Israel vs SCOTUS reforms opinions

[lfromnj]

Popcorn time.

[SWE]

Pro-SCOTUS packing, indifferent to how Israel sets up its Supreme Court but pro-executing Netanyahu

[Catholics vs. Convicts]

I oppose Netanyahu's proposed reforms.

I oppose packing the Supreme Court, not because I have any moral high ground as far as the Supreme Court's construction, but because I fear what it will become when the Republicans counter-pack the Court once they inevitably regain control of the presidency and Senate.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I plainly oppose both.

[Vosem]

Oppose both (normal). Actions like this should only be done with the support of clear supermajorities of society; in the US it is a clear supermajority that opposes packing the court. In Israel before this crisis it seemed like people vaguely thought that some reform was necessary, but the current reform seems deeply unsatisfactory to a clear majority of society and is likely to give the Court's legitimacy a substantial boost.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Support/oppose

The Israeli Supreme Court draws its power from no constitution and has no popular involvement. Reforming it is crucial to creating a republicanly legitimate government. While I respect the idea that such a reform should require supermajority support, I don't believe that is requisite in this case because the Israeli Supreme Court does not draw its power from a supermajority passed constitution, and because even to the extent that the Basic Law can be described as a constitution the Basic Law explicitly allows reforms of this type to be passed with bare majorities -- so while a supermajority threshold should be established, for the moment the right not should abide by it when it is not the law.

By contrast, the US Supreme Court is republicanly legitimate. Its opponents object to the content of its decisions, but it is important that judicial independence be maintained and the legitimacy of the court be upheld. Packing the court would destroy both.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Oppose both (normal). Actions like this should only be done with the support of clear supermajorities of society; in the US it is a clear supermajority that opposes packing the court. In Israel before this crisis it seemed like people vaguely thought that some reform was necessary, but the current reform seems deeply unsatisfactory to a clear majority of society and is likely to give the Court's legitimacy a substantial boost.

Its patently false that a supermajority or even a majority at all in the US opposes court packing. The sole poll held on the issue post Dobbs that I am aware of shows 55% of Americans in support.
Furthermore, there is no consistent theme of court packing supporters in Congress running behind partisan baselines in their runs in either 2020 or 2022, which is something that one would expect to happen if Court Packing were indeed unpopular.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

By contrast, the US Supreme Court is republicanly legitimate. Its opponents object to the content of its decisions, but it is important that judicial independence be maintained and the legitimacy of the court be upheld. Packing the court would destroy both.

There is no republican legitimacy to a court where any of its members, let alone a majority were confirmed based on the votes of Senators representing a minority of the nations population going off of the preceding contemporary decennial census. Packing the supreme court to cancel this impact on its composition would be an act that restores its legitimacy, not destroys it.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

The math that proves that 5/9 judges on SCOTUS were confirmed based on minority coalitions in the US Senate.

[John Dule]

By contrast, the US Supreme Court is republicanly legitimate. Its opponents object to the content of its decisions, but it is important that judicial independence be maintained and the legitimacy of the court be upheld. Packing the court would destroy both.

There is no republican legitimacy to a court where any of its members, let alone a majority were confirmed based on the votes of Senators representing a minority of the nations population going off of the preceding contemporary decennial census.

While I somewhat agree with this logic, the same goes for all legislation passed by a nonmajoritarian Senate coalition. I hope that for the sake of consistency, you support repealing all federal agencies, laws, and regulations enacted in this fashion.

[SnowLabrador]

I oppose the Israeli court packing, but I support it in the US. The situations are completely different.

[Ferguson97]

Support/oppose

The Israeli Supreme Court draws its power from no constitution and has no popular involvement. Reforming it is crucial to creating a republicanly legitimate government. While I respect the idea that such a reform should require supermajority support, I don't believe that is requisite in this case because the Israeli Supreme Court does not draw its power from a supermajority passed constitution, and because even to the extent that the Basic Law can be described as a constitution the Basic Law explicitly allows reforms of this type to be passed with bare majorities -- so while a supermajority threshold should be established, for the moment the right not should abide by it when it is not the law.

By contrast, the US Supreme Court is republicanly legitimate. Its opponents object to the content of its decisions, but it is important that judicial independence be maintained and the legitimacy of the court be upheld. Packing the court would destroy both.

It's unbelievable how you take the wrong position in literally everything.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Oppose both, support democracy.