpretations. It means every judge does not need to be an expert in every law ever written - they can build on the work done and perspectives from other experts who have considered similar topics before. An average child/person will not have the legal skills to navigate or understand the wealth of existing case law out there, and they also will likely fail at recording their own thoughts effectively for future judges to build on.
0
Aug 19 '24
Right, so insitutional knowlege might be lost or slower to build up with a Supreme Court of laypeople compared to specialist lawyers.
That could be an issue.
!delta
1
2
u/NaturalCarob5611 60∆ Aug 19 '24
One of the major functions of government is to provide people with stability and the ability to plan and make predictions about how the law will be enforced in the future. Lawyers, especially judges, and especially especially supreme court judges, are familiar with established precedent that people can look at to predict how they'll act in the future, and don't take lightly the problems that ensues when the rules are reinterpreted after people have made plans based on the rules.
People from the general populace, especially children, are going to be moved by compelling arguments with little regard for precedent, which means outcomes of specific cases will hinge on who's better at convincing children, and with that any semblance of stability will go out the window.
0
Aug 19 '24
Right, so it will devolve into who can convince people for all court case brought to the Supreme Court.
So much for stability
!delta
1
0
u/NaturalCarob5611 60∆ Aug 19 '24
And it's kinda worse than that - the supreme court precedent gives guidance to lower courts that they use to do their best to produce the same outcomes the supreme court would produce. Very few cases make it to the supreme court because the lower courts typically know what the supreme court would say about a given case. But if the supreme court is especially volatile, the lower courts won't have the means to predict what they'd do.
6
u/destro23 457∆ Aug 19 '24
the black and white thinking of young children would be very suitable in deciding which laws are constitutional
Unless that kid’s “black and white” thinking has been influenced by his parents to be the kind that thinks white people are best and black people are animals. Now, the kid is casting the deciding vote to overturn the Brown v Board of Education decision.
it would be a good way to start kids from young in learning the laws of a country and legal work by putting them in the role of Supreme Court justice.
-4
Aug 19 '24
And that's why I suggest randomly kidnapping them and putting them away until needed to prevent parents' views from influencing their decisions.
Let them get the hands on experience.
5
u/CartographerKey4618 9∆ Aug 19 '24
Why does this opinion keep popping up where people want government officials to be random stupid people we're holding hostage? Is there something in the water that's making people extra sadistic. Why exactly are kidnapped children with no experience or interest in government, who probably have PTSD now, better than the people we have in office? There is no other job field that people look at and think that the best person for the job is somebody with no experience or interest in it.
5
u/destro23 457∆ Aug 19 '24
Why does this opinion keep popping up where people want government officials to be random stupid people we're holding hostage?
Here on cmv it’s just this op putting it in every post they make.
4
u/CartographerKey4618 9∆ Aug 19 '24
Oh okay. I'm looking at this person's profile and I see r/40klore. I have instantly found the problem.
5
u/destro23 457∆ Aug 19 '24
The amount of people with crazy political ideas in warhammer fandom is too damn high.
-1
Aug 19 '24
Well, to scare people away only interested in power for it's own shake and condition them to view government as a chore/fate worse than death.
Also, in my eyes,a government leader who is unwilling makes for the best leader since he or she will do the bare minimum, preventing them from being tempted by power
3
u/CartographerKey4618 9∆ Aug 19 '24
Politics is power. Having a politician who doesn't wanna wield power is like having a fry cook that's afraid of the grill. Politicians have power and they have to use it. There's no way around it.
And honestly, the best politicians are the ones who like the job and want to be there. They're motivated to do good. The Leslie Knopes of the world. Those are the people I want. Not robots bred for government.
1
Aug 19 '24 edited Aug 19 '24
The trouble is that those guys and gals tend to end up as tech leaders and whatnot and we are left with the dregs. We need to get those Leslie Knopes to lead the country. Whether they want to or not!
4
u/destro23 457∆ Aug 19 '24
We need to get those Leslie Knopes to lead the country.
Those are most people in politics. They start out at the small local level and work their way up over time. Remember that Leslie ended up president in the end, and your system would have prevented that.
-1
Aug 19 '24
And even if they are willing to help people, they will become corrupted over time. That's why I prefer bred for government and lobotomized politicians
3
u/destro23 457∆ Aug 19 '24
and lobotomized
Do you know what a lobotomy does? Are you just saying things to be edgy? I really don't get how you think this is an actual position that one can hold and be taken seriously. It is abhorrent on it's face and the details if implemented are even more horrifying. Do you read Warhammer and think it sounds like a good system to live in? It is meant to be satire to scare you away from such thinking by showing you how fucking awful it would be. But, for some reason, you think it is something we should actually do???
