Reps. Khanna, Beyer, Lee & Tlaib introduce bill to reform the Supreme Court

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Andrew Solender
@AndrewSolender
·
Sep 3, 2021
Reps. Khanna, Beyer, Lee & Tlaib introduce bill to:

- Set 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices (current justices grandfathered in), afterwards they can serve on lower courts
- Create regular Supreme Court nominations every other year, give Senate 120 days to confirm
Image
Image
Image

Andrew Solender
@AndrewSolender
We'll call this the Merrick Garland clause: "If the Senate does not exercise its advice and consent authority... within 120 days after the nomination, the Senate shall be deemed to have waived its advice and consent authority... and the nominee shall be seated."
7:38 AM · Sep 3, 2021

[JohnSJ]

1. That's nice, but unless they get rid of the filibuster it isn't going anywhere

and what is even worse, you bet that if repukes get the Senate, McConnell will eliminate the
filibuster the first chance it serves his purpose

[greblach]

17. He already has

McConnell eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees....

[JohnSJ]

33. That is for nominee confirmations, not for changing the term of a justice, not the same thing

[Demsrule86]

59. He had the votes...when Trump won...he had a majority in the Senate...it was not 5050

It is a miracle the ACA survived..it almost didn't and he had it for two years in Congress for two years-a lifetime in politics. We have a 5050 Senate. Send more Democrats to Congress.


Edit for accuracy the GOP held a majority but not 60 votes.

[Escurumbele]

56. You are 100% correct. I cannot understand that passiveness of Democrats on this issue.

Eliminate the filibuster NOW, same with the Electoral College.

[JohnSJ]

57. Electoral College will require a change to the Constitution I believe

[Wednesdays]

2. This is DOA

It might not even pass the House.

[WinstonSmith4740]

11. Tend to agree...

For now. But I can also remember back in the early days of the anti-choice movement that the common knowledge was that it would get nowhere. Rethugs have been playing the long game. The "death by a thousand cuts" scenario. Democrats have to get rid of the "you might have a point there" mentality, get out of the circular firing squad, and figure out who the enemy is. We're not dealing with rational people on the other side of the aisle.

[Duppers]

27. Dems would object?

Dems control the House.

[Wednesdays]

35. Just watch what happens in the House.

This will go nowhere. Guaranteed.

[in2herbs]

3. If setting term limits wouldn't the Constitution need to be amended first to remove the lifetime

appointment clause for USSC judges?

[HAB911]

7. I believe the "lifetime" appointment

is not necessarily to the SC, so a rotation to a lower court would supposedly meet the criteria for lifetime appointment

or so I have read

[marie999]

14. The Constitution reads, "shall hold their offices" and The Supreme Court would find any law removing

them from their offices as unconstitutional.

[Hugin]

18. Not exactly.

What the US Constitution says is... "The Constitution states that Justices 'shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.' This means that the Justices hold office as long as they choose and can only be removed from office by impeachment."

So, fleshing out what constitutes 'good behaviour' is all that is needed. No change to the Constitution. Totally constitutional even to the so-called originalists. They are already vulnerable to impeachment.

[marie999]

34. And it would have to be such bad behavior that the Justice is convicted of a major felony.

Last edited Sat Sep 4, 2021, 10:29 AM - Edit history (1)

Anything less would not get 67 votes in the Senate to find them guilty and probably wouldn't get a majority of the House to impeach. Edit changed 60 to 67 after being corrected.

[Polybius]

50. 67 votes you mean, which is 2/3rds majority

Yeah it's fantasy, never gonna happen.

[marie999]

60. Thank you

[Lochloosa]

49. It would still take 67 votes to remove them.

[Hugin]

52. It would only take a simple majority to create the law.

Having a clear law on the books describing bad behavior is what I'm talking about here.

It makes Impeachment that much easier.

[in2herbs]

30. That would be great. nt

[wyn borkins]

4. Term Limits Now

I would vote for this; however, I would REDUCE the (one-time only) term limits from 18 years DOWN TO 12 years.

Additionally, I would vote to set both the congressional and the presidential term limits at ONE 6-year term, with the proviso that serving in a different position would be possible for everyone.

Rationale: There are always upcoming folks eager to serve; think of the childrens...

[in2herbs]

5. The thought of TFG in office for 6 years turns me off to this proposition. Otherwise OK.

[wyn borkins]

6. I Agree Regarding tfg

Last edited Fri Sep 3, 2021, 07:47 PM - Edit history (1)

However, consider Senate Republican Leader, Mitch McConnell, U.S. Senator for Kentucky. He is the longest-serving Senate Republican Leader in American history, unanimously elected to lead the conference eight times since 2006.

