Here are my ideas for SCOTUS reform.

[btthegreat]

1. Stack the court to 13, with one justice added in rotation every two years. The end result is 1 from each of the 12 geographically drawn circuit court districts [ does not have to be judge, or even have attended law school. Justice Marjorie Taylor Green anyone? ] + one drawn from the CFR court system of Indian Offenses. (I am tired of the ivy league east coast dominance of Harvard, Yale)
2. There shall be a single 12 year term imposed on all SCOTUS justices. When a new opening is apparent via notice, The President must submit his nominee to the US Senate within 30 days and the US Senate must submit every nominee to a floor vote within another 45 days ( Doesn't mean the FBI, Dept of Justice and Judicial committees do not do the same vetting work, and come up with whatever recommendation) But the Senate Judiciary cannot kill the nomination for lack of a majority of quorum. It's vote out of committee is purely advisory. There will be no 'McConnell rules'.
3. The US House shall compose and submit into its record, a bill of professional ethics to apply to all SCOTUS Justices. Any suspected breach will be first investigated by special councel appointed by the Dept of Justice and a report submitted to the US House for discipline up to and including articles of impeachment (of course the senate tries articles of impeachment as they normally do.) Let the House figure out some lesser penalties other than removal that it does not need to send to the Senate. The House currently does not have any effective role as a check of the judiciary conduct I want to recreate one.
4. Stare Decisis. Any binding opinion of the court ,which effectively overturns its own settled precedent in a constitutionally binding case (as opposed to statutory) must be decided by one majority opinion signed by no fewer than 7 justices. Concurring opinions do not count towards the seven. You come up with 7 signatures or you don't bother submitting an opinion to overturn the court's own stare decisis.

Yes I know none of this will ever happen. I am not suggesting that somehow my Godlike powers of discernment, also include a prognostication for deliverance.

 

[Mycroft]

Yes I know none of this will ever happen.

I'm glad you realize this.

 

[btthegreat]

I'm glad you realize this.

There is no such thing as a process to amend our Constitution anymore. Those references to the two alternative methods are bankrupt of meaning now.

 

[eohrnberger]

1. Stack the court to 13, with one justice added in rotation every two years. The end result is 1 from each of the 12 geographically drawn circuit court districts [ does not have to be judge, or even have attended law school. Justice Marjorie Taylor Green anyone? ] + one drawn from the CFR court system of Indian Offenses. (I am tired of the ivy league east coast dominance of Harvard, Yale)
2. There shall be a single 12 year term imposed on all SCOTUS justices. When a new opening is apparent via notice, The President must submit his nominee to the US Senate within 30 days and the US Senate must submit every nominee to a floor vote within another 45 days ( Doesn't mean the FBI, Dept of Justice and Judicial committees do not do the same vetting work, and come up with whatever recommendation) But the Senate Judiciary cannot kill the nomination for lack of a majority of quorum. It's vote out of committee is purely advisory. There will be no 'McConnell rules'.
3. The US House shall compose and submit into its record, a bill of professional ethics to apply to all SCOTUS Justices. Any suspected breach will be first investigated by special councel appointed by the Dept of Justice and a report submitted to the US House for discipline up to and including articles of impeachment (of course the senate tries articles of impeachment as they normally do.) Let the House figure out some lesser penalties other than removal that it does not need to send to the Senate. The House currently does not have any effective role as a check of the judiciary conduct I want to recreate one.
4. Stare Decisis. Any binding opinion of the court ,which effectively overturns its own settled precedent in a constitutionally binding case (as opposed to statutory) must be decided by one majority opinion signed by no fewer than 7 justices. Concurring opinions do not count towards the seven. You come up with 7 signatures or you don't bother submitting an opinion to overturn the court's own stare decisis.

In other words, make SCOTUS the 2nd branch of the federal legislature, and impose term limits. All this so that the left can impose by law the public policies they can't get through the legislature.

Might as well add 'SCOTUS is compelled to always rule how the left wants them to rule, first and foremost, regardless of what the US Constitution text reads".

SCOTUS is just fine as it is, and doesn't need any of these proposals of yours.

Yes I know none of this will ever happen. I am not suggesting that somehow my Godlike powers of discernment, also include a prognostication for deliverance.

