The American justice system is imperfect. That’s why it’s constantly being reformed. Factor in the necessity to make decisions partially based on empirical evidence and consulting experts, but more importantly competing ideological and political forces, then you realize why the process is slow.
Over time there is change. Not wholesale change, and not always in the direction of the way that majority of the population wants.
Meanwhile some reforms are more pressing than others.
The recent Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision (June 2022) regarding Roe v Wade has numerous negative and devastating implications for women (and men) living in this country.
But let’s start with why this ruling occurred? We could blame larger forces that are present in American society such as patriarchy, Christian Fundamentalism, and the Republican Party. Or, we could point the finger at individuals such as former president Donald Trump, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, etc.
Regardless, we would probably not be in the position we are currently in if the method by which we chose Supreme Court justices, and the manner by which they serve their terms, were reformed.
To begin with, it is generally understood that the SCOPUS is responsible for ruling on the constitutionality of laws that are passed by the legislature and/or the executive. On the one hand, the public is told that the justices’ decisions are based on the law, including precedent, and thus relatively value free. And because there are several justices, and not simply one, its believed that the more extreme views can be held in check through the voting process. On the other hand, we also know that the justices are influenced by their political beliefs and considerations. In short, they are ultimately loyal to the political parties that secured their nomination and conferred their appointment.
The process by which Supreme Court justices are chosen, and the duration of their tenure mitigates against value free judicial decisions. How so? In general, when a Supreme Court justice position comes open, nominees for the position are put forward to a committee of the Senate on the judiciary, which is composed of representatives from the two major political parties. The committee vets the candidates in a highly charged primarily partisan manner. The recommendation then goes to the Senate and the political party that has the most amount of votes gets to choose their candidate.
Meanwhile, although there are valid arguments for Supreme Court Justices to occupy their positions for relatively lengthy time periods, the appointment as a SCOTUS justices is for life. In other words, the individual continues to rule on legal matters long after the current party in power controls the senate. And in most cases they rule on matters that align with the political party that put them into power.
Thus, how does one increase the fairness of the decision that SCOTUS makes?
Since the creation of the SCOTUS, many mechanisms have been developed to determine the appropriateness of job candidates. Some, but not all, might be used to determine the suitability of the Supreme Court judges, other than the ones we currently use
Most countries that have judicial review of the constitutionality of laws that are passed (or implemented), also have components similar to the SCOTUS built into their political fabric. They also have differing methods to choose the individuals that review the laws.
There are a number of recommendations that have been advanced that might improve SCOTUS, in particular the manner by which we appoint justices, and the terms of justices? They include:
Defund the Supreme Court. If we limit the resources that this fourth branch of government has access to, then This is a cute way of suggesting that if you restrain their resources they can’t do so much damage. In principle this may make sense but in the long run won’t work.
Increase the number of Justices. In principle, the greater the number of qualified people making an important decision, the higher the likelihood that the decision will be a good one. This is a suggestion that has been bandied around Washington for the past three years. But increasing the number of justices does not really help with the partisan obligations that justices feel, nor does it assist with putting a cap on lifetime appointments.
Direct vote Some may argue that justices should be elected based on the popular vote. The public, however, is not sufficiently qualified to judge judges knowledge and ability. Despite many jurisdictions in the United States ability to elect judges for lower court duties, being a Supreme Court justice is not a popularity contest. In other words, they must make tough decisions.
Term limits One of the most favorable options is limiting the length of time that they can serve as Supreme Court Justices. One suggestion might be, similar to the president of the United States, no longer than eight years.
Now that we have some suggestions, it’s time for President Biden and the Democratic Party to take the issue of SCOTUS reform seriously. This is not an easy challenge to solve or fight to win, but Biden has a little more than two years left in his term, and depending on the results in this November’s mid term election, he needs to initiate a more intense discussion and even some changes in the composition of the courts.