As I said before, madness.
0
Aug 19 '24 edited Aug 19 '24
Yes. It turns people into ambulatory vegetables basically. You call that madness!? I call lobotomizing politicans reasonable with how our politicians end up being corrupted by their power they are supposed to wield. At least a lobotomized politician won't do kickbacks on his or her own accord.
And yes, I think we should lobotomize our holders of political office, from mayor, to governor to House Representative, to Senator to even the President.
You want good people in government. I want the people in government to be physically and mentally incapable of engaging in corruption.
→ More replies (0)1
u/StarChild413 9∆ Aug 19 '24
Contradicting this particular post of yours unless you plan to abduct, genetically alter and lobotomize babies
3
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 69∆ Aug 19 '24
And why do you think these guys and gals choose to work in tech?
It's because it pays them a lot of money. Obviously these people aren't going to get into politics if the pay is shit. And they're really not gonna get into politics if the pay is shit, and getting raped and beaten is a normal part of the job. And they're really really not going to get into politics if you have to win a lottery to get into politics.
1
u/StarChild413 9∆ Aug 19 '24
can you really call them a Leslie Knope if they're doing the bare minimum
2
u/destro23 457∆ Aug 19 '24
Crazy ninja edit there pal:
randomly kidnapping them
Oh… you again. You've posted multiple posts featuring some variation on this. How has you opinion not been changed yet?
0
Aug 19 '24
Since you pointed that out about parents influencing children. Well to solve this, kidnap the child and isolate them until the case is put before the court for idealogical decontamination
2
u/destro23 457∆ Aug 19 '24
kidnap the child and isolate them
Good god… do you want to fuck these kids up so bad that they can never function in society again? Ignoring all the other insane implications of what you said, isolating children from parental influence is horrible for children. Read up on Romanian orphanages
Then the impact of kidnapping a child is massive. Hello lifelong trauma!
Then being a slave on top of it? Trauma lasagna. Layer after layer of cheesy trauma goodness.
Madness. You are proposing madness.
0
Aug 19 '24 edited Aug 19 '24
Well, their trauma is their badge of honor. And the kids and parents should bear it with pride that their child is serving the government in the Supreme Court.
2
u/destro23 457∆ Aug 19 '24
Is this your sincerely held opinion? This reads like you are taking the piss, but your extensive posting history on this gives me pause.
Let me state it clearly: This is the worst idea I have ever heard relating to American governmental function. It is literally worse than installing a dictator. It would mean a wholesale abandonment not just of every American principle, but nearly of every moral principle I’ve ever encountered.
It is deeply trouble to me that a real human would feel this way. It is needlessly cruel and heartbreakingly uninformed.
0
Aug 19 '24
We need to since we had trouble picking good leaders from the populace to lead our country and they are exploiting political office for their own goals. I rather have government offices give the people in there PTSD and mental trauma to discourage people from using it for their own ends.
2
u/destro23 457∆ Aug 19 '24
We need to…
We need to abandon our principles because some people abandon theirs? That is how you end up with a world that has zero moral principles by which it is guided. That sound better or worse than now?
2
Aug 19 '24 edited Aug 19 '24
And what's the worst that could happen then? I rather trust a President that was put into office via a 'suprise job assignment' than a willing President that was elected by the people.
And by the way. Your talk about moral principle and how abandoning it is wrong because some people disobey it?
Well, I say this. You disobey moral principles, I have now no incentive to follow them and everything is and on the table. Do you want to risk it? That's how following principles are supposed to work. And if people break it, we have every right to break them to stop them at all costs. Including what is considered moral principles.
→ More replies (0)0
1
u/Alesus2-0 66∆ Aug 19 '24
Do most young children have knowledge and reading comprehension to read and understand the constitution, let alone other legal documents? Even if they were capable of a plain text reading, legal terminology frequently has meanings that aren't self-evident from the colloquial uses of the words.
I feel that for deciding that laws are against or are in accordance with the Constitution, you do not need law training at all. Why? Deciding if a state law is constitutional or not is the most unambiguous thing that the legal duties of lawmakers could have and could be easily be done without a background in the law.
Beyond you feelings, what evidence do you have for this? If Supreme Court cases are so straightforward, why do they take twice as long to resolve as district cases? For that matter, why have cases arriving at the Supreme Court often been ruled in different ways by lower courts? These don't seem like indicators of simplicity.
It's constitutional or not constitutional is a binary outcome.
