ChapelHillSooner
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,124
I have been a proponent of this idea for a while. The only sticking points I see is 1) how to deal with early exits, and 2) how do deal with a senate that refuses to confirm any nominee.
Abortion Argument Within (f/k/a Biden to propose SCOTUS reform)
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 203
- Views: 4K
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,647
The right-wing majority can be dealt with. If we can get this reform passed, the right-wing majority can be phased out. They can add four seats now, and set seats currently occupied by Thomas and Alito to expire and not be replaced.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,647
On point 2: I've thought about this for a long time, and I've concluded that it's not a solvable problem. That is, there is no way to design a system of governance that can fully protect against bad-faith actors. That's because the bad faith actors will do their thing unless disciplined. But if the disciplinarian is also bad-faith, then what? A new disciplinarian? Turtles all the way down.
Checks and balances are all well and good, but they are not steady state solutions. They might be able to work in circumstances in which the checks are perfectly balanced, but that's unlikely. The history of checks and balances in the U.S. is basically, "the Supreme Court is the check to rule them all." And so long as the Supreme Court is filled with more or less good-faith actors, it can fulfill that role. But of course, the bad-faith actors eventually realize the Supreme Court is the weakness. Put bad-faith actors there and then checks and balances are done. Which has happened a couple of times in history.
This is why the idea of court packing should not be a negative. It is literally the only way in our system for the political branches to be a check/balance on the Supreme Court. But it's not necessarily an effective strategy. It will just make the bad faith people work harder. One way is for them to do what you say: refuse to confirm any Justice who won't be aligned with their bad faith.
On point 1: Early exits could be addressed with a reshuffling. If Thomas' seat is about to expire in 2025, but Roberts dies in 2024, then Roberts' seat would be filled and everyone would get pushed back by two years. Thomas would get to survive until 2027. This is not 100% perfect but it's pretty good and it pales in comparison to the other problems.
tarheelbillie
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 407
Limit terms to 10 years. Things change...so should those making judgements. Expanding membership is no more than kicking the can down the road. Most important is finding a method of limiting any administration's political influence over SCOTUS nominations. The latter is a tall order. Artificial intelligence...maybe?
gtyellowjacket
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,417
Decent idea, although folks aren't considering the downsides, but it will never pass. Its election year theater.
Give us real platforms to vote on.
Give us real platforms to vote on.
ChapelHillSooner
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,124
I would prefer on filling a seat that the person taking the seat only finishes out the original term. If you rotate them back to their original position then I can’t see anyone turning down a nomination for just a year or two. It would be a good way to get a judge’s name out there which could later lead to a full 18 year nomination.
heelslegup
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 591
The only way this passes in 2024 would be if both Thomas and Alito die prior to the election, Ds ram through 2 replacents and the SC goes from 6-3R to 5-4D, The R vocal public complaints to God would be priceless. Rs wou;d sign any reform the Ds propose.
Dems should have expanded the court by 2 in 2021. That would have fixed the Garland outrage of Rs. Would have meant a 5-4R advantage. On the RBJ/Barrett saga, can't blame the Rs on that one since Dems would and should have done the same.
Will never work in this polarized world but what if the SC were 12 with an agreement it would always be 6D 6R. The President would make the pick if his party controlled the Senate, but if not would select from a list of 5 the other party submitted. In theory (ha!) would force the justices to work together,
Dems should have expanded the court by 2 in 2021. That would have fixed the Garland outrage of Rs. Would have meant a 5-4R advantage. On the RBJ/Barrett saga, can't blame the Rs on that one since Dems would and should have done the same.
Will never work in this polarized world but what if the SC were 12 with an agreement it would always be 6D 6R. The President would make the pick if his party controlled the Senate, but if not would select from a list of 5 the other party submitted. In theory (ha!) would force the justices to work together,
Last edited:
- Messages
- 29,162
Warning of ‘Extreme’ Agenda, Biden Calls for Supreme Court Overhaul
In a speech in Austin, Texas, the president outlined a proposal that included term limits and an enforceable ethics code for the justices but that faces long odds in a divided Congress.
Warning of ‘Extreme’ Agenda, Biden Calls for Supreme Court Overhaul
In a speech in Austin, Texas, the president outlined a proposal that included term limits and an enforceable ethics code for the justices but that faces long odds in a divided Congress.
- Messages
- 29,162
“… The proposal would require congressional approval and has little hope of gaining traction in a Republican-controlled House and a divided Senate. In a social media post, Speaker Mike Johnson called the plan “dead on arrival” in the House. (Mr. Biden later said onstage that Mr. Johnson’s “thinking is dead on arrival.”)
…
In his remarks on Monday, Mr. Biden said a system of lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court gave a president undue influence for decades, and he endorsed 18-year term limits for the justices.
He said he supported a code of conduct that would require justices to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest, calling them “common-sense reforms that a vast majority of Americans support.”
The amendment he proposed curbing the court’s immunity ruling would state that the Constitution does not confer to former presidents any immunity from federal criminal indictment, trial, conviction or sentencing, a fact sheet released by the White House said.
