Repeating My 5-4 Suggestion

This wasn’t worth stating a first time, much less restating

What is random about a supreme court justices vote? Why do you refer to John Oliver’s actions as a stunt?

What actions are these anyway

Not sure about SCOTUS, but for election the solution is easy.

Just have something akin to the filibuster in the constitution, for both chambers, with no exceptions.

The 51% should never be able to change anything material for everyone, any significant change should require supermajorities, up to 90%+ for the most significant changes.

Unless basically everyone outside of skizos agree on something, you shouldn't dramatically change society toward any outcome.

Judges don't vote randomly but the idea that a society-defining choice can change depending if it goes to SCOTUS at year x or year x+2 is a bad joke.

Seems reasonable to me.

I like the idea of a panel of wise people deciding what happens to society with regards to the rights we are supposed to enjoy

Someone has to decide what words mean.

But the fact is no right that was transparently, clearly given to you by agreed upon documents has ever been removed by judges (in the USA).

It's that some of them completely invented some new rights, then normal people came and fixed that.

Yeah probably just one philosopher king is best.

Or maybe we should just vote on them every year.

By the way, if both parties are appalled by John Oliver's apparently legal offer, one way to stop angle shooting like this would be for Biden, Thomas, and the Senate to agree to have Thomas retire and Biden nominate someone similar ideologically of about the same age and health. (Sort of like how a senator will sometimes agree abstain when a colleague who would have voted other way would endure hardship to physically cast his vote but would make that sacrifice if necessary if not for the gesture.)

Not sure why you think this applies to my post. As to what I mean by randomness when it comes to SCOTUS I basically mean the date of death as it relates to the President's political party. With elections it could mean the weather. With votes in Congress or statehouses it could mean several things. The idea was less important when the choices that were voted on weren't so different. Now your whole life can change because it snowed on election day in Peoria or because news that would change the outcome occurs between the first mail in vote day and the last. All I am suggesting is an automatic way to revisit close outcomes sooner than usual.

Have you considered that most legal cases need to be decided in a timely way, and some legal cases absolutely must be decided in a timely way? For example, the Colorado ballot case needs to be decided right away. The election is coming up. That decision won't be 5-4, but if it was, we wouldn't have the luxury of running it by different versions of the SCOTUS for the next decade or whatever.

That doesn't apply to legislation though.

For SCOTUS, the idea could be that a 5-4 applies to the current case but doesn't count as precedent for other courts or SCOTUS itself.

You are correct that my comment about SCOTUS decisions only related to SCOTUS decisions. How could it be otherwise?

The Supreme Court is never formally bound by its own decisions. What exactly would it mean for a decision on the Colorado ballot case to not be binding precedent on lower courts? I guess it mean that Arizona could do exactly the same thing and have its case go up on appeal to the Supreme Court and be decided in exactly the same way?