Our nation has grown considerably since the number 9 was selected for the supreme court, so allowing a larger number of people to serve in this court would likely increase the diversity of opinions and encourage more effective deliberation. It's not rational to allow only 9 people to represent the supreme court of our nation of over 300 million people. The fact that they do not serve limited terms, means that a lot of them probably have very dated views. It would be absurd for U.S. citizens to expect a person, from a far away generation, to accurately and actively change their opinions with time, to reflect the progression in thinking that we acquire. This system is rooted in slowing down progress, likely out of fear. A result of this is that only recently is a thing like gay marriage being regarded as a right, as it should have been a long time ago. It's hard to imagine any true justification for having denied this right, yet when you look at the people in power in the supreme court over the previous years, it's hard to figure out what their incentive would have been for allowing it. This supports the idea that the court should have more people who represent more varied views.
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Supreme Court Injustice
In the U.S., our supreme court is not elected by the people. There are only 9 of them (usually), and they serve as long as they want, even until they die. Their influence on our lives is immense, and lasting, as their decisions also set precedence for future decisions. In addition, our judicial branch is set up in a way that encourages our judges to uphold earlier decisions rather than evenly consider both new and old opinions on an issue. The combination of these factors creates a potentially very corrupt and stagnant system, although the members are often extremely intelligent and respected, there's no guarantee that they will perform well.
Our nation has grown considerably since the number 9 was selected for the supreme court, so allowing a larger number of people to serve in this court would likely increase the diversity of opinions and encourage more effective deliberation. It's not rational to allow only 9 people to represent the supreme court of our nation of over 300 million people. The fact that they do not serve limited terms, means that a lot of them probably have very dated views. It would be absurd for U.S. citizens to expect a person, from a far away generation, to accurately and actively change their opinions with time, to reflect the progression in thinking that we acquire. This system is rooted in slowing down progress, likely out of fear. A result of this is that only recently is a thing like gay marriage being regarded as a right, as it should have been a long time ago. It's hard to imagine any true justification for having denied this right, yet when you look at the people in power in the supreme court over the previous years, it's hard to figure out what their incentive would have been for allowing it. This supports the idea that the court should have more people who represent more varied views.
Our nation has grown considerably since the number 9 was selected for the supreme court, so allowing a larger number of people to serve in this court would likely increase the diversity of opinions and encourage more effective deliberation. It's not rational to allow only 9 people to represent the supreme court of our nation of over 300 million people. The fact that they do not serve limited terms, means that a lot of them probably have very dated views. It would be absurd for U.S. citizens to expect a person, from a far away generation, to accurately and actively change their opinions with time, to reflect the progression in thinking that we acquire. This system is rooted in slowing down progress, likely out of fear. A result of this is that only recently is a thing like gay marriage being regarded as a right, as it should have been a long time ago. It's hard to imagine any true justification for having denied this right, yet when you look at the people in power in the supreme court over the previous years, it's hard to figure out what their incentive would have been for allowing it. This supports the idea that the court should have more people who represent more varied views.
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Commentary on LSD and the brain Article
I've commented on the article, LSD and the brain, from the blog, America the "Great". My comment is as follows: "This is an interesting article, but could be geared more towards the government's involvement in deciding the schedule level of these drugs. It would be helpful to know what the guidelines are for those decisions, and how they are made. Also, it would be nice to have a specific source listed for the "recent scans". Otherwise, it's a great article, thanks."
Sunday, April 3, 2016
Political Parties
The United States government is hindered greatly by the use of political parties. The whole country is divided in half in increasingly polarized groups, and this separation promotes hate among the citizens, as well as unproductive environments for government officials to accomplish anything of value.The idea that political parties are bad for the country is nothing new, George Washington, the first president, said himself that it would likely be the greatest downfall of the US. He was appalled to see them arise almost instantly and thrive after he left his office. It’s true that these political parties arose naturally and perhaps inevitably, but there is no reason that they should be so built into our system that it would seem impossible to have an election without them. Because current events and generations change constantly, it’s often out-dated to rely on a mostly static definition of what each party represents, and because of how rigid the expectations are for them, politicians loose their ability for creative and innovative approaches to government. It’s a brain-stifling system which emphasizes the fight between the parties as much as the fight between the candidates, and citizens are so deeply attached to their ideologies that they don’t bother to learn much about the opposing parties’ candidates (aside from sharing posts on Facebook of pictures and articles making fun of and harshly criticizing them, often without substantial sources), or even their own candidates. It’s easy for citizens to think, “as long as it’s a Democrat, I don’t care”, which represents how much we are distracted by the party system, and lose focus on the candidates running. This country would be very different, and much improved, if we got rid of the Democrat vs. Republican craze, and instead as a nation elected individuals based on their specific set of ideas and opinions. The public would be more united during elections and take more responsibility for getting to understand the candidates. There would be more intelligent discourse of politics rather than constant offensive and childish "shit-slinging". With all the great minds in America, there would surely be several attractive alternatives to this system we could think up, if only we'd lose our fear of change and realize that things can and should be better, and we are not innately tied to the current party system, as vital as it may appear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)