• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hank Johnson reintroduces the Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act of 2025

Safiel

Safiel

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 27, 2023
Messages
1,599
Reaction score
2,142
Gender
Male

First link is to the text of the bill on Johnson's personal House site.
Second link is to the bills entry on congress.gov as H.R. 3544.

Obviously, this bill is going nowhere in the current Congress.

But it does light a path forward for future Supreme Court reform.

I would make some changes in the bill and address some other issues as well.

But Johnson does make a good start and his bill would depoliticize Supreme Court nominations, by essentially granting Presidents two and only two nominations per term. Justices would not be able to time their retirements to benefit or harm a President. Justices would be retired from the court in order of seniority, but could be called back for temporary service if the court became short handed.

The bill also has a clause that compels the Senate to take action and either confirm or reject a nominee, rather than simply refusing to consider it.

This bill takes advantage of a quirk in the Constitution that permits a Justice or Judge to retire from active status, yet retain the office, which is how judicial senior status is possible. Essentially, justices would be compelled into senior status at 18 years.

While I would make some changes, the bill is a good starting point for discussion.
 
Safiel said:

First link is to the text of the bill on Johnson's personal House site.
Second link is to the bills entry on congress.gov as H.R. 3544.

Obviously, this bill is going nowhere in the current Congress.

But it does light a path forward for future Supreme Court reform.

I would make some changes in the bill and address some other issues as well.

But Johnson does make a good start and his bill would depoliticize Supreme Court nominations, by essentially granting Presidents two and only two nominations per term. Justices would not be able to time their retirements to benefit or harm a President. Justices would be retired from the court in order of seniority, but could be called back for temporary service if the court became short handed.

The bill also has a clause that compels the Senate to take action and either confirm or reject a nominee, rather than simply refusing to consider it.

This bill takes advantage of a quirk in the Constitution that permits a Justice or Judge to retire from active status, yet retain the office, which is how judicial senior status is possible. Essentially, justices would be compelled into senior status at 18 years.

While I would make some changes, the bill is a good starting point for discussion.
Click to expand...

Is he worried SCOTUS might cause Guam to capsize?
 
Agree it’s a good starting point. I would like SCOTUS nominees to be drawn from a shortlist prepared by a bipartisan or nonpartisan group.

But any reforms to the nomination process may require a constitutional amendment.
 
The problem isn't the lifetime appointment. It's the complete politicization of the nominating process for federal judges by the GOP.
 
Let's work on term limits for members of congress there Hank before we worry about judges.
 
LostInSeattle said:
The problem isn't the lifetime appointment. It's the complete politicization of the nominating process for federal judges by the GOP.
Click to expand...
It’s not just a GOP thing. Democrat nominees are just as politicized.
 
rahl said:
It’s not just a GOP thing. Democrat nominees are just as politicized.
Click to expand...
Not just but mostly and more extremely. Conservatives have the Federalist Society, an organization that reaches into law schools to start grooming and recruiting conservative lawyers and judicial candidates. There is no "liberal" analog. And no one has more politicized and corrupted the nominating process than Mitch McConnell. Refusing to vote on a nominee for a year was beyond the pale.
 
LostInSeattle said:
Not just but mostly and more extremely. Conservatives have the Federalist Society, an organization that reaches into law schools to start grooming and recruiting conservative lawyers and judicial candidates. There is no "liberal" analog. And no one has more politicized and corrupted the nominating process than Mitch McConnell. Refusing to vote on a nominee for a year was beyond the pale.
Click to expand...
Republicans and democrats politicized the nomination process. Left leaning judges and right leaning judges both rule along party lines. You can see this clearly in split decision rulings.
 
armycowboy said:
There are potential term limits for members of congress, it's called elections. This doesn't exist for judges.
Click to expand...
True, but being realistic, once a member gains office in any area that isn't 50/50 (which isn't many), they essentially hold office for as long as they like. Congress makes the laws that judges are ruling on so the source is generally where the issues begin IMO.
 
Safiel said:
The bill also has a clause that compels the Senate to take action and either confirm or reject a nominee, rather than simply refusing to consider it.
Click to expand...

I think that language was to weak as the Senate will just do what it wants.

It should be written so that the Senate accepts or rejects the nomination or the nominee should be considered rejected.

WW
 
Cameron said:
Agree it’s a good starting point. I would like SCOTUS nominees to be drawn from a shortlist prepared by a bipartisan or nonpartisan group.

But any reforms to the nomination process may require a constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...
Really good idea.
 
Artymoon said:
True, but being realistic, once a member gains office in any area that isn't 50/50 (which isn't many), they essentially hold office for as long as they like. Congress makes the laws that judges are ruling on so the source is generally where the issues begin IMO.
Click to expand...
Get rid of gerrymandering.
 
rahl said:
It’s not just a GOP thing. Democrat nominees are just as politicized.
Click to expand...
Indeed, the current SCOTUS features a Justice who claims superiority as a "wise Latina" and another who can't define "woman" but checks DEI intersectionality boxes.
 
LostInSeattle said:
The problem isn't the lifetime appointment. It's the complete politicization of the nominating process for federal judges by the GOP.
Click to expand...

I think the court should have 10 year term limits and be selected by a team of nonepartisan judges who just select the best candidates.
 
Artymoon said:
When it comes to gov't, "get rid of" could, and should, be used often.
Click to expand...
Its just liberals refuse to get their hands dirty because they think there is something to salvage. There really isnt much of anything to really salvage
 
bomberfox said:
Its just liberals refuse to get their hands dirty because they think there is something to salvage. There really isnt much of anything to really salvage
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say that, both sides are well versed at doing what suits them. My opinion is that the government has turned into an animal that now exists to feed itself at whatever the cost. Less of that is something I would love to see no matter what letter is in charge.
 
Artymoon said:
I wouldn't say that, both sides are well versed at doing what suits them. My opinion is that the government has turned into an animal that now exists to feed itself at whatever the cost. Less of that is something I would love to see no matter what letter is in charge.
Click to expand...

Why not just go all the way and advocate for anarchism?
 
Artymoon said:
I wouldn't say that, both sides are well versed at doing what suits them. My opinion is that the government has turned into an animal that now exists to feed itself at whatever the cost. Less of that is something I would love to see no matter what letter is in charge.
Click to expand...
If liberals got their hands dirty they would be using every means at their disposal. There is no law, no justice, nothing but might makes right now. Trump set the precedent and the supreme court created the enabling acts.
 
Phys251 said:
Why not just go all the way and advocate for anarchism?
Click to expand...
We have “anarchy” for the president already. Whats good for the goose and all that.
 
bomberfox said:
We have “anarchy” for the president already. Whats good for the goose and all that.
Click to expand...

Chaos, really. Which can be the hallmark of an authoritarian regime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom