Biden Calls for Reform of Supreme Court

[babylonsister]

https://politicalwire.com/2020/10/22/biden-calls-for-reform-of-supreme-court/

Biden Calls for Reform of Supreme Court
October 22, 2020 at 8:23 am EDT By Taegan Goddard

Joe Biden told 60 Minutes that the Supreme Court system needs reform, saying “it’s getting out of whack.”

He said he would launch a 180-day national commission “of scholars, constitutional scholars, Democrats, Republicans, liberal, conservative” to study Supreme Court reforms.

Said Biden: “It is a live ball. We’re going to have to do that… The last thing we need to do is turn the Supreme Court into just a political football, whoever has the most votes gets whatever they want.”

[honest.abe]

1. That's interesting.

[TomCADem]

52. Require Supreme Court Nominees to Have At Least 10 Years of Judicial Experience...

...or 15 combined years of experience as a Judge or practicing attorney. Amy Barrett has less than three years of experience as a judge and less than three years of experience as an attorney. The rest of the time she was a law professor, and it does not seem like she maintained any type of legal practice while teaching.

Yet, she is expected to review decisions made by trial court and appellate judges with much experience than she does.

[Zeitghost]

71. Isn't that also true...

Isn't that also true of Kagan?

[TomCADem]

74. I Would Be Fine With That.

Kagan had a few more years of experience as a practicing attorney, but I would not mind having a minimum experience rule going forward, which does not include years in academia. I am not a big fan of putting progressives on the bench with little judicial or practical legal experience. We could shorten it to 10 combined years, but I think the Trump years really showed what happens when you have a President is just looking for loyalty over qualifications.

[octoberlib]

2. He's calling for a committee to study it, anyway.

He doesn’t want to give R’s too much ammunition in red and purple states because we’ve got to win the Senate first.

[Escurumbele]

18. republicans do not need too much ammunition, they will make up what Joe didn't offer

By now we know republicans make up stuff, case in point Ratcliff who came up with his story of Iran yesterday.

You give republicans a hair of your elbow and they will take the entire arm.

[oasis]

3. Build Back Better. Including SCOTUS.

[Hugin]

4. +1

My full response is in another thread.

[bigtree]

5. k&r

Link to tweet

[uponit7771]

6. K&R, That's a rational adult answer. Been so long since we've had one of those its unbelievable.

[reACTIONary]

31. +10 nt

[Sherman A1]

7. Good!

[DrToast]

8. Good plan

[Fiendish Thingy]

9. If Biden doesn't expand SCOTUS, his agenda is ultimately doomed

Why bother with an ambitious legislative agenda, when down the road it can simply be overturned?

Add a public option to the ACA...what ACA? It doesn’t exist anymore.

Strengthen the Voting Rights ACT...nope.

Decriminalize marijuana? Well, that’s OK, because we need the prison cells for all the women who seek and doctors who perform abortions.

[Salviati]

10. Expand to 11...

... get an ammendment that fixes the size at 11 and entitles every president to exactly two supreme court appointments. (effective 22 year terms). Openings through either death, retirement, or expiration of the appointment of the seniormost justice.

That's my proposal at least...

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. Any talk of amendments is futile, needs 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of state legislatures

11 seats is not enough to balance the 6-3 radical majority (it would just create a 6-5 radical majority)- must be at least 15, preferably 21, to dilute the power of any single justice and weaken the potential for predictable voting blocs.

[JCMach1]

14. It doesn't take an amendment to fix SCOTUS... Just federal law

The Constitution is blessedly vague on court details

[Polybius]

23. To expand no, but Salviati was talking about far more than that in post 10

Such as 22 year terms and Presidents only getting two picks.

[JCMach1]

35. Yeah, thats jumping the shark 🦈 a bit. Simple reduction to 9

Or expansion to X is the way to go.

I kind like reduction as all the Trump appointments would be off the Court then.

[Revanchist]

64. No they wouldn't

The Constitution states it's a lifetime appointment. So if you reduce the number of justices on the court then you would be unable to fill any vacancies if people retire and that's it. You couldn't just kick them off

[JCMach1]

70. Also not an issue... Expand to 13.

Or 15


And don't forget about the packed Federal Circuits

[wnylib]

78. Do some thorough investigations

and start some court impeachments.

[Nasruddin]

36. Not vague enough

Term limits are the most important thing - we need to change this language in Article III:

"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

Suggestion: The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during a term to be set by Congress.

and leave it at that. This would be a relatively simple amendment to work over.

This allows for flexibility in the future, & allows the other branches a modest level of control without politicizing it. It doesn't prevent congress from doing something stupid, but that's up to us to manage.

We need bigger changes than this but this is the hard one - the one in the constitution that has to be changed.
The other things are in mostly in the Judiciary Act of 1789 I believe (& the subsequent mods).

Packing the supreme court with more justices just invites retaliation later. Tactically it might be beneficial but strategically it's a disaster waiting to happen. I personally don't believe unelected legislatures with no accountability at all are a good thing & think it would be better to clip its wings, but that's a matter for debate. I also don't think the supreme court has been a benefit to the US - maybe we should just terminate it. A harder sell to be sure.

[meow2u3]

33. I say expand SCOTUS to 13

One for each circuit court of appeals.

[RussellCattle]

42. Exactly right. One for each district has a symmetry and logic that makes the proposed change....

....more appealing. Add a conversation about how the Court's workload has increased over the years and the right wing's arguments about "packing" the court lose validity. Add a conversation about term limits for justices and the argument about liberal or conservative seats also gives way to creating a less political court.

[LiberalFighter]

43. Especially since for the most part each district court

has a justice assigned to it. There a few justices with multiple district courts.

The district courts need to be realigned too.

Federal judges need to have their pension revised. It is way too damn generous. They receive their salary when they retire as their pension. That is not right. It should be based on how it is set up for Congress or for the President. I favor having it based on how Congress is set up which is calculated on a percent of their 3 highest years of salary and years of service. And it can't be more than 80%.

[KPN]

20. Yup. He needs leverage. Reforms that make sense and are instituted immediately are the only other

acceptable solution -- and that for me means leveling the playing field immediately prior to any major court rulings that directly impact people's lives in a negative way. Our economic and governance system already affects too many people negatively as it is. So what that means is and expanded SCOTUS or ... a SCOTUS that is effectively in recess until the "Commission" completes it's study and proposals and Congress acts to implement those proposals immediately. Anything less and we are screwed.

[LenaBaby61]

41. "If Biden doesn't expand SCOTUS, his agenda is ultimately doomed."

EXACTLY, because if he doesn't do something, he'll have NO agenda even if it's ambitions, because everything will be trotted up to the High Court by the party of putin and overturned/batted down even if he/Dems have the trifecta in place.

[Blue_true]

72. I believe that he is setting up Federal Court, including the SC, up for expansion.

But it has to be done in a way that strengthens the Courts and done in a way that the vast majority of Americans accept their rulings.

[ecstatic]

73. Good point. I want voting rights secured, but I don't want it to be

overturned by a corrupt, rw court.

[dalton99a]

11. Republicans must not be allowed to perpetuate minority rule by judicial fiat.

Kill the filibuster, and expand to 15.

[Duppers]

15. THIS ⬆⬆

TY!

👍

[calimary]

19. Yep!

[ancianita]

66. Yep!

[Rice4VP]

12. Didn't Republicans gush over Tim Scott's

plan to “study” police brutality? They should be totally fine with this answer

[Thekaspervote]

16. It's been suggested that instead of increasing the # a 7-2 majority would be needed to over

Turn laws that were passed by both houses of congress and signed into law by the president.

Whatever they decide to do, it’s got to change. We cannot live under an oppressive 6-3 conservative court.

Smarmy ass pukes...think they’re so smart....all that backwards conservative BS ain’t happening

[tormadjax]

17. Well, its better than nothing n/t

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

21. What'll he do? Nail 95 theses to the Supreme Court door?

The Catholic church seems fully in control of the Supreme Court. An inquisition may not be unexpected.

I don't think it's the "normal" Catholic church, but the right wing "Opus Dei" radicals.

It could use a reformation.

[bucolic_frolic]

28. There were times early in the Republican that feared "papists"

It's come to pass.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

29. Yes, it was a loud argument during JFK's campaign. nt

[Grins]

22. "of scholars, constitutional scholars, Democrats, Republicans, liberal, conservative..."

I don't think Biden should have announced his position on something that is not an issue 12-days before an election. Why give the Reich fodder that could excite "the base"?

And why Republicans? Why conservatives? What can they add other than obstruction? If the roles were reversed would they do this?

But, OK. Then I'll choose the Republicans:
David Jolly
Justin Amash
Tom Ridge
Charlie Dent
John Kasich
George Conway
Jeff Flake

[PatrickforO]

34. Ordinarily I'd agree, but at the last Town Hall he did, George

Stephanopoulos 'courageously' asked him about court packing, and then followed up on this 'gotcha' good-for-clicks line of questioning.

Biden ended up promising he'd say something by the election, even though George knows goddamn well that no president can unilaterally 'pack' the court.

So now he has. Reform. Scholars. Bipartisan. This is a good approach, particularly if we carry the Senate as well.

[stevesinpa]

76. he wants to include republicans,

so that we can get to a more bipartisan government again. we need to get passed one party or the other controlling or standing in the way of progress. with a liberal government, the trump whackos will constantly attempt to use fear and hate, but if we include honest conservatives, that will be mooted.
by including honest republicans, it will give regular conservative citizens a place to turn instead of today's republican party. the trick will be finding honest, patriotic conservatives. way way way too few republicans have even criticized trump in small ways let alone standing up to him.
what our nation really needs is an honest conservative party. we need conservatives to get rid of the scum like mcconnell. to either get rid of fox news and other propaganda networks, or force them to be honest news groups.
we will always have conservative Americans, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. decent conservatives will balance decent liberals, and vice versa.
including honest conservatives, we can then open dialogues that will lead us forward in a bipartisan, inclusive government and society.

[KPN]

24. Biden expresses a reasonable solution. Reasonable solutions work when we are working with other

reasonable people. We are not. The Rs do not and have not for years worked WITH us, nor are they reasonable. They have viewed us as their enemy for at least a couple of decades now (which is why we are starting to view them as our enemy as opposed to simply our opponent).

[area51]

26. +1 n/t

[ArizonaLib]

25. Clarence Thomas is 72

It could be a long time before there is balance on the court. Something has got to be done. Justices are less likely to retire when their retirement could change balance. Sandra Day O'Conner delayed retiring from the court to see how the Bush/Gore election would play out and when the election decision went to the court, she was among the 5-4 decision in favor of a Bush Presidency. This ushered in an era of conservative appointments, like Alito and Roberts who voted to gut the voting rights act, causing an additional barrier to Hillary Clinton's election. Now with along with Thomas (72) Kavanaugh (55), Gorsuch (53), Roberts (65), Alito (70) and now Barrett (48) they can wipe their back sides with the constitution, congressional 'intent', the idea that class action lawsuits are not based on similar circumstances, and constitutional framer's intents (except for those pertaining to future amendments). Although Sotomayor and Kegan are the most intelligent ones on the court, the other remaining ones are seriously flawed ideologues whose approaches and appointments are engineered more toward authoritarianism with ultimate goals of maintaining male white supremacy for a as long and for as much as possible.

[bucolic_frolic]

27. 3 branches, divided power

Joe Biden is a barometer for what's wrong, and he's wise to turn to experts. Rotating extremes and reversals is not suitable for a stable, livable society, nor are one-party courts. Political and financial interests are running politics and now courts. Rich, poor, owners, workers, non-believers and scientists. It's a jumble.

[Blue_playwright]

30. I haven't had time to read further but the appellate...

Appellate courts were increased from 9 to 13 in recent years? I didn’t catch which President it was under.

Anyway, the expert said each SCOTUS justice follows or works with or gathers cases from the top appellate courts and with the increase, the workload is now skewed and some restructuring is needed whether or not the number of SC justices are increased.

