265
submitted 18 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Reminder that getting control of the house and senate could make stuff like this potentially get through

This proposal is not only one that expands the number of justices over time but alter things like the court's shadow docket, require justices to release tax returns, and more

top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 28 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

We can also ask for term limits and other structural things that require a Constitutional Amendment, but we need to do this first.

Then, after passing the law, go to Republicans and say "There! We undid your fucking up of the courts. You have a choice now: either work with us on a constitutional amendment to help us fundamentally restructure the Court and make is less political, or watch us appoint all these Liberal judges to lifetime appointments and you roll the dice on getting control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress to re-fuck it at some nebulous point in the future".

[-] [email protected] 14 points 10 hours ago

Are we going to pretend they're not just going to jump to the latter without feigning an attempt to do the prior?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago

You need a supermajority of states to ratify an amendment, and there is no reason for Republican-led states to back any amendment that will reform the current court. But add six young liberal justices with lifetime tenure, and now they will go out of their way to pass an amendment to term-limit the,.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 9 hours ago

Eliminate the fixed size of the court entirely. We don't need to define 9 or 15 people.

Every presidential term, the president appoints two new candidates, 9-15 months after the presidential election, and 9-15 months after the midterms. We do not fill any vacated seats.

That resolves the problems with multiple seats unexpectedly swinging on a small court, and limits the effects a single president can have on the court. Yes, the numerical swings can be as large, but the percentage swings will not be; the court will likely fluctuate between 15-20 justices.

Now to fix the Senate playing games...

First, we establish a line of succession with the circuit courts. The chief judges of the circuits, in line of seniority, then every other active judge. Every case before SCOTUS requires at least 6 justices to hear the case. If the court falls below 6, the next judge in line is automatically elevated to the court. If the court is larger than 6, but due to recusals or abstentions, fewer than 6 are able to hear the case, the next judges in line are automatically, but temporarily elevated to hear that case. Only when we have exhausted all judges from the district courts does the president get additional, temporary appointments.

Any appointment to the circuit court requires senate confirmation. After we enact this, any judge confirmed to a district court could (eventually) find themselves on the court. Their confirmation thus includes the (remote) possibility that they will be elevated to the court. So any circuit court appointment after this goes into effect also serves as a SCOTUS confirmation.

When it comes time for the president to appoint a candidate to SCOTUS, anyone who has previously been confirmed to the line of succession can be immediately elevated to the court, without needing additional confirmation.

Where the president and Senate are sympatico, the president can choose anyone they want. When they are at odds, the president still has a list of pre-approved candidates the Senate can't block.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 6 hours ago

I think it would even be better to allow the president to appoint two new justices and the two most senior judges have to step down. It would make the turn over high enough that we don't end up with corrupt trash like we have now for decades. Not until death the way it is now.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 37 minutes ago

What happens when three justices retire in one term, or the senior justice dies right before being forced out? Do we still force out two more justices? We obviously can't shrink the court each time, so either we don't force a justice out when we normally should, or we give the president an extra appointment. Neither seems like a good option.

[-] [email protected] 65 points 18 hours ago

Requiring the HIGHEST JUSTICES in the Country to NOT take Bribes from Defendants or Plaintiffs depending on the case is DEEP STATE WOKE SOCIALISM!

[-] [email protected] 1 points 22 minutes ago

DO allow them to go through a lengthy process, complete with a mountain of precise paperwork, and a committee chosen by their peers, on both sides of the aisle, to accept any form of donation.

Why?

Cause they're gonna find a way anyway. That or literally just give them excellent benefits that basically equal the recent Thomas bullshit.

Basically I'm searching for other ways to reduce these issues to a minimum long term.

[-] [email protected] 16 points 16 hours ago

They are gratuities, not bribes, DUH

/s

[-] [email protected] 6 points 14 hours ago

Just a small treat.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 16 hours ago

indulgences

[-] [email protected] 1 points 18 hours ago

Sounds good to me but:

One of the three co-equal branches (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) limiting another can't last without popular appeal or a Constitutional Amendment.

Even trying to explain that to the average U.S. voter is a lot.

[-] [email protected] 14 points 12 hours ago

Keep in mind that Judicial Review (deciding if laws are constitutional or not) isn't even a constitutional power. It's one the court gave itself in Marbury v. Madison.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago
[-] [email protected] 11 points 12 hours ago

Doesn't the Supreme Court limit the powers of the house and the presidency, like, a lot?

[-] [email protected] -1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

The 250 year old document establishing the government makes everything clear as mud, but outside of eating mud pies, I am not an expert.

Edit I got some meaty responses, look to that

[-] [email protected] 28 points 17 hours ago

The idea that one branch limiting another requires "popular appeal or a Constitutional Amendment" is a bit misleading. The Constitution already provides the Legislative Branch with various checks on the Judiciary. For example, Article III, Section 1 gives Congress the authority to structure the federal judiciary and set the number of Supreme Court Justices. Congress has used this power in the past to both expand and contract the size of the Court (changing the number of justices in the 1800s). This can happen without an amendment or mass public support.

Wyden's proposal to expand the Supreme Court to 15 justices over 12 years is another example of using these constitutional mechanisms. The proposal also includes measures to increase transparency, such as requiring a supermajority to overturn acts of Congress, automatic Senate calendar placement for stalled nominations, and stricter financial disclosures for justices. None of these steps require changing the Constitution; they rely on existing legislative powers.

Explaining this to the average voter might be challenging, but the fact remains: Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate the judiciary, even if it's not commonly exercised or well understood. Wyden's bill seeks to use those powers to restore trust and transparency in the Court without needing a constitutional amendment.

So, the checks and balances already exist – it’s a matter of political will and the legislative process, not necessarily popular appeal or constitutional change.

[-] [email protected] -2 points 17 hours ago

anything Congress does can just as easily be repealed by Congress.

requiring a supermajority to overturn acts of Congress, automatic Senate calendar placement for stalled nominations,

I'm all for it, hope it goes well. because if it doesn't, this is a fast track to shit

[-] [email protected] -1 points 16 hours ago
[-] [email protected] 0 points 18 hours ago

New Republic - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for New Republic:

MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://newrepublic.com/post/186408/senate-wyden-bill-overhaul-supreme-court
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
265 points (99.3% liked)

politics

18931 readers
3256 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS