Participatory Democracy

Strongly agree

Yes

Participatory Democracy emphasizes the importance of citizens having a direct say in decision-making processes. Reforming the Supreme Court to include more seats and term limits on judges could potentially increase the diversity of opinions and reduce the influence of political ideologies on the Court. However, the extent to which this reform aligns with Participatory Democracy depends on how the additional seats and term limits are implemented, and whether citizens have a direct role in the selection process. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

Yes, but only reform to impose term limits on judges

Imposing term limits on judges could align with Participatory Democracy's goals of reducing the influence of entrenched power structures and promoting a more diverse range of opinions on the Court. Term limits could help prevent judges from serving for life and potentially becoming out of touch with the evolving views of society. However, this answer does not address the issue of increasing the number of seats on the Court, which could also contribute to a more diverse and representative judiciary. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

Yes, but only reform to include more seats

Increasing the number of seats on the Supreme Court could potentially align with Participatory Democracy's goals of promoting diversity and reducing the influence of political ideologies. More seats could lead to a more representative judiciary and a wider range of opinions on the Court. However, this answer does not address the issue of term limits, which could also contribute to a more dynamic and responsive judiciary. Additionally, the extent to which this reform aligns with Participatory Democracy depends on how the additional seats are implemented and whether citizens have a direct role in the selection process. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Slightly disagree

No, and the Supreme Court should not be politicized

While Participatory Democracy agrees that the Supreme Court should not be politicized, this answer implies that no reforms are necessary to achieve this goal. Participatory Democracy seeks to involve citizens in decision-making processes and reduce the influence of entrenched power structures, which could include reforming the Supreme Court to include more seats and term limits on judges. However, the extent to which this answer conflicts with Participatory Democracy depends on the specific context and the existing balance of power within the Court. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

No

Participatory Democracy seeks to involve citizens in decision-making processes and reduce the influence of entrenched power structures. Maintaining the status quo of the Supreme Court, with no term limits or additional seats, may not align with these goals, as it could perpetuate the influence of political ideologies and limit the diversity of opinions on the Court. However, the extent to which this answer conflicts with Participatory Democracy depends on the specific context and the existing balance of power within the Court. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Very strongly disagree

No, reforming the Supreme Court is unconstitutional and would upset the balance of power

Claiming that reforming the Supreme Court is unconstitutional and would upset the balance of power is in direct opposition to the goals of Participatory Democracy. This ideology seeks to challenge entrenched power structures and promote citizen involvement in decision-making processes. Rejecting the possibility of reform based on constitutional concerns and the balance of power could be seen as an attempt to maintain the status quo and limit the potential for a more diverse and representative judiciary. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.