Tag: supreme-court

Why Presidents Shouldn’t Pick Supreme Court Justices

Given the news about the Supreme Court’s rulings on all sorts of bullshit Trump executive orders, I felt I had to write my thoughts on it, and my thoughts are as follows:

There’s something deeply broken in the way we appoint Supreme Court justices in the United States.

Nine unelected individuals serve for life, with the power to decide the most intimate and far-reaching issues in our society: abortion, voting rights, corporate power, gun laws, and more. And how do they get that power? They’re handpicked by whichever president happens to be in office when a seat opens up. It’s a political jackpot, not a principled process.

That alone should make us question the system.

We’re told this is how democracy works: the president wins an election and earns the right to shape the future of the court. But let’s be real. Presidents have been elected without winning the popular vote. The Senate–the body responsible for confirming nominees–can represent a minority of the country and still impose a majority decision. Lifetime appointments ensure that some justices rule for decades after the society that empowered them has changed entirely.

This is not democracy. It’s oligarchy in robes.

When presidents nominate justices, it’s not about qualifications. It’s about ideology. It’s about legacy. It’s about stacking the court with people who’ll interpret the law in ways that protect power. Every nomination turns into a televised culture war circus. Nominees dodge basic questions with rehearsed non-answers. Senators posture for the cameras. And the American public is left with yet another justice who serves power instead of people.

I have a better way: Independent Appointments

We need to take this power out of the president’s hands. Let’s create a nonpartisan judicial appointment commission, an independent body tasked with selecting justices based on legal expertise, ethical conduct, and a commitment to upholding the Constitution as a living, evolving document.

This commission could include former judges, constitutional scholars, and representatives from a diverse range of backgrounds, not politicians, not donors, and not partisan hacks. Their job wouldn’t be to pick someone “from the left” or “from the right.” It would be to ensure the court serves justice, not ideology.

It works in other countries. It can work here.

Trust in the Supreme Court is at historic lows and for good reason. When people see a court stacked by partisan deals and rammed-through nominations, they stop believing it represents them. And when people lose faith in institutions, the whole system becomes unstable.

We don’t have to accept this.

We can demand a new way, one where the court reflects the people it serves, not the politicians who manipulate it.

It starts by taking the gavel out of the president’s hand.

The Government Just Gave Itself Permission to Ignore the Law

Let’s not sugarcoat this: the U.S. government is gutting what little remains of “checks and balances,” and most people are too distracted or disillusioned to notice.

Buried inside a House bill—unrelated to taxes, mind you—is a ticking time bomb aimed directly at the rule of law. A quiet little provision would block all funding to enforce contempt of court orders. Read that again. If this passes, the executive branch can ignore court rulings with zero consequences. It’s not just a loophole—it’s a license to violate the Constitution.

Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law expert, laid it out plainly: if the government defies a judge, nothing can be done to force compliance. No enforcement. No consequences. No rule of law. “The greatest effect of adopting the provision,” he warns, “would be to make countless existing judicial orders unenforceable.” Translation: the courts become a theater of empty gestures, while the executive runs wild.

This isn’t theoretical. The Trump administration has already ignored court orders, including the Supreme Court’s ruling to return Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from a black-site-style detention in El Salvador. They just didn’t do it. And now? They’re trying to make that standard operating procedure.

This is what a dying democracy looks like: not in flames, but in red tape and fine print. Congress didn’t vote to abolish the Constitution—they just cut its funding.If you still think the system can be fixed from within, ask yourself: What happens when the system rewrites the rules to ignore its own crimes?

This is not just a Trump issue. This is a bipartisan rot. They’ve built a government that polices protestors, jails whistleblowers, and spies on everyone—but suddenly when it comes to holding itself accountable, it’s “too expensive” to enforce the law?

The lesson is clear: the government does not fear the courts. It fears accountability. And it will rewrite reality itself to avoid it.

Burn your illusions. The state is not your protector. It’s a self-perpetuating power machine, and it just found a way to cut the brakes.