[marie999]

12. Good luck getting Congress to pass that by a 2/3 majority in both Houses.

[oldsoftie]

19. No problem with a 2 term pres; but term limits for ALL members of Congress!!!

It was never meant to be a lifetime job. Too many get far too rich from their long-term positions.
Yes, apparently we'd have to change the Constitution. But i think most states would go for it. I dont know anyone who doesnt support term limiting Congress
Except members of Congress

[dsc]

39. We have term limits we call the elections

the people of Kentucky aren't infants, they sent McConnell to the Senate repeatedly, if we want him gone, we need to beat him.

[wyn borkins]

41. Understood

And thank you for your response.

[wyn borkins]

42. Understood...And

I have revised my rather childish initial comment regarding Mitch McConnell. It now much more respectfully reads as:

~~~~~
However, consider Senate Republican Leader, Mitch McConnell, U.S. Senator for Kentucky. He is the longest-serving Senate Republican Leader in American history, unanimously elected to lead the conference eight times since 2006.
~~~~~

Best regards always, Wyn

[bucolic_frolic]

8. "shall be seated"

Boy, Obama should have tried pulling that one.

[aggiesal]

15. Having a 120 day time limit or automatically seat clause, will never fly ...

for either party.

Imagine if that rule existed when Kavanaugh was nominated?
McTurtle would have just done nothing for 120 days.
No investigation, no hearings, no perjury.

That would mean opening the doors for the most radical judge available
to walk on in and have a seat on the Supreme Court.
Not that we don't already have that, but at least everyone found out who they were and how they decide cases.

[bucolic_frolic]

28. You're right, it is a Rubber Stamp when the Pres & Senate are of the same party

The problem here is what McConnell did by snuffing the Garland nomination, winking at Kavanaugh, and expediting the Barrett one.

Too much serendipity power, and not enough blowback from the opposition party. And all Republicans had to do with Garland was hold hearings and vote against him. Few would have questioned their right to do so, that is their job. But not holding hearings? And not voting at all? They must have been terrified of the fallout so they created their own free pass, and we were too silent.

[aggiesal]

32. Obama nominated Garland, a much more conservative judge than liberal ...

specifically to make sure that (R)'s would vote for him.
But that would have been Obama's pick and not conservative enough or
controllable enough for McTurtle's liking.

[Volaris]

37. It wouldnt have mattered. Obama could have nominated the ghost of Attilla the Hun,

And it wouldnt have been conservative enough.
Because it was Obama.

[aggiesal]

38. LOL, right of Attilla the Hun's ghost ...

But I agree. "Thanks Obama"

[aggiesal]

9. I believe they should set better rules about filling an empty SCOTUS seat ...

McTurtle should have never left that seat open for a year.
He said, "We'll let the voters decide".
Well the voters of 2012 had already decided that Obama gets to fill an empty SCOTUS seat for the next 4 years.
Obama should have been on TV everyday, telling McTurtle to move the process along.

There should be rules that a nominee should be announced within 15 days and that the Senate
judiciary committee should interview the nominee and have a committee vote within 30 days and
a full vote within 7 days after that.
I'm positive Comey-Barrett went through the process faster than this, the hypocrites.

(R)'s have violated so many accepted norms that we now have to create laws to keep them
from violating more accepted norms.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

Let's not let this happen again.

[Nasruddin]

10. Pretty good

Some kind of term limit, some kind of orderly choice, and "Merrick Garland" clause.

What if we did something slightly different. Suppose we set a term limit for supreme court appointments + appointments can only come from existing holders of federal judgeships (say 10 years) and the appointment is essentially terminal - once you're an SC, your post-appointment post is essentially an emeritus judge somewhere in the federal system. (In other words your old seat has been given to somebody else.)

We really need term limits across the federal justice system but accomplishing that is a big problem.

That Merrick Garland clause, that should be applied across the board; the Senate can have its right to advise & consent even as interpreted now as mandatory review of every appointment (there are thousands of them), but it shouldn't have the power to block appointments by inaction. What executive system anywhere can tolerate this? Why isn't "advise and consent" interpreted as "performance review" instead?

I've really become skeptical of judicial review. This seems to allow courts to turn into mini unelected legislatures - no good. When did the Supreme Court's overarching decisions about anything ever solve a problem? Doesn't matter what side. Would we be better off if the courts forced the _legislatures_ to fight these problems out? I can understand the need for a circuit breaker or a timeout but the present system sets us up for bad things.

[MichMan]

44. The Senate is not required to approve a nominee

So let's say Garland got a vote, but the Republicans just voted him down. Same for the next nominee etc. etc....Same end result.

[brooklynite]

13. Again, meaningless symbolism...

Have them get back to us when 3/5 of the States are prepared to amend Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution.