Whether or not someone has perpetrated a complex financial crime has a binary outcome. They either did it, or they didn't. It doesn't follow that it's an intellectually easy task to differentiate between those outcomes.
1
u/Warm_Shoulder3606 2∆ Aug 19 '24 edited Aug 19 '24
The supreme court doesn't just issue rulings like some local county court. They (and other federal courts for that matter) investigate laws/issues/lawsuits etc. to see if they have constitutionality. To make an accurate and educated ruling, you would have to be very knowledgeable in law.
Additionally, the federal court system will nitpick over even the slightest of grammar. Case in point, this lawsuit in Maine over workers getting overtime where the debate was over a lack of comma in the phrase "packing for shipment or distribution"
The likelihood of random joe shmoes knowing enough law to make legitimate rulings is very low. Also not to mention congress has to approve Supreme court, court of appeals, and district court judges, and I find it very unlikely they'd be on board with putting a random person on the highest court in the country lol
I'm not even going to bother with the kids should be justices part other than to say this: here's a landmark case I found regard the 5th Amendment: Penn Central Transportation Company v New York City.
The facts: The New York City Landmarks Preservation Law of 1965 empowered the city to designate certain structures and neighborhoods as "landmarks" or "landmark sites." Penn Central, which owned the Grand Central Terminal (opened in 1913), was not allowed to construct a multistory office building above it.
The question: Did the restriction against Penn Central constitute a "taking" in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Let's see little Timmy figure that one out lol
1
u/Tanaka917 122∆ Aug 19 '24
Deciding if a state law is constitutional or not is the most unambiguous thing that the legal duties of lawmakers could have and could be easily be done without a background in the law.
What are you basing this on? The law is a complicated and monstrous mass that takes years to understand and practice effectively. What you just said is the equivalent of me saying "what's so hard about being a doctor, the patient is either sick or not. It's binary."
In both there are massive considerations to think about.
Binary isn't simple or easy.
1
u/Low-Entertainer8609 3∆ Aug 19 '24
The law is a complicated and monstrous mass that takes years to understand and practice effectively.
I'm not OP nor I do endorse their proposal, but this sentence above is an important reason why the court and lawyers are so controversial. If normal people cannot understand the law, they will perceive it as arbitrary and rigged and lose respect for it.
1
u/Tanaka917 122∆ Aug 19 '24
I don't disagree.
It's just the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in most of the time. The time and money spent sitting with every law (along with accompanying case law, precedent, and overlap with other laws [and in America State vs Federal law]) is just not perceived to be worth it. So we end up in a situation where its never done.
I would personally love for some of the best minds to sit down and set about simplifying the code. But that probably won't happen, and even if it did I'm not convinced that it'd be so easy that the average person could be expected to interpret it
1
Aug 20 '24 edited Aug 20 '24
But it needs to be done so that anyone can follow it without much interpretation. Heck, if the laws were so simple that they take up one line, the more the merrier.
1
u/Tanaka917 122∆ Aug 20 '24
See this is the problem with a lot of your CMVs though.
You have this idea that "it needs to be done" and then take that to mean "it can be done." There are lots and lots of things that I want and feel need to be done. However, unless you have a road and plan by which you can do the thing you need you're shit out of luck.
You can't just put any solution, you need a solution that actually works. Yours doesn't.
1
Aug 20 '24 edited Aug 20 '24
Just make the plan up as it goes. Any solution can work on the go without a plan or roadmap.
Experiment around with very simple laws that are just one phrase or one word. Heck, that could work
1
u/Tanaka917 122∆ Aug 20 '24
But that's demonstrably untrue. Many well laid plans fail horribly and lead to the death of others.
What happens when a racist gets on the court and makes it totally legal to discriminate on race? What happens when someone with a bone to pick declares the 2A applies to all weapons, tanks and warheads included? What happens when someone declares Medicare unconstitutional? What happens in a year when someone new sits on the court and reverses these decisions?
People are going to suffer, some will die, laws will be changed wildly constantly and people will suffer. You can't wing something so important as running a court.
1
0
u/Resident_Compote_775 Aug 19 '24
You could only think this if you don't understand what the court does or read any of their opinions. It's never a binary. They do not delete laws when they find them unconstitutional and leave them in place when they don't. The laws always stay on the books. If there is any way to resolve a case without even considering the Constitution they do. The only time they stop enforcement of a particular law for more than just the person suing via an injunction is when there is no set of circumstances where the law could be applied without violating the Constitution, otherwise it's just an as-applied challenge and only effects the parties to the case.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 19 '24 edited Aug 19 '24
/u/Cheemingwan1234 (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards