Democrats Introduce Historic Bill to Prevent GOP from Having Too Much Control Over SCOTUS
ELURA NANOS
Sep 29th, 2020, 12:12 pm 10
House Democrats will introduce a historic bill on Tuesday that would change the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future. The Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act of 2020 will be put forth by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Don Beyer (D-Virginia) and Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.). Its purpose is to change the process by which justices serve, leave, and are appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States. Many Democrats see this bill as a way to rein in executive power to create an increasingly conservative Supreme Court in the wake of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburgs death and President Donald Trumps quick nomination of Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
Link to tweet
Heres what the bill would do.
1. Impose term limits.
The bill creates 18-year term limits for sitting SCOTUS justices. After a justice serves for 18 years, theyd have the option of retiring or continuing to serve on the federal bench by serving on a lower court.
2. Create a regular, recurring schedule for Supreme Court nominations.
Future justices would be added to the court in odd (non-election) years, thus allowing every president the same number of opportunities to appoint justices. The bills text says that the president shall, during the first and third years after a year in which there is a Presidential election, nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint one Justice of the Supreme Court.
More:
https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/democrats-introduce-historic-bill-to-prevent-gop-from-having-too-much-control-over-scotus/?utm_source=mostpopular
cos dem
(903 posts)Failure of the Senate to hold a vote within a given amount of time (say 90 days) shall be termed "implied consent".
hedda_foil
(16,375 posts)If the Senate does not exercise its advice and consent authority with respect to a Presidents nominee to the Supreme Court within 120 days after the nomination, the Senate shall be deemed to have waived its advice and consent authority with respect to such nominee, and the nominee shall be seated as a Justice of the Supreme Court.
cos dem
(903 posts)Response to cos dem (Reply #1)
hedda_foil This message was self-deleted by its author.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)In my experience, SCOTUS judges almost universally get more liberal the longer they stay on the Court. Term limits dont help us. Expanding the Court would help us. If there were 15, 17, 19, or 21 SCOTUS judges, each new vacancy would carry much less political weight. Expanding the Court would both stabilize it and, to some degree, de-politicize it.
-Laelth
eppur_se_muova
(36,280 posts)unblock
(52,286 posts)For starters, the wording would appear to give donnie another free nomination in January 2021 as that would be "during the first year after a year with an election."
I don't think they mean to enable lame duck appointments but it appears to be drafted that way.
And this won't prevent a repeat of the merrick garland thing. Yeah, the senate won't be able to do literally nothing, but the senate can kill a nomination in any of a number of ways. Sham hearings and a party line voice vote accomplish the same thing. And it won't work to require the senate to approve someone within some number of days, because then a Republican President would just nominate Nazi after nazi and the best a democratic senate could do would be to pick the least odious nazi.
Nitram
(22,845 posts)our democracy has started. Shirt sleeves are being rolled up and skilled, educated committees are beginning the process of plugging the loopholes and shoring up the weaknesses built into a system that never imagined a psychopath would be elected president and then supported by their party no matter what laws and norms the violated.