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

[Zeitghost]

16. Unconstitutional

I always get a bit offended when these kinds of blatantly unconstitutional laws get proposed merely for the sake of scoring political points on the hot topic of the day. I understand it's well intentioned, but on this issue the Constitution is extremely clear and those who proposed this law know that.

If you want to make your point, propose a constitutional amendment.

[Hugin]

20. Wrong.

It's right there in the US Constitution. "The Constitution states that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." This means that the Justices hold office as long as they choose and can only be removed from office by impeachment."

So far, the only Justice to be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805.

A law defining 'good behaviour' is entirely within the purview of the Legislative Branch... Under the US Constitution.

[Zeitghost]

22. No...

Ending lifetime appointments is unconstitutional, full stop. You can not set 18 year term limits and call it an impeachment for bad behavior. It's blatantly unconstitutional.

[Hugin]

25. Making laws out of bills is an iterative process.

A bill is a draft law. It can be changed and altered to fit the Constitution before passage.

The only question is that unlike the Texas law (4 years prior to this week), the US Legislature can't make laws which are retroactively applicable. They can only govern the future good behavior of SCOTUS Justices.

[Lonestarblue]

23. It seems to me that allowing an unconstitutional law to go into effect because of personal

religious bias is the epitome of bad behavior. The Texas law is problematic on many fronts, not just cutting the period when a woman has the right to obtain an abortion to six weeks when the current federal law is up to viability. This law does inordinate harm to many women, and judges should be held responsible for allowing that harm when all they had to do was prevent the law from going into effect. That seems to be malpractice as a judge.

[Hugin]

26. I agree.

Legal malpractice of the highest order.

[MichMan]

45. Can a ruling I disagree with be the definition of therefore not good behavior?

[Hugin]

47. An unprecedented and cowardly act of letting an unpopular law creep through in the dead of night...

Choosing, instead of performing your constitutional duty, NOT to rule on its blatant unconstitutional nature is not good behavior.

Wouldn't you agree?

[Polybius]

48. Even if you are correct, think about one thing:

When challenged (rightfully or not), it'll go to the US Supreme Court. How do you think they will vote? They won't screw themselves, it'll be struct down 9-0.

[Hugin]

51. I'm not sure how constitutionality would be determined...

Honest Justices would recuse themselves. Of course, it couldn't be snuck through in the dead of night on a shadow docket like they've recently become fond of doing.

But, I'm not in Congress.


.

[Polybius]

54. A Justice would have to be stupid to recuse themselves when their job depends on it

They would never recuse themselves in this case. It also couldn't be snuck into anything either, as it would be huge news. It would also be challenged the moment it passed. But we won't have to worry about that, because it'll never pass.

[Hugin]

55. More huge than quietly repealing Roe vs Wade in the dead of night...

Without testimony or arguments?

Hard to imagine.

[Polybius]

61. It didn't repeal Roe

This is only for Texas. Roe repealed would make any state be able to outlaw abortion on day one.

[Hugin]

62. Roe is dead.

Waiting for a death by a thousand cuts. No thanks.

No boiling the frog slowly for me.

[UTUSN]

21. K&R for, hey-now!

[Tadpole Raisin]

24. Besides expanding the court based on population (which may be better than using

The number of circuit courts because republicans would try to change that when they were in office), I would like to consider additionally having 2 alternates.

So an alternate would step in if the judge had to recuse himself if he or his family members had a conflict of interest. This would also be a part of the ethics reforms.

An alternate would become a permanent member when a seat was vacated and the President would nominate a judge who would initially be an alternate. Less intense political games doing it this way. I’m sure they could have significant duties at SCOTUS and with shorter terms they would be on the court soon enough.

[IbogaProject]

29. Just alter the # twice

Just alter the number twice, once down to 7 to get rid of Boof & Handmaid, then set it to be 15 with 5D & 5R and those ten pick the other 5 to be neutral, nonpartisan. Also I've read that we need a superior appellate court to remove lots of cases from getting to the supreme court. I don't have the details but it circulated when Ms Handmaiden Barrett was nominated.

[onenote]

53. Yet another blatantly unconstitutional proposal

One of many in this thread.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

31. Love it, not gonna happen

Great ideas make it to the senate and we don't have the votes.

Tyranny of the minority has to stop....

[ripcord]

36. Not all democrats will support this

I don't expect it to go anywhere but it will create a nice divide.

[Roland99]

40. Gonna have to nuke the filibuster first

[tritsofme]

43. Not a serious bill, sounds like it would have big constitutional problems too.

[George II]

46. Unfortunately this will go nowhere.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

58. Manchin and Sinema will kill it. They will make sure the QOP takes over the House and Senate

in 2023 by making both Houses of Congress ineffective leading up to the 2022 elections, so they can go down in history as the destroyers of democracy and heroes of the American Nazi revolution.

They make me sick.