But a constitutional amendment limiting that decision would be difficult to enact, requiring two-thirds votes in Congress or at a convention called for by two-thirds of the states, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures. …”
…
In his remarks on Monday, Mr. Biden said a system of lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court gave a president undue influence for decades, and he endorsed 18-year term limits for the justices.
He said he supported a code of conduct that would require justices to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest, calling them “common-sense reforms that a vast majority of Americans support.”
The amendment he proposed curbing the court’s immunity ruling would state that the Constitution does not confer to former presidents any immunity from federal criminal indictment, trial, conviction or sentencing, a fact sheet released by the White House said.
But a constitutional amendment limiting that decision would be difficult to enact, requiring two-thirds votes in Congress or at a convention called for by two-thirds of the states, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures. …”
- Messages
- 744
I am glad Biden raised the issue even if it goes nowhere. He has nothing to lose and it is a bold move to get the proposition on record.
But whomever above said he sounded better than he has in a year, I don't see it or hear it. There is something really wrong with him. or old age has hit him like a freight train in six months.
You can hardly hear him. Half his sentences fade off into a drunken slurring indecpherable voice. And he has had that cough for a year and a half. They are hiding something.
But whomever above said he sounded better than he has in a year, I don't see it or hear it. There is something really wrong with him. or old age has hit him like a freight train in six months.
You can hardly hear him. Half his sentences fade off into a drunken slurring indecpherable voice. And he has had that cough for a year and a half. They are hiding something.
I believe that the proposal is basically an endorsement of an existing proposal from Sheldon Whitehouse and others that has been proposed for at least the last 9 months: Whitehouse, Booker, Blumenthal, Padilla Introduce New Supreme Court Term Limits Bill - Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
The proposal is that there would be more than 9 justices but only the 9 justices most recently appointed hear all of the cases. That is how you bypass the necessity of a constitutional amendment. It is an effective 18 year term limit but justices are still lifetime appointments. If there was a vacancy in the 9 most recently appointed justices then the 10th most recently appointed justice just starts to hear all cases once again. When there is a vacancy in the Chief Justice, the next regularly scheduled appointment will be the new Chief Justice (with the most senior justice serving as Chief temporarily).
"Under the senators’ legislation, a new justice would take the bench every two years and spend 18 years participating in all Supreme Court cases, after which the justice would be limited to hearing a small number of constitutionally required cases. "
"The Constitution requires that Supreme Court justices hear a small number of cases under the Court’s “original jurisdiction.” These cases include a narrow category of disputes between states or foreign officials in which the Court is the first and only venue where the case is heard. All justices would continue to hear original jurisdiction cases under the Act.
The vast majority of the cases the Court hears are brought under the Court’s “appellate jurisdiction”—cases decided by lower courts that are appealed to the Supreme Court. These include major cases like Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Shelby County v. Holder, and Citizens United v. FEC.
The Constitution makes clear that the Supreme Court’s “appellate jurisdiction” is subject to any “Exceptions” or “Regulations as the Congress shall make.” Congress has long used this authority to adjust the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.
Under the Supreme Court Biennial Appointments and Term Limits Act, only the nine most recently appointed justices would sit for appellate jurisdiction cases. The justices who no longer hear appellate jurisdiction cases would retain the authority to hear original jurisdiction cases and to exercise all other powers of the office. If one of the justices who regularly hears appellate jurisdiction cases has a conflict of interest or is otherwise unavailable to hear a case, another justice who hears only original jurisdiction cases may fill in.
The legislation also creates regular appointments of Supreme Court justices every two years by requiring the president, within the first 120 days of the first and third years of the president’s term, to appoint one Supreme Court justice, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."
Republicans would submit a list of 5 Aileen Cannons.
Democrats would submit a list of 5 Merrick Garlands.
A man that’s been in DC for 50 years calling for term limits is hilarious. This comes down to Democrats not liking SCOTUS for actually upholding the law. If anything needs term limits, it’s Congress. Let’s just call this what it is, Democrats trying to destroy a court they don’t agree with.
RockyMtnHoo
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 407
I don’t think you’d find many on either side who would say term limits for Congress is a bad idea. Unfortunately the people with the power to implement that change are the ones benefiting from there not being term limits.
KishiKaisei
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 349
lawtig02
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 4,950
“Actually upholding the law” is an interesting take for a Supreme Court whose defining characteristic is its eagerness to reverse longstanding precedent and use its virtually unchecked judicial power to act as an unelected lawmaker. I actually agree with you that SCOTUS reform is a perilous path, but if it happens, Republicans, and the SCOTUS conservatives in particular, will have only themselves to blame. Their reckless disregard for established law has been absolutely extraordinary.
How did they abuse the public trust?
It’s only defined by that characteristic on the radical left. Biden just 2 years ago said he’d never call for term limits on the court.
GoHeelsweeeehoooo
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 587
If Harris wins and if the Democrats win control of the House and Senate I think they should add 4 new seats to the supreme court