 

[Mycroft]

There is no such thing as a process to amend our Constitution anymore. Those references to the two alternative methods are bankrupt of meaning now.

Wrong.

We still have a Constitution and it provides the process for amending it. The fact that amending the Constitution is hard is not a failing. It is a deliberate feature.

 

[j brown's body]

In other words, make SCOTUS the 2nd branch of the federal legislature, and impose term limits. All this so that the left can impose by law the public policies they can't get through the legislature.

Might as well add 'SCOTUS is compelled to always rule how the left wants them to rule, first and foremost, regardless of what the US Constitution text reads".

SCOTUS is just fine as it is, and doesn't need any of these proposals of yours.

It's approval rating among the public is pretty low.

As it jettisons one precedent after another, its decisions are breeding chaos.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

In other words, make SCOTUS the 2nd branch of the federal legislature, and impose term limits. All this so that the left can impose by law the public policies they can't get through the legislature.

Might as well add 'SCOTUS is compelled to always rule how the left wants them to rule, first and foremost, regardless of what the US Constitution text reads".

SCOTUS is just fine as it is, and doesn't need any of these proposals of yours.

No, it's not.

It's corrupt and needs to be cleaned out.

One justice is a white supremicist asshole, another is on the take to the tune of 4 million dollars, one is a fratboy scumbag who has a history of sexual assault. Then there is Gorsuch. He's just a Catholic zealot who is unfit to sit on the bench. Then, of course, the justice who belongs to a religious cult within the Catholic church. In any event, 6 Catholics on the SCOTUS is too many. It's become a source of corruption.

 

[btthegreat]

In other words, make SCOTUS the 2nd branch of the federal legislature, and impose term limits. All this so that the left can impose by law the public policies they can't get through the legislature.

Might as well add 'SCOTUS is compelled to always rule how the left wants them to rule, first and foremost, regardless of what the US Constitution text reads".

SCOTUS is just fine as it is, and doesn't need any of these proposals of yours.

I am not a fan of term limits when the voters can impose them via the ballot box. I am a fan nobody can. You must be scared that only the left can ever win elections sufficient to gain purchase for their agenda, and the right can never win the oval office, the House or the Senate sufficient to gain a leg up for theirs.

 

[upsideguy]

In other words, make SCOTUS the 2nd branch of the federal legislature, and impose term limits. All this so that the left can impose by law the public policies they can't get through the legislature.

Might as well add 'SCOTUS is compelled to always rule how the left wants them to rule, first and foremost, regardless of what the US Constitution text reads".

SCOTUS is just fine as it is, and doesn't need any of these proposals of yours.

SCOTUS has seemingly worked to make themselves the first branch of the federal legislature, allowing congress to participate only when convenient. They also have decided to rule over all of the other courts; not to provide an avenue of redress for the aggrieved, but rather to meddle in the decisions of lower courts at will.

Engineer your SCOTUS to achieve political outcomes, give them lifetime appointments with a simple majority of the senate, allow unlimited money to circulate around Washington, have no standards of ethics and no accountability to anyone --- what could go wrong??? a corrupt SCOTUS that serves itself and no longer calls balls and strikes.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely! SCOTUS is corrupt. It has wandered to the other side of the galaxy from "fine."

 

[Gatsby]

Here is my proposal:

NERF THE COURTS AMENDMENT:
Section 1 - Court size: The Supreme Court shall consist of 19 justices.
Section 2 - Confirmation process: Each year the president may nominate exactly one justice to the Supreme Court, between February 1 and August 31. The House of Representatives shall have 60 days to evaluate the nominee. During this time, the House may reject the nominee with a three-fifths supermajority vote, or confirm the nominee with a simple majority vote. If the House fails to act within 60 days, the nominee is confirmed and assumes office. If the House rejects a nominee, or if the nominee is withdrawn before taking office, the president may nominate a replacement within the aforementioned time window. The president does not have the power to appoint justices outside this window, or to fill any unscheduled court vacancies.
Section 3 - Term limits: If seating a new justice causes the size of the court to exceed 19 justices, the most senior justice retires immediately.
Section 4 - Legislative supremacy: Under no circumstances shall the courts invalidate laws duly approved by the legislature, unless they are superseded by a later law duly approved by the legislature. The role of the courts shall be to interpret the laws passed by the legislature or the states, and the acts of the executive branch or the states.

