Supreme Court "adjustments"

For whatever it's worth, an idea (possibly ludicrous) of a way to ameliorate the political biases of the Court.

1- Authorize an increase to 18 justices, over 10 years.

2- Begin 20 year terms for all existing justices, beginning with the most senior. One Justice begins term each year for next 9 years.

3- Appoint a Chief Justice (theoretically Roberts) whose role changes to admin responsibilities, as below.

4- Chief assigns cases to 3,5,7,9 justice "mini courts".

5- Special cases (Presidentil election, abortion, election law, etc) go before full 18 member Court, with Chief holding tie-breaking vote, ala Senate.

6- Mini courts change periodically to prevent consistent biases.

     All variables up for discussion. I'm more interested in a general discussion.
    

yeah, you've got the basic idea right.  I don't have a problem with any of those ideas.

It'll never happen in my lifetime though.

Pelosi just came out today opposing adding justices. She mumbled something about the commission Biden appointed, which is unlikely to propose anything meaningful.

Regarding limiting term lengths - I had thought that the constitution specified lifetime appointments, but apparently that's not the case?

drummerboy said:

Regarding limiting term lengths - I had thought that the constitution specified lifetime appointments, but apparently that's not the case?

Interpreted as such, but the actual language is "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour"

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/

I thought Biden's idea for a commission to study the issue was a good one, and I think so even more after reading this article -

Supreme Court Commission to Scrutinize Changes Beyond Expanding Justice Seats - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

I think serious consideration should be given to "rotating" Justices on and off the court.  Arguably, that can be done by statute without a Constitutional amendment, as the justices moved off the court would still be Federal judges.

nah. it's designed to fail.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/supreme-court-commission/

nohero said:

I thought Biden's idea for a commission to study the issue was a good one, and I think so even more after reading this article -

Supreme Court Commission to Scrutinize Changes Beyond Expanding Justice Seats - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

I think serious consideration should be given to "rotating" Justices on and off the court.  Arguably, that can be done by statute without a Constitutional amendment, as the justices moved off the court would still be Federal judges.

I thought I'd put this here for your amusement. This site is running a poll on the worst SCOTUS justices in history.

https://www.fivefourpod.com/#tournament

drummerboy said:

nah. it's designed to fail.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/supreme-court-commission/

nohero said:

I thought Biden's idea for a commission to study the issue was a good one, and I think so even more after reading this article -

Supreme Court Commission to Scrutinize Changes Beyond Expanding Justice Seats - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

I think serious consideration should be given to "rotating" Justices on and off the court.  Arguably, that can be done by statute without a Constitutional amendment, as the justices moved off the court would still be Federal judges.

 

 I disagree with the premise of that article from The Nation.

There's a lot of misinformation and deliberate ignorance surrounding the debate on reforming the Supreme Court. People (including GOP politicians) claim that the Supreme Court has never been changed since the Constitution was adopted.  In fact, there's a history of adding to, and even shrinking, the Court.  Another little-understood issue surrounds what it means for judges to have a lifetime appointment, and whether that means that they have to stay in the seats to which they were first appointed.

So when Biden puts conservative scholars on the SCOTUS review commission, their names are going to be on a work product that recounts the actual history and background of the court.  In my opinion, if the commission sets out the factual basis, and discusses the issues (even without any recommendation), it will have served a purpose.

If Biden just had a commission of people who were going to recommend expanding the Court, that won't help with any political efforts that will be necessary to make it happen.

drummerboy said:

nah. it's designed to fail.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/supreme-court-commission/

nohero said:

I thought Biden's idea for a commission to study the issue was a good one, and I think so even more after reading this article -

Supreme Court Commission to Scrutinize Changes Beyond Expanding Justice Seats - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

I think serious consideration should be given to "rotating" Justices on and off the court.  Arguably, that can be done by statute without a Constitutional amendment, as the justices moved off the court would still be Federal judges.

 

what exactly do you expect Biden to do?

I've heard proposals for significantly increasing the number of SCOTUS justices, and putting them in a pool from which 9 justices are randomly assigned to each case.  That would seem to be a reform that most reasonable people could get behind.  It would of course require ignoring the unreasonable people (AKA elected Republicans).

basil said:

drummerboy said:

nah. it's designed to fail.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/supreme-court-commission/

nohero said:

I thought Biden's idea for a commission to study the issue was a good one, and I think so even more after reading this article -

Supreme Court Commission to Scrutinize Changes Beyond Expanding Justice Seats - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

I think serious consideration should be given to "rotating" Justices on and off the court.  Arguably, that can be done by statute without a Constitutional amendment, as the justices moved off the court would still be Federal judges.

 

what exactly do you expect Biden to do?

 frankly, in this case, not much more than he's doing. I don't think the Supreme Court is high on his list of priorities.

As always, I'm a fan of term limits.

Not sure I understand how 4,5 and 6 works. Assigning cases to mini courts. Am I understanding that one judge can chose who gets to weigh in on an issue? He decides which issue is major? It rotates. Is it by some form of lottery?

Morganna said:

As always, I'm a fan of term limits.

Not sure I understand how 4,5 and 6 works. Assigning cases to mini courts. Am I understanding that one judge can chose who gets to weigh in on an issue? He decides which issue is major? It rotates. Is it by some form of lottery?

 All good points, and all perfectly debatable. In my mind, the 18 member court divides (or is divided) into rotating assignments to multiple mini-courts, perhaps some with specific subject expertise. No justice could serve on a specific mini-court for more than 2 years. I would expect that major issues would be pre-determined by Congress as to level of importance (or whatever term you want to use). The higher issues would go before the 7 & 9 member panels, while "minor" issues go to the 3 and 5 levels. Specific "super-major" issues, such as election disputes, abortion, Citizens United, etc., would go before a periodic sitting of the full 18 member court, with the Chief Justice presiding, but not voting, unless a 9-9 tie.

Keep asking, and maybe a consensus might appear.

Dennis_Seelbach said:

 All good points, and all perfectly debatable. In my mind, the 18 member court divides (or is divided) into rotating assignments to multiple mini-courts, perhaps some with specific subject expertise. No justice could serve on a specific mini-court for more than 2 years. I would expect that major issues would be pre-determined by Congress as to level of importance (or whatever term you want to use). The higher issues would go before the 7 & 9 member panels, while "minor" issues go to the 3 and 5 levels. Specific "super-major" issues, such as election disputes, abortion, Citizens United, etc., would go before a periodic sitting of the full 18 member court, with the Chief Justice presiding, but not voting, unless a 9-9 tie.

Keep asking, and maybe a consensus might appear.

 I'm interested in reading as many solutions as are proposed. I've been bewildered by the fact that the voters that I meet or debate online are disinterested in court appointments when considering their Presidential pick. 

Now that we are in this often ignored world of courts packed with the last administrations picks something has to be adjusted.

Leave it to the likes of McConnell to toss around the phrase "court packing" in reference to Dem proposals, when that is exactly what he has accomplished.

I'm reading those numbers above and trying to digest it. Where's Ross Perot with a pie chart.

Morganna said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

 All good points, and all perfectly debatable. In my mind, the 18 member court divides (or is divided) into rotating assignments to multiple mini-courts, perhaps some with specific subject expertise. No justice could serve on a specific mini-court for more than 2 years. I would expect that major issues would be pre-determined by Congress as to level of importance (or whatever term you want to use). The higher issues would go before the 7 & 9 member panels, while "minor" issues go to the 3 and 5 levels. Specific "super-major" issues, such as election disputes, abortion, Citizens United, etc., would go before a periodic sitting of the full 18 member court, with the Chief Justice presiding, but not voting, unless a 9-9 tie.

Keep asking, and maybe a consensus might appear.

 I'm interested in reading as many solutions as are proposed. I've been bewildered by the fact that the voters that I meet or debate online are disinterested in court appointments when considering their Presidential pick. 

...

don't be bewildered. Knowing what's going on in the lower courts requires a degree of interest in politics that very few people have. Can't really blame them for it.

There is some blame to spread on the Dems though, as they can do a much better job of publicizing what happens in the courts and how it affects everyday people.