Thought that was fascinating. I was hesitant to get behind an increase but it seems it might speed up and streamline the process.

[Lonestarblue]

37. I think it's been decades since the appellate courts were increased.

I hope Biden’s national commission looks at all the federal courts. Most of them are understaffed and have far too many cases to have decisions within reasonable amounts of time. I recently read about an appeal that took over five years to work its way through the courts. Plus the fact that it took more than a year for a Congressional subpoena case to be resolved is crazy. That should be almost immediate!

We need to rebalance at least 12 of the 13 districts (with DC being District 13) to reflect population shifts and overall growth in the population. Expanding the federal courts would not only help with the workload and case resolution time, it also would allow for the balancing of the courts after McConnell’s packing with young, inexperienced, right-wing zealots.

Ultimately, I think Congress will need to expand the SC to 13 justices just to moderate its favoritism of Republican policy of ignoring precedent when its inconvenient and embracing it when it gives an advantage. There was an excellent piece in the NYT yesterday about the flaws of originalism.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/21/opinion/supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett.html

[Blue_playwright]

61. Thanks for the info and link!

[PatrickforO]

32. YES!

YES! This is the perfect approach. Good for Biden.

[occupant]

38. I could get away with shooting someone on 5th Ave...

Hopefully Biden will reform alot of these so called liberties of the SCOTUS and even the Presidency. Way too lenient. Some of these legalities have to go!

[KS Toronado]

39. I believe we need a vetting process for Judges

No far right or far left Judges, just middle of the road or moderate Judges. That would be the fairest solution
for everybody. We're not far from going before a Judge and the first thing he asks is "Are you a D or R?"
and your answer will determine your guilt or innocence.

[FakeNoose]

40. The American law schools are all conservativist factories

How do we change that? The Law Schools in this country have been turning out baby-Scalias and Thomases for the last 30 years. There are no schools creating baby-RBGs or Sotomayors.

This needs to be addressed for the good of democracy and to preserve us from future Chumps destroying the system of checks and balances.

[Blasphemer]

53. As someone who watched the process in law school...

I'd say this is not really true. There are tons of future liberal justices in law schools. The federalist society is just a really well-oiled machine that starts the process of ideological indoctrination and unspoken loyalty oathing very early. It's easier for conservatives to turn out lock-step thinkers that are groomed at age 22. A big part of it is that most law school students (and lawyers generally) are liberals or democrats and the conservative students bond (and bond with conservative faculty) because of being in the ideologically unpopular wing. Ironically, it is their minority status that has both allowed the conservative machinery to flourish and created the will to overcome the perceived disadvantages of being outnumbered.

[DetlefK]

44. Term-limits.

It doesn't matter whether it's 15 or 20 or 25 years. Term-limits even out political flukes and controversies.

[Indykatie]

45. This is the Right Approach - Expanding the Court Shouldn't Be Seen as a Naked Political Move

[tclambert]

63. John Oliver suggested 18 year terms.

The idea that turnover would average one justice every two years. So a one term president would get two appointments. A two term president would get 4.

The founders probably expected Supreme Court justices would be men (no women, of course) with loads of experience, and thus of advanced years, in a time when average life expectancy was significantly lower. The possibility of a Justice serving 30 or 40 years likely never occurred to them.

[LiberalFighter]

47. Here are my suggestions

1) Realigned the appeals courts so that the territory they cover is manageable and related.

2) Have one and only one justice assigned to each appeals court and each justice can only be assigned to one appeals court. Currently there are 13. Most justices cover just one appeals court and I believe 3 cover 2 or more.

3) Revise the pension plan for federal judges. Currently they receive their full salary as their pension. It should be preferably the system used by Congress. Those beginning service after 1984 have the following calculation used: High 3 years salary average x .017 x years of service up to 20 years. After 20 years the rate is .01. They are not vested until they have 5 years of service. They cannot receive more than 80% of their salary before they retire.

4) Create a review board to handle judicial complaints that also put forth the evidence of any federal judge or justice for bad behavior or rulings for impeachment proceedings in the Senate.