 

[btthegreat]

Wrong.

We still have a Constitution and it provides the process for amending it. The fact that amending the Constitution is hard is not a failing. It is a deliberate feature.

When do you think the constitution will next be amended? The last time was in 1992. The amendment was proposed for state ratification in 1789. it took 202 years. I think we have a problem.

 

[bongsaway]

There is no such thing as a process to amend our Constitution anymore. Those references to the two alternative methods are bankrupt of meaning now.

I agree.

 

[911Sparky]

In other words, make SCOTUS the 2nd branch of the federal legislature, and impose term limits. All this so that the left can impose by law the public policies they can't get through the legislature.

Might as well add 'SCOTUS is compelled to always rule how the left wants them to rule, first and foremost, regardless of what the US Constitution text reads".

SCOTUS is just fine as it is, and doesn't need any of these proposals of yours.

I bet you will change your tune when SCOTUS is controlled by a 6-3 liberal majority.

 

[btthegreat]

Here is my proposal:

NERF THE COURTS AMENDMENT:
Section 1 - Court size: The Supreme Court shall consist of 19 justices.
Section 2 - Confirmation process: Each year the president may nominate exactly one justice to the Supreme Court, between February 1 and August 31. The House of Representatives shall have 60 days to evaluate the nominee. During this time, the House may reject the nominee with a three-fifths supermajority vote, or confirm the nominee with a simple majority vote. If the House fails to act within 60 days, the nominee is confirmed and assumes office. If the House rejects a nominee, or if the nominee is withdrawn before taking office, the president may nominate a replacement within the aforementioned time window. The president does not have the power to appoint justices outside this window, or to fill any unscheduled court vacancies.
Section 3 - Term limits: If seating a new justice causes the size of the court to exceed 19 justices, the most senior justice retires immediately.
Section 4 - Legislative supremacy: Under no circumstances shall the courts invalidate laws duly approved by the legislature, unless they are superseded by a later law duly approved by the legislature. The role of the courts shall be to interpret the laws passed by the legislature or the states, and the acts of the executive branch or the states.

Who interprets the Constitution and decides whether a given statute or executive action breaches the boundaries set forth by the constitution

 

[Gatsby]

Who interprets the Constitution and decides whether a given statute or executive action breaches the boundaries set forth by the constitution

So I've been thinking about how I might modify Section 4 of my proposed amendment, so that it's more of a middle ground between true legislative supremacy, and the judicial supremacy that we have now. Here's what I'm thinking: Maybe SCOTUS should be able to overturn legislation on constitutional grounds, but only with 12 out of 19 votes.

Generally I think there is not enough deference to the elected branches of government in our system, but true legislative supremacy might be a step too far.

 

[Along Came Jones]

Come Monday we might know what Biden/Harris have in mind for the court:

President Joe Biden plans to unveil a proposal on Monday for dramatically reforming the Supreme Court, two people familiar with the matter told POLITICO.

Biden is likely to endorse establishing term limits for justices and an enforceable code of ethics, in an announcement that represents a remarkable shift for a president who had long resisted calls to overhaul the high court. -- Biden will announce Supreme Court reform plans next week, Politico, 6/27/2024

 

[Mycroft]

When do you think the constitution will next be amended?

I have no idea, but...I don't think it needs to be amended.

The last time was in 1992. The amendment was proposed for state ratification in 1789. it took 202 years. I think we have a problem.

shrug...

I don't think it's a problem.

 

[Mycroft]

SCOTUS has seemingly worked to make themselves the first branch of the federal legislature, allowing congress to participate only when convenient.

The solution for that is for Congress not to pass unconstitutional laws.

They also have decided to rule over all of the other courts; not to provide an avenue of redress for the aggrieved, but rather to meddle in the decisions of lower courts at will.

There's a reason it's called the "Supreme" Court.

 

[Mycroft]

Come Monday we might know what Biden/Harris have in mind for the court:

President Joe Biden plans to unveil a proposal on Monday for dramatically reforming the Supreme Court, two people familiar with the matter told POLITICO.

