• ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    As dispicable as the court is, I agree with their decision.

    If a Colorado court can decide to remove a candidate, then all the republicans need to do is get a majority in the courts of swing states and they would forever have the presidency.

    Ideally, it should be completely overhauled SCOTUS with something like 15 seats, and every year, a seat expires, on staggered terms, with each justice serving 15 years.

    Since a president can only serve a maximum of 8 years*, they could at most have 8 of 15 justices. Something as serious as disqualifying a candidate for federal office should require 2/3 of the SCOTUS’s total membership, so at least 10 of the 15 seats on SCOTUS.

    A president serving 4 years could at best fill 4 of 15 seats, so even a corrupt president still leaves 11/15 uncorrupted judges.

    Also congress has to approve the judges (ideally both houses, by simple majority)

    And for intra-term vacancies, they should be filled by 2/3 supermajority, but if bipartisanship is impossible, they’ll just have to wait out the seat to expire.

    Maybe I should design the political system. 🤔 I’ve been doing a lot of worldbuilding stuff for a novel I want to write.

    • Omega@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      If a Colorado court can decide to remove a candidate, then all the republicans need to do is get a majority in the courts of swing states and they would forever have the presidency.

      It should be up SCOTUS to validate or invalidate Colorado’s findings. It would never be Colorado as the final word. That’s how the courts already work. Lower courts rule and higher courts can take further action if needed.

      I’m all for SCOTUS reform though.