Here are my ideas for SCOTUS reform.

[eman623]

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.

Ah. So you mean 7 justices PLUS the author of the decision. In other words, 8 out of 13. Okay, that makes sense.

Concurrences have no legal weight, so I don't see why banning them in cases where precedent is overturned makes any difference.

I can't think of a case where this would matter with the exception of Furman. In that case the death penalty was overturned, but no majority could agree on a rationale. So they issued an unsigned one paragraph per curium (by the court) decision. It was horrible - perhaps the most arrogant, activist decision from the most arrogant, activist court in American history. It lasted three years before being overturned and tossed into the dustbin of history.

If it sounds like I'm convincing myself that you are right, well, maybe I am.

From a philosophical standpoint I don't like supermajorities to change things. Just as no legislature can bind a future one, no court should be able to bind a future court. Would you think an amendment requiring Congress to have a supermajority to repeal or change a law is a good thing? I wouldn't. That would become unwieldy and tend to keep bad laws on the books way too long.

I get the feeling all this is because you just don't like how the current court is overturning bad precedents. Just be patient. Sooner or later your side will have the majority back and stare decisis will go back to being a bad thing when it limits your side's ability to pass its agenda.

 

[btthegreat]

Ah. So you mean 7 justices PLUS the author of the decision. In other words, 8 out of 13. Okay, that makes sense.

Concurrences have no legal weight, so I don't see why banning them in cases where precedent is overturned makes any difference.

I can't think of a case where this would matter with the exception of Furman. In that case the death penalty was overturned, but no majority could agree on a rationale. So they issued an unsigned one paragraph per curium (by the court) decision. It was horrible - perhaps the most arrogant, activist decision from the most arrogant, activist court in American history. It lasted three years before being overturned and tossed into the dustbin of history.

If it sounds like I'm convincing myself that you are right, well, maybe I am.

From a philosophical standpoint I don't like supermajorities to change things. Just as no legislature can bind a future one, no court should be able to bind a future court. Would you think an amendment requiring Congress to have a supermajority to repeal or change a law is a good thing? I wouldn't. That would become unwieldy and tend to keep bad laws on the books way too long.Y

I get the feeling all this is because you just don't like how the current court is overturning bad precedents. Just be patient. Sooner or later your side will have the majority back and stare decisis will go back to being a bad thing when it limits your side's ability to pass its agenda.

No I am still meaning the same 7 so its not a supermajority. I am making it harder in another way. You are not banning concurring opinions But they are going to be even less important here because they won't count to gain that 6. You can often find more than one concurring opinion or dissenting opinion in these cases. Tthey won't get anyone to that magic number, because a concurring opinion does not accept the same premise, the same argument, the same legal analysis as the opinion which carries the most support, and the predominant line that seeks to overturn the settled law. As the author of an opinion that overturns stare decisis in a constitutional case, you have to be exceptionally persuasive. You can't just persuade your colleagues that precedent setting caselaw was wrongly decided, you have to persuade them all six its wrongly decided for the same reason and under the same legal theory, and that your constitutional interpretation and writing is the perfect corrective action for whatever error is sitting in stare decisis. That's a lot harder. the Justices are a not an especially flexible or bashful sort. They tend to be very sure that their way to see this issue is the most brilliant.

That's a new wrinkle that makes this specific task a little more complicated.

 

[eohrnberger]

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

This 'tune' of mine, as you call it, hasn't changed since the beginning.

I suspect your 'tune' changes by SCOTUS composition. Enough said.

 

[stealthycat]

Nonsensical bullshit.

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

that is what liberal media says

but the evidence strongly points to the Democrat Party. The attack on the Supreme Court because they didn't rule liberally is but one example however probably the boldest

 

[eohrnberger]

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

What comes around goes around?
The DNC elites torpedoed and pressured Biden to quit, so Biden torpedoed Harris as revenge?

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

 

[eman623]

No I am still meaning the same 7 so its not a supermajority. I am making it harder in another way. You are not banning concurring opinions But they are going to be even less important here because they won't count to gain that 6.

They don't count in the current system. When a justice writes a concurring opinion he or she has also joined the majority opinion. That's why it's called concurring. If the justice writes a separate opinion but hasn't joined the majority opinion it's called dissenting. But either way, the majority opinion gets a majority.

You can often find more than one concurring opinion or dissenting opinion in these cases. Tthey won't get anyone to that magic number, because a concurring opinion does not accept the same premise, the same argument, the same legal analysis as the opinion which carries the most support, and the predominant line that seeks to overturn the settled law.

Often it does, and the judge just wants to make an additional point. In any case, concurrences don't count in the current system for getting to the "magic number" (sometimes called a majority).

As the author of an opinion that overturns stare decisis in a constitutional case, you have to be exceptionally persuasive. You can't just persuade your colleagues that precedent setting caselaw was wrongly decided, you have to persuade them all six its wrongly decided for the same reason and under the same legal theory, and that your constitutional interpretation and writing is the perfect corrective action for whatever error is sitting in stare decisis.

If a judge joins the majority opinion he or she can be presumed to have been persuaded by it, even if he or she also writes a separate concurrence.

