Now what?

[Stinky The Clown]

Over the last little bit I have seen suggestions to counter the GOP wet dream of a 6-3 court with the seating of Amy Coney Phoney. I'm hoping to set up a spirited, serious discussion of our options. I think a lot of good ideas are out there, even as I claim not expertise as to what is actually legal and doable. Here are some of what I think are among the better ideas:

~~Truly unpack the court by reducing it to six, as it was **originally**. Dump the last three. Dare the right wing originalists to counter this.

~~Add two justices to restore the court's balance.

~~Ad more than two justices to dilute the damage any one president can do.

~~Add a larger number of justices (10? 20?), make terms finite, have them end on a rotating basis, with every president having the chance to replace several in each presidential term (4? 8?)

~~Have the Congress pass a law allowing some form of recall short of impeachment.

~~Keep nine, but change them all to finite terms. Have the first end of term next year. Then another in two years, then two years after that, and so forth. First to go will be the most senior justice.

~~Pass legislation that exempts certain laws from Supreme Court purview, keeping them in the executive and legislative branch only.


There are no doubt reasons in opposition to any of these.

There are no doubt other ideas worth consideration.

These are desperate times. Desperate times call for decisive, bold measures.



If we want to address court packing, we need to unpack the lower courts. Many sound legal minds think the federal judiciary is too small. They want it increased, some by far more than 100 judges. Some want the creation of more circuits with existing circuits increased in size.


Anyway, that's a lot to chew on. Thoughts?

[dawg day]

1. I like a big rotating group-

So that it's not always the same hidebound group.

And definitely term limits. 10 years is plenty.

[Moostache]

2. Here you go...

There are 13 district courts in the federal system.

Name 1 Justice, per district, per session to sit on the SCOTUS.
There will be 9 justices hearing cases and 4 alternates (like jurors).
If a seated justice on a case dies mid-term, then the first alternate becomes the voting justice.
This continues for all cases the court hears in a session, with assignment to the cases to follow a random number generator and assignment.

After the court's session ends, all 13 serving justices are excused; and may not be reseated for the duration of the sitting President's current term to avoid political pressure from re-entering the court. The executive branch shall have no voice in the appointment of the judicial branch at the highest level, and neither shall the political parties.

We do not have an independent judiciary at the moment, so ANY remedy is a welcome one...

[Stinky The Clown]

6. That's a great idea. I had not heard that one before.

[Laelth]

3. Nice list of options.

I oppose reducing the number of justices on the SCOTUS because the court is already work-overloaded and can’t hear enough cases as is. I favor more justices over fewer.

I like 15, 17, 19, or 21 as target numbers for the SCOTUS. Such numbers would re-balance the Court to better reflect the will of the American people. Such an increase would greatly reduce each, individual justice’s case load, and it would significantly de-politicize the Court. Each new vacancy would not launch us into the kind of political crisis that RBG’s passing, for example, caused.

I do not favor term limits for SCOTUS judges. History shows that nearly all of them (Clarence Thomas being an exception) get more liberal as they get older, and I want SCOTUS judges to be free to rule in the way that they think is right without fear of repercussions. Only a lifetime appointment can really accomplish that.

I oppose any congressional attempt to limit the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS. All laws passed by Congress must pass constitutional muster. If you limit the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS, you are effectively granting Congress the right to pass unconstitutional laws. No, thank you. That would completely undermine the SCOTUS and render it effectively useless in our system of checks and balances.

-Laelth

[rsdsharp]

4. Some of you ideas cannot be achieved without a constitutional amendment.

Reducing the number of justices won’t remove any. These are lifetime appointments. The reduction would prevent NEW appointments until sufficient deaths or resignations reduce the court to a number below the new standard. This was done when Andrew Johnson was President. The Court continued to have nine justices. Once Johnson was gone the number was increased from 8 to 9 again.

Changing to a finite term also runs afoul of the Constitution’s lifetime appointment.

A new form of recall is also unconstitutional. Again, the appointment is for life — on good behavior. The only constitutional way to remove is to impeach. Only one justice has ever been impeached, and he wasn’t convicted.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Point of clarity: These are not my ideas. I got each of them from here on DU and . . . . .

. . . . in the media.

[rsdsharp]

8. Fair enough.

[pecosbob]

5. Facing a partisan and hostile Supreme Court they should do just as the GOP have done

If the Democratic Party wants to neuter the SC they can leave seats vacant just as the Republicans have done and let them operate with a diminishing court. If Dems gain a super-majority they can rewrite the Constitution as they and the People see fit.