> Fundamental reform is required if we are to avoid these sort of nonsense decisions in the future.
"Fundamental reform is required if we are to avoid decisions that I disagree with in the future."
"Fundamental reform is required if we are to avoid decisions that I disagree with in the future."
The modern Supreme Court majority contradicts itself from one day to the next. See how they claim it's legal to fire officials of independent agencies like the FTC without cause, but illegal to fire officials of the Federal Reserve without cause, despite the Fed being an independent agency like the FTC. The decision is nonsense, and any organization that makes decisions like this is broken.
Bingo
What are you actually saying constructively here, if anything at all? I, for one, happen to agree that fundamental reform is clearly necessary. What that looks like exactly is where I'm sure the problems lie.
That the vast majority of people that "want reform" actually just want a Supreme Court whose majority always sides with them.
That you immediately go here in response to what are universally understood these days as incorrectly decided cases (Plessy in particular) shows incredibly bad faith on your part. Good day to you sir.