Biden is likely to endorse establishing term limits for justices and an enforceable code of ethics, in an announcement that represents a remarkable shift for a president who had long resisted calls to overhaul the high court. -- Biden will announce Supreme Court reform plans next week, Politico, 6/27/2024

Political posturing by a guy who made himself a lame duck.

 

[btthegreat]

So I've been thinking about how I might modify Section 4 of my proposed amendment, so that it's more of a middle ground between true legislative supremacy, and the judicial supremacy that we have now. Here's what I'm thinking: Maybe SCOTUS should be able to overturn legislation on constitutional grounds, but only with 12 out of 19 votes.

Generally I think there is not enough deference to the elected branches of government in our system, but true legislative supremacy might be a step too far.

I think that the legislative branch is the weakest of the three federal branches now, due executive orders and administrative law, judicial activism and a more agressive state legislatures, but the root cause is a refusal of the Congress to assert its own innate constitutional powers, its self emasculation via the filibuster. Its basically chosen to be passive, dysfunctional and ineffectual, so the other institutions have filled the vacumn. We simply must have a vibrant law-making and law amending political entity for the country to respond to change, threat, and political reform. If Congress won't provide legislative leadership and assert its own authority , other institutions will fill that gap.
We have a Congress that is cowering in the corner because its not in the short term interests of its members to record the votes that will be exploited in the next election. For example The Congress would rather the executive grab the congressional authority to declare war with 'Military actions' from its docile hands, than actually record the controversial and career ending votes to decide whether to declare war on Libya, or Grenada, or Vietman. The last time war was actually declared was World War 2.

The founders never envisioned one of its branches, would say 'Hell to the NO!' when it came time to assert its constitutional authority by voting to protect that authority and use its power of the purse as a tool. That may have been one of the unintended consequences of the direct election of Senators.

 

[Along Came Jones]

Political posturing by a guy who made himself a lame duck.

I wonder what Harris must be thinking about her boss introducing these controversial actions into her campaign momentum.

Term limits
Enforceable ethics code
A constitutional amendment limiting immunity for presidents and certain other officeholders

 

[stealthycat]

destroying Democracy because a court ruled against what a political party wanted

TRUE destruction of Democracy is what that is

 

[ColdHardTruth]

destroying Democracy because a court ruled against what a political party wanted

TRUE destruction of Democracy is what that is

Nonsensical bullshit.

The left is not responsible for destroying democracy. That would be the right.

 

[eman623]

1. Stack the court to 13, with one justice added in rotation every two years. The end result is 1 from each of the 12 geographically drawn circuit court districts [ does not have to be judge, or even have attended law school. Justice Marjorie Taylor Green anyone? ] + one drawn from the CFR court system of Indian Offenses. (I am tired of the ivy league east coast dominance of Harvard, Yale)

4. Stare Decisis. Any binding opinion of the court ,which effectively overturns its own settled precedent in a constitutionally binding case (as opposed to statutory) must be decided by one majority opinion signed by no fewer than 7 justices. Concurring opinions do not count towards the seven. You come up with 7 signatures or you don't bother submitting an opinion to overturn the court's own stare decisis.

If the court gets expanded to 13, then 7 votes is just a simple majority, not a supermajority.

 

[btthegreat]

If the court gets expanded to 13, then 7 votes is just a simple majority, not a supermajority.

I know that. I never used that phrase. but because I am insisting that no concurrent opinions can be bundled with the Majority opinion, no court absences can dilute that number needed, I am creating a situation where it will be harder to acquire those 7 names. Not only do those justices have to agree on the decision itself, they have to agree with the reasoning expressed by its author and the way that majority opinion is drafted. That's going to complicate matters and ensure that the precident flipping decision is strongly argued and narrow, rather than broadly drafted. That justice is going to have to be very persuasive to get 7 justices to sign on. If any of those 7 justices is skittish or prickly about that majority draft circulating,.... This is not going to be a frequent occurrance because its going to be hard to do. Dobbs would not overturned Roe, because Robbs required a 4 vote majority opinion to bundle with Roberts concurring opinion to get to that 5 votes.