Photo Credit: Victoria Pickering
Roe overturned
In front of the Supreme Court as the decision announced in Dobbs that overturns Roe v Wade
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/52170073478_34a2450ac9_c.jpg525800Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-06-27 12:21:052024-09-22 12:21:33The repeal of Roe v Wade highlights the need to change the way we choose Supreme Court justices and their terms of service
The design, fabrication and installation of a statue, sculpture, or plaque in the US House of representatives commemorating the people who were injured, died or where killed on Jan 6th is an important undertaking.
Some people, however, may argue that it’s a bad idea erecting a memorial to this event. Or that it depends on certain contextual factors.
Yes, there are other pressing issues in the United States right now like dealing with the remnants of COVID, gun violence, in particular mass shootings in our schools, and climate change.
Critics of this proposal, may suggest that establishing a memorial to the victims of the Jan. 6th insurrection might unnecessarily inflame the MAGA crowd and other right wingers in our country. And we might not want to do this now because tensions are so high.
Many casual observers may also ask, should the memorial include the names of the female Trump supporter who female rioter who was shot by a capital police officer and other rioters who died from heart attacks?
Then again should the memorial be a sculpture, plaque, etc.?
Still some individuals may rightfully ask how are we going to fund this memorial?
All of these issues, however, shouldn’t preclude thoughtful discussions regarding the planning and ultimate decision to go forward with a memorial.
Although we might think that someone else’s preoccupation is silly, we are free to pick and choose and devote our energies to whichever cause or interest we like, as long as it’s not unethical, illegal, and if it is not hurting anyone. And the memorial to the people who died, injured or were victimized as a result of the Jan. 6 insurrection fits this category.
The MAGA crowd are going to complain no matter what the current government does. In other words they don’t need much ammunition to complain about all sorts of real and imagined injustices. So funding and erecting a memorial to the victims of the January 6 attacks will simply be one more issue.
Moreover, if the memorial is located inside a secure (sic) building like congress the likelihood that it will be vandalized is decreased.
Questions regarding what type of memorial, how big it will be, and its’ design and where exactly it should it be placed can be left to another time. But we need to get the ball rolling.
In order to take the financial sting out of the decision, the memorial could be funded (in whole or in part) through private donations enabled via a GoFundMe or kickstarter campaign.
Keep in mind that the victims of the January 6 attacks are not simply the eight people who died during or a result of the attack, but the elected officials and staffers, and law enforcement officers who undoubtedly have experienced post-traumatic stress disorder.
It’s time to move beyond the talking points, and television coverage and concretize the event so that generations from now will be forced to remember its impact on our nation.
Photo Credit:
Brett Davis
Capitol Breach 2
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/50810619993_99a27a23fa_o-scaled.jpg17102560Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-06-20 11:33:172022-06-20 11:33:17How about a memorial to the people who died, were injured, and victimized in the January 6th insurrection?
In any public performance or activity there are always stated and unstated objectives. After a year of hearings, most behind closed doors, last week the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol started to hold their televised public hearings.
This prompts a number of questions, but two of the most important ones are why are the hearings being held in this manner and why now?
To begin with the committee is governed by Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, that allows public hearings. But it is up to this body to determine when and how this will occur. And here is now.
The more interesting issues are the stated and unstated reasons for the televised public hearings and the timing of the same.
But keep in mind two things:
First, the committee primarily has a fact finding purpose. It does not have the power to charge any one they believe are conspirators or co-conspirators to the events leading up the January 6, events. But they have subpoena power and have been using it. All the documents and testimony that the committee has collected can and will be handed over to the Department of Justice (DOJ). It will be up to Attorney General Merrick Garland to go forward with any further investigations and DOJ prosecutors to lay charges.
1. Wrapping things up in a bow and provide a more consistent and accessible message to their audience
Over the past year the public has been given snippets of information related to the work of the committee that has been released both by the committee and through the news media. But in the minds of the public this information is a garbled mess and needs to be organized into a narrative so that the public can best understand how the pieces are linked together.
