Fighting the supreme court with originalism.

[ecdab]

An interesting alternative to packing the court was noted over at electoralvote.com (https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct27.html#item-2) in a list of various ways to deal with the hyper political SCOTUS we now have.

Limit the Supreme Court's Jurisdiction: This may be the most likely option on the list. The Constitution very clearly grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction over a small percentage of cases (primarily those involving disputes between states, or those involving disputes with foreign countries). However, it also gives Congress the power to assign appellate jurisdiction in most other cases. That power has gone to the SCOTUS, pretty much by default, but Democrats could establish a new level of the federal court system, say, a Constitutional Court, to decide whether laws are constitutional. Its members could be chosen by the president from current appellate judges and would serve only a fixed term before being sent back to the appellate court. Senate confirmation would be needed, of course, and the Court should have an even number of members to avoid narrow 5-4 rulings. In the case of a tie, the Court would not issue a ruling and the status quo would be maintained. Or Congress could just assign that power to an already existing level of the federal court system (presumably, the D.C. court of appeals). The former approach would probably be preferable, so that decisions would be nationally binding, but it may be a bridge too far for some moderates. In any event, this approach would be entirely constitutional, would substantially defang the Supreme Court, and would come with much less political baggage than "court packing."

Sounds interesting and worth consideration.

[The Magistrate]

1. Stripping The Court's Extra-Constitutional Authority, Sir

Is an excellent approach.

Any course, mind, will meet political opposition, not only from those whose hops for the future are pinned to a biased court, but from 'good government' types allergic to power politics. Hard to see this line meeting less opposition than adding four seats might.

In any case, opposition must be overcome. Something must be done, and it will have to be radical action to remedy the situation presented to the country today.


"What is not forbidden is required."

[nuxvomica]

2. I really think adding 4 justices makes more sense

The case can easily be made to the American people that the nine count is an anachronism harking back to the days when there were only nine circuits and that politicization of the court is actually a symptom of its unrealistically constrained size. To use a business term, it's right-sizing, not packing. I also think that the number of representatives in the House is a similar problem. Messing with the court's breadth of authority seems more radical to me.

[Alacritous Crier]

3. Agreed. - nt

[dansolo]

4. This is the best argument for expanding the courts

Don't let the Republicans frame it as packing the courts. There are 13 circuits, so there should be 13 justices.

[Sherman A1]

5. Yes,

Right sizing the court to bring it up to today’s needs.

[nuxvomica]

6. And Chief Justices perenially complain about the court's workload

I bet they spend a lot of time overseeing the appellate courts that we never hear about.

[ecdab]

8. You'll get the same push back for adding 4 justices as you would for adding twenty; so add twenty

and transform the very nature of the court into a body that has to split into smaller groups to hear cases - like a district court. At that point nobody would know the opinion of the judges they were going to argue before. That alone would go along way towards restoring actual justice to this country.

Currently the GOP shops for judges so they can bring the cases they want before their hand picked judges. That's as backwards as the gerrymandering in this country that allows politicians to pick their voters as opposed to the voters picking their politicians.

There's a bunch of big bold stuff that needs to get done to save this country from the corruption that the GOP has been injecting into our shared blood stream. Fixing the courts, however that gets done, has to be one of the top priorities.

[Buckeyeblue]

9. I agree with you. Any change would have the same amount of pushback.

Given the population is 10 times what it was in 1869, when the number of justices was set at 9, I think significantly increasing the number of justices makes sense. Maybe 29 is a better number.

[calimary]

7. Gotta remember this one for a "fix the Supreme Court" ask.

Bookmarking.