Don't enlarge the Supreme Court. Shrink it.

[DLCWIdem]

If Trump goes ahead and tries to appoint a justice don't enlarge the court; shrink it to 7. Everyone I know knows the concept of seniority. The last ones hired are the first ones let go or fired. Simply roll back that last 2 that were hired and it would be Brett Kavanaugh and ....

When you think about it it seems like poetic justice. For 4 years Trump has been trying to erase Obama's legacy. This would all but erase Trumps legacy.

IMO it would show more balance and stability. By shrinking the court we would showing more strength than increasing the numbers. Having 7 instead of 11 would give the court more prestige. And by doing it this way we would be keeping the court out of the political fray.

We can simply say we are retiring Justice Scalia's and Justice Ginsberg seats in honor of them. By also honoring Scalia we balance the scales. Since the two were friends the optics would work. Also since Kavanaugh's appointment was so controversial many mid level conservatives were against his appointment.

Finally, IMO we would be showing Trump that our institutions have actually strengthened instead of weakened.

[qazplm135]

1. They have lifetime tenure

It's in the freaking constitution

[DLCWIdem]

8. Well ilI stated fired but not really

I know they have a lifetime tenure. But if the appointments (spots) were eliminated wouldn't that be a way to eliminate them? Your actually not firing them if the number of seats are decreasing. Just thinking outside the box.

[qazplm135]

10. Get back in the box

Outside the box is unconstitutional.

[FBaggins]

11. A little too far outside the box

Best to stick with what's possible.

No. If the court were reduced to seven slots, the first two to retire or pass away would not be replaced... but you could not send two of them home.

Worth noting that while Thomas is thought to be the next one to retire if Trump somehow wins... Breyer is most likely to leave next in other circumstances. So the presumed republican majority would go from 6-3 to 6-2... and then probably 5-2. Obviously that's worse.

[Lochloosa]

2. You can't "fire" a SC justice. You can only remove them by impeachment for cause.

Good luck with that.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

3. Lol.

[DLCWIdem]

12. Your right. Bad idea

Never mind. You guys are completely right. BAD Bad idea. At 3 am it seemed like a clever end run around the lifetime tenure, which i did know about. (ie eliminating the position rather than the justice) And a more cautious approach than expanding the court as everyone else suggests.
What i completely forgot was the reason for that lifetime tenure. It is so the justice can remain independent from the other branches of government. ( See I did take civics). Which this court has already shown us in their 6 to 3 decision on Trump earlier this year. Wonder if I can delete this thread?

[Statistical]

5. Three issues

First is that Supreme Court justices have lifetime appointment. The word is never used but trying to change that would be a Constitutional fight which would go before the very people you are trying to remove. Pretty sure you are going to lose that one. Trying to then expand the court will seem like a cheap trick. Every time the court was shrunk before it was simply done by letting justices retire/die and not replacing them rather than removing them.

Second is there is no such concept as seniority in the Supreme Court other than a chief justice who can be the most recent justice if the President so chooses. Even if you could remove justices it isn't clear that removing them in reverse order would be allowed. Arguably the only lawful method would be to shrink the court and remove one or more justices by impeachment which we don't have the votes for (67 in the Senate).

Lastly even outside of Mitch's treachery the court needs to be larger. Justices are living longer and being appointed sooner. In the early history of the court it wasn't unusual for there to be a new justice every year. The court was constantly changing due to death/retirement. That meant each individual appointment was less critical. Trump's handmaid pick could serve for 40 years. If that becomes commonplace a 7 justice court would only mean one replacement on average every 5.7 years. Most Presidents would get maybe 1 in a two year term. It would be even more critical to win those fights by the most underhanded tricks possible and we all know the rethugs are better at stooping to new lows.

[sl8]

6. Regarding seniority, it absolutely exists and it plays a role in Supreme Court operations

Seating assignments, order of asking questions, order of speaking in conference, the assignment of opinion writing, all take seniority in account.

Also, the least senior gets the job of answering the door when in conference.

[DLCWIdem]

13. Question about enlarging

I was thinking it would be an end run around lifetime tenure. I am wrong. But if you expanded the court wouldn't that first lower the prestige of the court. And 2 make the court less stable. Another thing I forgot is that for every action there is a reaction. So with my example what would stop the next congress from shrinking it more and in your case from adding even more to the Supreme Court?