2. Capitalizing on the current attention spans of their audience
This month may be the best time to coherently present the findings of the committee to individuals who are interested in its work. This constituency may have a brief window in their attention spans to better pay attention to the committees’ messaging. Their children have finished (or are completing) the spring semester, and it’s a few weeks before they begin their summer plans if they have any. Meanwhile congress and the senate will go into recess, and legislators will go back to their constituencies and try to convince the uncommitted to vote for them.
3. Appeasing Democratic Party loyalists who have been critical of the process
Over the past year a number of well-respected ostensibly Democratic Party stalwarts, including the Lincoln Project have criticized the committee. The most important criticism has been a perception that the committee is going too slow.
4. Signaling the Department of Justice that they will be holding them accountable for carrying the ball once the information is handed over to them
Once the information gathered by the committee has been given to the DOJ, they cannot simply go through the motions. If they do not do a thorough investigation, lay appropriate criminal charges, and start prosecutions, not only will Garland be criticized but so will Biden. After all, he has the responsibility for managing the DOJ.
5. Stressing the importance of electing Democratic candidates in the upcoming November elections
In five months the United States will ostensibly face one of the most important elections since November 2020. The Dems desperately want to hold on to the seats they have both in the house and the senate and if possible gain a few more seats that are in precarious jurisdictions (ones likely to shift).
For individuals who have been closely monitoring the activities of the committee, the public televised hearings will probably not provide any new revelations, but they should give insights on the inside workings of this political body, and their rhetorical strategy.
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2022-06-13-at-10.07.05-AM.png353721Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-06-13 09:03:302024-09-22 12:21:34Why is the Committee to investigate the January 6th attack holding televised hearings now?
The repeal of Roe v Wade highlights the need to change the way we choose Supreme Court justices and their terms of service
/by Jeffrey Ian RossThe American justice system is imperfect. That’s why it’s constantly being reformed. Factor in the necessity to make decisions partially based on empirical evidence and consulting experts, but more importantly competing ideological and political forces, then you realize why the process is slow.
Over time there is change. Not wholesale change, and not always in the direction of the way that majority of the population wants.
Meanwhile some reforms are more pressing than others.
The recent Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision (June 2022) regarding Roe v Wade has numerous negative and devastating implications for women (and men) living in this country.
The fact that 61 percent of the American public alone believe that abortions should be legal, means that the recent SCOTUS decision, in the context of Roe v Wade, is out of sync with the opinions held by a large number of Americans. This begs numerous questions.
But let’s start with why this ruling occurred? We could blame larger forces that are present in American society such as patriarchy, Christian Fundamentalism, and the Republican Party. Or, we could point the finger at individuals such as former president Donald Trump, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, etc.
Regardless, we would probably not be in the position we are currently in if the method by which we chose Supreme Court justices, and the manner by which they serve their terms, were reformed.
To begin with, it is generally understood that the SCOPUS is responsible for ruling on the constitutionality of laws that are passed by the legislature and/or the executive. On the one hand, the public is told that the justices’ decisions are based on the law, including precedent, and thus relatively value free. And because there are several justices, and not simply one, its believed that the more extreme views can be held in check through the voting process. On the other hand, we also know that the justices are influenced by their political beliefs and considerations. In short, they are ultimately loyal to the political parties that secured their nomination and conferred their appointment.
The process by which Supreme Court justices are chosen, and the duration of their tenure mitigates against value free judicial decisions. How so? In general, when a Supreme Court justice position comes open, nominees for the position are put forward to a committee of the Senate on the judiciary, which is composed of representatives from the two major political parties. The committee vets the candidates in a highly charged primarily partisan manner. The recommendation then goes to the Senate and the political party that has the most amount of votes gets to choose their candidate.
Meanwhile, although there are valid arguments for Supreme Court Justices to occupy their positions for relatively lengthy time periods, the appointment as a SCOTUS justices is for life. In other words, the individual continues to rule on legal matters long after the current party in power controls the senate. And in most cases they rule on matters that align with the political party that put them into power.
Thus, how does one increase the fairness of the decision that SCOTUS makes?
Since the creation of the SCOTUS, many mechanisms have been developed to determine the appropriateness of job candidates. Some, but not all, might be used to determine the suitability of the Supreme Court judges, other than the ones we currently use
Most countries that have judicial review of the constitutionality of laws that are passed (or implemented), also have components similar to the SCOTUS built into their political fabric. They also have differing methods to choose the individuals that review the laws.
There are a number of recommendations that have been advanced that might improve SCOTUS, in particular the manner by which we appoint justices, and the terms of justices? They include:
Defund the Supreme Court. If we limit the resources that this fourth branch of government has access to, then This is a cute way of suggesting that if you restrain their resources they can’t do so much damage. In principle this may make sense but in the long run won’t work.
Increase the number of Justices. In principle, the greater the number of qualified people making an important decision, the higher the likelihood that the decision will be a good one. This is a suggestion that has been bandied around Washington for the past three years. But increasing the number of justices does not really help with the partisan obligations that justices feel, nor does it assist with putting a cap on lifetime appointments.
Direct vote Some may argue that justices should be elected based on the popular vote. The public, however, is not sufficiently qualified to judge judges knowledge and ability. Despite many jurisdictions in the United States ability to elect judges for lower court duties, being a Supreme Court justice is not a popularity contest. In other words, they must make tough decisions.
Term limits One of the most favorable options is limiting the length of time that they can serve as Supreme Court Justices. One suggestion might be, similar to the president of the United States, no longer than eight years.
Now that we have some suggestions, it’s time for President Biden and the Democratic Party to take the issue of SCOTUS reform seriously. This is not an easy challenge to solve or fight to win, but Biden has a little more than two years left in his term, and depending on the results in this November’s mid term election, he needs to initiate a more intense discussion and even some changes in the composition of the courts.
Photo Credit: Victoria Pickering
Roe overturned
In front of the Supreme Court as the decision announced in Dobbs that overturns Roe v Wade
How about a memorial to the people who died, were injured, and victimized in the January 6th insurrection?
/by Jeffrey Ian RossI’m not the first person to make this recommendation, and certainly will not be the last. But the January 6th 2021 insurrection, or riots as some would describe them, in particular the numerous law enforcement officers who were injured and the eight people who died in connection with this event, need to memorialized with something more than a year-long House Select Committee, the filing of charges by the Department of Justice, and the conviction of selected participants on seditious conspiracy indictments.
The design, fabrication and installation of a statue, sculpture, or plaque in the US House of representatives commemorating the people who were injured, died or where killed on Jan 6th is an important undertaking.
Some people, however, may argue that it’s a bad idea erecting a memorial to this event. Or that it depends on certain contextual factors.
Yes, there are other pressing issues in the United States right now like dealing with the remnants of COVID, gun violence, in particular mass shootings in our schools, and climate change.
Critics of this proposal, may suggest that establishing a memorial to the victims of the Jan. 6th insurrection might unnecessarily inflame the MAGA crowd and other right wingers in our country. And we might not want to do this now because tensions are so high.
Many casual observers may also ask, should the memorial include the names of the female Trump supporter who female rioter who was shot by a capital police officer and other rioters who died from heart attacks?
Then again should the memorial be a sculpture, plaque, etc.?
Others may opine that the memorial will be vandalized like the litany of ones that were spray painted, wheat-pasted, stickered, and torn down during the spring of 2020 in the wake of the protests against the death of George Floyd and the black lives matter movement in this country.
Still some individuals may rightfully ask how are we going to fund this memorial?
All of these issues, however, shouldn’t preclude thoughtful discussions regarding the planning and ultimate decision to go forward with a memorial.
Although we might think that someone else’s preoccupation is silly, we are free to pick and choose and devote our energies to whichever cause or interest we like, as long as it’s not unethical, illegal, and if it is not hurting anyone. And the memorial to the people who died, injured or were victimized as a result of the Jan. 6 insurrection fits this category.
The MAGA crowd are going to complain no matter what the current government does. In other words they don’t need much ammunition to complain about all sorts of real and imagined injustices. So funding and erecting a memorial to the victims of the January 6 attacks will simply be one more issue.
