this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
325 points (97.1% liked)

BrainWorms

1251 readers
24 users here now

Hey, welcome to BrainWorms.

This is a place where I post interesting things that I find and cant categorize into one of the main subs I follow. Enjoy a front seat as i descend into madness

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Good. I’m not sure how the founding fathers didn’t conceive of this becoming a problem in the first place

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The biggest mistake the founding fathers made was having faith in our ability to overcome (or at least resist) our worst traits.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And having slaves, too. That was a big mistake

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Oh, jeez, yeah. Okay, having faith in people was their SECOND biggest mistake.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Weren't a few of them outright begging for people to not cling to political parties? They probably were hoping that the courts would remain bipartisan just because they would be on the stands longer than whatever recent trend was going on when they were nominated in.

Whereas if they had terms like the other branches they would always be voted in based on current issues.

Of course, at the time they did all this, Judicial Review hadn't even been conceived yet, let alone using judicial review to undo other supreme court cases en-masse.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Jefferson, when the Court granted itself the power of judicial review (which, yes, they just gave themselves because they were the authority and nothing said they couldn't) warned us about despotism from the courts. For as many flaws as that man had, he was dead-on about that

[–] southsamurai 2 points 1 year ago

His flaws were as a person rather than as a social and political thinker. Which leads to why he's such a hot button figure.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean I definitely get their reasoning behind it. I’m just saying that I don’t understand how they didn’t realize lifetime appointments could lead to some really shitty consequences if the wrong people were put in power.

Like, they set term limits for everything else because they saw the absolute shitfest what having a lifetime-appointed official could have with the king, but they didn’t think about the possibility of the supreme court getting filled with people who were just as, if not more, awful?

Just seems like a major oversight

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I suppose they thought the vetting process and confirmation hearings would be enough.

They were wrong.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

250 years ago, men in positions of power were expected to adhere to a minimum public standard or remove themselves out of honor. This is something the current Republican party doesn't care at all about so the system is breaking down.

Not to mention, the only people eligible to vote were rich landowners that could delegate daily "work", so they had the time and were expected to stay up to date on politics. It was essentially required of their position in society.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

250 years ago, men in positions of power were expected to adhere to a minimum public standard or remove themselves out of honor.

I feel like impropriety isn't a new problem. For example in 1787 we had to remove senator William Blount for trying to get Britain to invade Florida in a land speculation scheme. This is more so just recency bias.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Well then that went away not long after because we had a congressman beat a senator with a cane, until he was unconscious, in the chamber of congress. He came up behind him and hit him over the head with a can that had a metal knob handle at the end. He hit him over and over and the senator never fully recovered from the beating, leaving him with chronic conditions the rest of his life.

The congressman who beat him "retired" to avoid the censure, and then was quickly re-elected and put back into his position. So, I don't think the past had any more honor, civility, etc. than we do today. I actually am of the mind we are far more civil today than 250 years ago after reading, and listening to, first hand accounts of life at the time.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Weren't a few of them outright begging for people to not cling to political parties?

For the most part they were stupid to do so. Coalition building is independent of even government system. Look at the political parties behind the Nikea riots during the reign of Emperor Justinian. The truth is you could have sortition form the legislative branch and they would STILL develop political parties.