[Statistical]

14. Stability means each opening becomes the single most critical thing.

It is what has led Moscow Mitch to pull the stunts in 2016 and 2020. The idea that the court remains unchanging except for random lurches based on who is in office at the time doesn't really make sense.

More justices would mean a smoother transition of power that happens more often.

As for could the Republicans expand it further? Sure. Likewise they could narrow it too. It would require them to have the trifecta (house, senate, presidency).

[DLCWIdem]

15. Still discussing

Yea but in our democracy the court is the only branch that has maintained its legitamacy. In other words, more people trust the SC than any other branch of government. The polls, at least until 2000 showed that. And when the SC rules on cases they usually make their decisions narrow so they at least appear to be independent and apolitical. I just think we need to be very cautious meddling with the court and to think very carefully.

[Statistical]

16. The court has already been meddled with.

Last edited Tue Sep 22, 2020, 02:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Mitch did that in 2016. Now that combined with apathetic voters in 2016 and the bad timing of Ginsburg's passing has shifted the court radically to the right. It will be 6-3 on most decisions. Even if Roberts is a moderate on some issues that is still 5-4.

I have zero confidence in the court in 2020 I had confidence in the court in 2000. The times have changed. When the situation changes the response has to change as well.

Personally I think the court should have grown regardless as justices started serving longer however if Mitch hadn't forced the issue I could be persuaded to let sleeping dogs lie but the issue has now been forced.

We either address it or accept a hyper partisan right wing court striking down any and all progressive legislation for decades to come.

[bluewater]

21. +1000

You are 100% correct, unfortunately for all of us.

[sarisataka]

7. For starters

... and that is pretty much the end as well

[PTWB]

9. Increase the court to 29 justices.

Add more states to the union and enact the Wyoming rule. Prosecute every member of the Trump administration who engaged in illegal activities. Hang the ones convicted treason.

[Codeine]

18. Wyoming rule? nt

[PTWB]

19. Yes!

The number of Representatives has been artificially limited to 435 since 1929. The Wyoming rule will change that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule


The Wyoming Rule is a proposal to increase the size of the United States House of Representatives so that the standard representative-to-population ratio would be that of the smallest entitled unit, which is currently the State of Wyoming.[1] Under Article One of the United States Constitution, each state is guaranteed at least one representative. If the disparity between the population of the most and least populous states continues to grow, the disproportionality of the U.S. House of Representatives will continue to increase unless the body, which size has been fixed at 435 since 1929, except for a brief period from 1959 to 1963, is expanded.

A total of 569 seats would have been required to implement the Wyoming Rule based on the 2000 United States Census results.[2] However, the decade leading up to the 2010 United States Census saw Wyoming's population increase at a greater rate than that of the rest of the United States; as a result, the required House size to implement the Wyoming Rule was reduced to 547. Under the Wyoming Rule, California would gain the most seats with thirteen more members than it currently has. The wide disparity in population among the states combines with the cap on House membership to lessen the effective representation for people who live in more populated states. The most glaring example is Montana, which according to the 2010 Census had a population of 989,415 with one representative, compared to Rhode Island's 1,052,567 residents with two. This makes a Rhode Islander's vote worth 88% more than a vote from a Montanan.

While a larger House size will generally result in the smallest and largest districts being proportionally closer in size, this is not always the case. Therefore, in some cases, the Wyoming Rule may actually result in an increase in the ratio of the sizes of the largest and smallest districts. After the 1990 United States Census and with a House size of 435, the largest district (Montana's at-large congressional district) had 799,065 residents, 76.1654% larger than the smallest district (Wyoming's at-large congressional district) with 453,588 residents. The Wyoming Rule would have given a House size of 545 in 1990 if the former method of seat apportionment been used. With that size, the largest district (North Dakota's at-large congressional district) would have had 638,800 residents, 91.7835% larger than the smallest districts (Delaware's two districts), at approximately 333,084 residents each.

[Codeine]

20. Ah! I know the concept

but hadn’t heard that term.

[standingtall]

17. In order to shrink the court you would have to wait for them to die

and not fill their seats. republicans are appointing young justices. They would have plenty of time to repeal any legislation that shrinks the court.Reducing the courts was once attempted by Adams. He tried to reduce the court from 6 to 5, but after he lost the election Thomas Jefferson immediately repealed that legislation. Increasing the size of the court is the only plausible path for us.