That's a lot harder.

Maybe in the case of Furman. Which as I noted was bad, activist law.

the Justices are a not an especially flexible or bashful sort. They tend to be very sure that their way to see this issue is the most brilliant.

That's a new wrinkle that makes this specific task a little more complicated.

It doesn't.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

that is what liberal media says

but the evidence strongly points to the Democrat Party. The attack on the Supreme Court because they didn't rule liberally is but one example however probably the boldest

No, it doesn't. That is a right-wing lie.

The SCOTUS ruled according to their religious beliefs and now women are being persecuted.

The SCOTUS will always be corrupt as long there are six Catholics on it.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

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

If the SCOTUS gets expanded to 13 justices, the right-wing's corruption will be blocked.

 

[Roadvirus]

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.

Such a requirement could be construed as violating the independence of the Judicial branch.

 

[Roadvirus]

Section 1 - Court size: The Supreme Court shall consist of 19 justices.

19 justices? Seriously? How can you possibly justify that?

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.

Violating the Judicial Branch's independence by limiting what issues they can take up and when.

 

[Roadvirus]

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.

Umm....that's how it's suppose to work.

 

[Roadvirus]

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

Yeah. Someone needs to retake Civics 101.

 

[Gatsby]

19 justices? Seriously? How can you possibly justify that?

I think a bigger court would help to lower the stakes. If each justice is only 1/19 of the court instead of 1/9 of the court, each confirmation battle is less important. Also there's less of a reason for people to want to defend justices who later become unfit for office, either due to age or ethical lapses.

Also it's normal for circuit courts to have more than nine judges. Only the First Circuit is smaller than the SCOTUS; the others are all larger.

 

[stealthycat]

No, it doesn't. That is a right-wing lie.

The SCOTUS ruled according to their religious beliefs and now women are being persecuted.

The SCOTUS will always be corrupt as long there are six Catholics on it.

left wing lies

the Supreme Court DID rule and the left didn't get their way .... so they have to dismantle our Supreme Court, a cornerstone of Democracy until they got it in a way that will rule in their favor

that's the truth - sounds very Hitler-ish doesn't it ?

 

[Roadvirus]

Enforcing a code of ethics is probably the only thing that will have any chance of getting through.

 

[eohrnberger]

19 justices? Seriously? How can you possibly justify that?




Violating the Judicial Branch's independence by limiting what issues they can take up and when.

The left doesn't want an independent judicial branch, they want a judicial branch enslaved to always ruling they way they want.
Anything short of that, the left considers as a 'threat to democracy', oddly enough, when an independent judicial branch is one of the institutions which ensures democracy.

The left's baseless claim of 'Saving Democracy' is wholly fabricated gaslighting, the most disappointing part of which is how many from the left believe this gaslighting without question.

 

[nvflash]

the problem is not with the court or the Constitution, the problem is with the two parties that rule over us.

Neither one is honest, but people keep electing them and expecting different results.

"It's not my party, it's the other party!"

There is really only one party, both parties just take turns at power, and the only people being fooled by it are the voters.

But I don't expect anyone to listen, why should they.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

left wing lies

the Supreme Court DID rule and the left didn't get their way .... so they have to dismantle our Supreme Court, a cornerstone of Democracy until they got it in a way that will rule in their favor

that's the truth - sounds very Hitler-ish doesn't it ?

More nonsense.

The SCOTUS ruled according to their religious beliefs. Nothing more.

Your baseless denial doesn't change this fact.

Clerance Thomas is on the take to the tune of $4 million dollars. He is corrupt and needs to be removed.

Alito is a white nationalist zealot asshole who is completely corrupt and a threat to national security. He needs to be removed.

Six catholics on the SCOTUS is a corrupting influence and needs to be stopped.

Just stop.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Such a requirement could be construed as violating the independence of the Judicial branch.

At the moment, the Catholic vote on the SCOTUS is a severe independence issue to the judicial branch.

 

[stealthycat]

More nonsense.

The SCOTUS ruled according to their religious beliefs. Nothing more.

Your baseless denial doesn't change this fact.

Clerance Thomas is on the take to the tune of $4 million dollars. He is corrupt and needs to be removed.

Alito is a white nationalist zealot asshole who is completely corrupt and a threat to national security. He needs to be removed.

Six catholics on the SCOTUS is a corrupting influence and needs to be stopped.

Just stop.

because Democrats told you all the above you believe it

so the answer? change the SC, set it up where Democrats can appoint and control it

 

[ColdHardTruth]

because Democrats told you all the above you believe it

No, because I have seen the evidence.

$4,042,286

---

The data shows that over the past two decades, Supreme Court justices have collectively accepted nearly $5 million in gifts, with one justice, Clarence Thomas, accounting for the vast majority of this figure. Thomas, nominated to the Supreme Court by former President George H.W. Bush, has received $4,042,286 in 193 gifts since 2004.

MSN

so the answer? change the SC, set it up where Democrats can appoint and control it

The answer is to get the corrupting influence off the SCOTUS. In this case, that means getting the Catholics off the SCOTUS.