Moreover, if the memorial is located inside a secure (sic) building like congress the likelihood that it will be vandalized is decreased.
Questions regarding what type of memorial, how big it will be, and its’ design and where exactly it should it be placed can be left to another time. But we need to get the ball rolling.
In order to take the financial sting out of the decision, the memorial could be funded (in whole or in part) through private donations enabled via a GoFundMe or kickstarter campaign.
Keep in mind that the victims of the January 6 attacks are not simply the eight people who died during or a result of the attack, but the elected officials and staffers, and law enforcement officers who undoubtedly have experienced post-traumatic stress disorder.
It’s time to move beyond the talking points, and television coverage and concretize the event so that generations from now will be forced to remember its impact on our nation.
Photo Credit:
Brett Davis
Capitol Breach 2
Why is the Committee to investigate the January 6th attack holding televised hearings now?
/by Jeffrey Ian RossIn any public performance or activity there are always stated and unstated objectives. After a year of hearings, most behind closed doors, last week the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol started to hold their televised public hearings.
This prompts a number of questions, but two of the most important ones are why are the hearings being held in this manner and why now?
To begin with the committee is governed by Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, that allows public hearings. But it is up to this body to determine when and how this will occur. And here is now.
The more interesting issues are the stated and unstated reasons for the televised public hearings and the timing of the same.
But keep in mind two things:
First, the committee primarily has a fact finding purpose. It does not have the power to charge any one they believe are conspirators or co-conspirators to the events leading up the January 6, events. But they have subpoena power and have been using it. All the documents and testimony that the committee has collected can and will be handed over to the Department of Justice (DOJ). It will be up to Attorney General Merrick Garland to go forward with any further investigations and DOJ prosecutors to lay charges.
Second, the hearings, regardless of the findings, format and timing, are not going to convince the Maga cult that former President Donald Trump, and his inside circle broke the law. Many of them believe that the “election was stolen,” don’t really understand the constitution, nor criminal law, and a significant number of them believe that the Jan 6th insurrection was a legitimate act of political violence.
Although the committee may be using the televised public hearings to prepare and warn the American public about the seriousness of the information uncovered and recommended criminal charges, having public televised hearings now may be designed with other objectives in mind including:
1. Wrapping things up in a bow and provide a more consistent and accessible message to their audience
Over the past year the public has been given snippets of information related to the work of the committee that has been released both by the committee and through the news media. But in the minds of the public this information is a garbled mess and needs to be organized into a narrative so that the public can best understand how the pieces are linked together.
2. Capitalizing on the current attention spans of their audience
This month may be the best time to coherently present the findings of the committee to individuals who are interested in its work. This constituency may have a brief window in their attention spans to better pay attention to the committees’ messaging. Their children have finished (or are completing) the spring semester, and it’s a few weeks before they begin their summer plans if they have any. Meanwhile congress and the senate will go into recess, and legislators will go back to their constituencies and try to convince the uncommitted to vote for them.
3. Appeasing Democratic Party loyalists who have been critical of the process
Over the past year a number of well-respected ostensibly Democratic Party stalwarts, including the Lincoln Project have criticized the committee. The most important criticism has been a perception that the committee is going too slow.
4. Signaling the Department of Justice that they will be holding them accountable for carrying the ball once the information is handed over to them
Once the information gathered by the committee has been given to the DOJ, they cannot simply go through the motions. If they do not do a thorough investigation, lay appropriate criminal charges, and start prosecutions, not only will Garland be criticized but so will Biden. After all, he has the responsibility for managing the DOJ.
5. Stressing the importance of electing Democratic candidates in the upcoming November elections
In five months the United States will ostensibly face one of the most important elections since November 2020. The Dems desperately want to hold on to the seats they have both in the house and the senate and if possible gain a few more seats that are in precarious jurisdictions (ones likely to shift).
For individuals who have been closely monitoring the activities of the committee, the public televised hearings will probably not provide any new revelations, but they should give insights on the inside workings of this political body, and their rhetorical strategy.