They have, but there are some pretty significant cracks in the system. Laws have shown to be meaningless if you can get enough of the right people to go along with an alternative reality, and Trump has demonstrated that there is enough blind loyalty in the country to accept that reality. The 2024 GOP contenders have all embraced this reality as good politics. How long will the courts be able to keep this going?
Trump didn’t completely burn the country down. He did a lot of damage. There are some areas where we could shore things up. He came within a few votes of a second term. If he had been quicker/smarter about getting Barr into the AG slot, and filling some lower level jobs, he probably would have been re-elected.
I’ve suggested that SC justices get 18 year, staggered terms, beginning in odd numbered years. That 18 years is a substantial part of a justice’s future productive lifespan if presidents pick experienced people who might be in their 50’s.
The current system results in:
- Presidents picking the youngest people they can find because they want to have the longest impact.
- Higher political stakes when new justices are nominated/confirmed.
- Justices timing retirements so they can pick the president that picks their replacement.
- Some presidents picking significantly more justices than others.
I was responding to this:
These all sound more like I don’t like that Trump just got to pick 3 than actual critiques. I think 2 of Trumps appointments are excellent conservative choices. One is sketchy personally but he seems to be an ok judge.
Okay. I hope you caught the fact that I was promoting the second bullet in that pair, not the first.
I suppose this is where I should say “It sounds to me like you prefer the current system because you like the fact that Trump just got to pick 3 justices”, but that doesn’t lead anywhere.
We can both avoid talking about pros and cons and simply question the other’s motivations. I don’t like to do that.
I’ll talk pros and cons if you like.
Yeah. I understood that and was pointing out a problem with your non-preferred approach. Further support for why it’s not as good an idea.
I’ll say that congress and the president already have the power to work together to grant pardons. So in cases of obvious public good, they should be able to do that.
The question is whether it’s good to have the president act alone, without the consent of congress. I’ll say the the pardons I’d support are more likely to be those where congress would agree, and those that I’d oppose are more likely to be those where at least one chamber would object.
In general, a blanket power of presidential pardon is just too much like a king for me.
If you’re suggesting an amendment that would limit the presidential pardon to the first 3 years and 9 months of a president’s first term, I’d certainly consider that a significant step in the right direction.
I like the temporal idea. Why not just say that pardons can only be issued in the first three years of the term? Maybe even 3 years and 6 months.
If the President is re-elected then he/she can issue pardons on January 20 at 12:01 PM EST.
They can even announce it all ahead of time so that the prisoners can be released at 12:02 PM on 1/20.
Given their tendency to wait until their last days in office, despite being able to do so at any time, potential pardonees are already pretty accustomed to waiting. Much longer than 6-12 months.
I like 2 of Trumps picks, I like both of Obama’s, and I like Bush’s picks. I think the court mostly has really qualified good justices right now.
You like the results. I don’t like the process. I think the process will lead to more extreme judges.