[Buckeyeblue]

49. I think this is good. Come together in a bipartisan, scholaristic view of the SC.

It's a good, reasonable plan. Maybe the president who is term limited and elected should not be the person who nominates a SC justice.

I'm not sure who would nominate..maybe the SC should work together to nominate a new member. And the Senate approves.

[rwsanders]

50. Doesn't need reform, just impeach the jerks that lied to get there.

[WyattKansas]

51. Ditto...

I don't care if they accidentally lied in their hearing or not, throw them out. And by all means investigative journalists should be crawling up their asses with microscopes for anything in their past that would shame them, expose criminal/unlawful behavior, or make them want to run for the hills to get out of the government forever.

[dware]

55. See post #54. nt

[dware]

54. What good does impeaching them do when we don't have the votes

in the Senate to convict and remove?
And we won't be anywhere near the 67 votes needed, even if we win all the Senate races this year.

[rwsanders]

57. If clear and convincing evidence is presented, it becomes a easy decision for even a Republican,

do you support the law or lies?
Great for an opponent in the next election cycle. It will work eventually.
Far easier than getting 67 votes to amend the constitution and waiting on 3/4's of the states to ratify. Worked real well for the ERA right?

[dware]

59. There was clear and convincing evidence that Kavanaugh lied during his

hearings, yet the Repubs confirmed him anyways, so I highly doubt that the repubs will convict and remove him, at least not enough to get to the 67 vote margin.

[rwsanders]

62. Then we have to knock out those that vote against one by one. That strategy finally took out a

radically anti-environmental rep in CA's central valley. Was it Richard Pombo?

[dware]

68. That would be the logical solution,

that, and expanding the SC to restore the balance.

The bottom line is that it will take a long time to get to the 67 vote threshold, if we ever get there, in the meantime, I like Joe Biden's approach.

[WyattKansas]

65. If this election really spanks the Republican Party hard and tosses out the old corrupt Senators...

Then it could snap Republican Senators out of their Party over country mentality Moscow Mitch & Leningrad Lindsey have been forcing, especially if those two are fired by their States.

Throw in the tRUMP and Republican Party shaming of exposing all their crimes and corruption the last four years that were reinforced by the Republican Party, and Republicans will be horrified at the thought of their numbers shrinking more unless they seriously do the right things going forward.

It will be critical after the election to keep the pressure on all the Republican frauds and ill gotten gains to correct it, instead of just letting bygones be bygones again. No more letting shit slide just to make peace with the spoiled brats, only to turn around and have them knife the Democratic Party in the back and slit their throats again that continues to escalate for decades. Make them EARN their respectability and honor.

[dware]

67. I think it's safe to say that there will be no impeachment in the House,

nor any trial, conviction and removal.

We stand a far better chance of expanding the SC than trying to remove those SCJ's.

I'm not being defeatist, I'm being realistic.

[tritsofme]

56. That is a fantasy, we're never going to have 67 votes to remove a justice.

Joe Biden has an actual, reasonable approach.

[rwsanders]

60. Easier to get 67 votes for that if clear and convincing evidence is presented.

Then Republicans have to decide before the voters if they support lies or law. The author of the book that was a hit piece on Anita Hill has disavowed his work. He'd be a great witness.
Do you think it is easier to get 67 votes and 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment? Do you think the right in this country will respect the opinion of a commission of scholars?
If he enlarges the SCOTUS then the republicans will just add more, or maybe cut it back to 5 and just dump the liberals from the court.

[Pompoy]

58. Don't let this issue bog down Biden's Presidency.

A Joe Biden Presidency can do a whole lot more legislatively than fix the Supreme Court. Give it a few years first to show what normal is.
Let the SCOTUS show how out of touch and corrupt it is to a greater extent than now first, before tackling that issue.

[Alpeduez21]

75. We don't have 180 days to let this court destroy american institutions

[RainCaster]

77. Judges must stop accepting gifts

They can be bought, or at least the appearance of being bought. Look up where Scalia died for an example of prime NRA payola.