We need a thirteen justice Supreme Court.

[rzemanfl]

This country is so fucked-up.

[mymomwasright]

1. I second that!

[Hermit-The-Prog]

2. I'd be happy with 15 or more, but we need more Democrats in Congress first.

[rzemanfl]

5. I see only two outcomes possible.

1) The Dems win the House, Senate and White House then fix the mess, or
2) The blue states secede.

[TexasDem69]

58. Secessionists are traitors

So let’s tamp down that talk

[rzemanfl]

63. Read the Declaration of Independence. Trump 2.0 would make King George look

benevolent. I doubt the blue states would want to support Donald's monarchy.

[TexasDem69]

65. This blue state/red state is largely bullshit

Is Wisconsin, Georgia, Nevada, Michigan or Pennsylvania blue or red? Cause they’ve voted both. Virginia is blue or red?

[rzemanfl]

67. There are currently a number of reliably blue states, their taxes help support most of the red states.

[TexasDem69]

72. That doesn't answer the question

Even a little bit. Vermont gets more than it gives. So does New Mexico. Which of those two states should secede? Florida is reliably red and gives more than it gets.

And if you don’t think so then provide some proof.

[rzemanfl]

79. Watch what happens if, heaven forfend, Drumpf's diapered ass gets back in the White House. n/t

[FBaggins]

7. And that could be three years away

We're obviously going to lose the WV senate seat - which takes things to 50-50. Then there are another seven blue seats that are more likely to flip than the first state that we're likely to pick up.

[Fiendish Thingy]

16. Seven senate seats flipping from blue to red?

Which ones? WV of course, but also MT, OH, NV, NH, AZ, and…CA?

Other than WV, I think that’s highly unlikely for all of them to flip.

Yes, I know there’s a recent poll showing Lake beating Gallego, but by next fall, things will look very different (and Sinema will be pulling single digits if she’s even on the ballot at all).

[FBaggins]

55. I sure hope not. That would mean losing every competitive race

I'm not saying that we lose seven seats - or anything close. What I'm saying is that the eight most likely-to-flip seats are all currently blue (and one of those isn't competitive).

So retaining our current majority will mean winning every competitive race and at least one that is not currently considered competitive (likely FL or TX). Gaining a net seat would mean sweeping the table other than WV.

[Irish_Dem]

3. Quantity does not make up for lack of quality.

The supreme court problems cannot be solved by throwing more bodies at it.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

8. Sure it can. The Subversive 6 can be neutered by appointing qualified Justices.

[rzemanfl]

11. Thank you. n/t

[Irish_Dem]

18. Then it gets expanded again to appoint more MAGAs.

It is a game that will not work long term.

It does not address the rot in the Supreme Court.

[Fiendish Thingy]

21. The more the merrier

I’m not worried about retaliatory expansion by Republicans.

First, they have to get a trifecta, which seems to be getting harder for them.

In any case, the bigger the court, the less power any individual Justice has, and the lower the odds for a solid, consistent voting block.

[Lucky Luciano]

48. Exactly this

[rzemanfl]

28. The rot started in the Republican party.

I don't think the GOP will survive in the long term.

[Irish_Dem]

30. This would get to the root of the problem, not just temporary bandaids.

[rzemanfl]

32. How do you suggest we do that in the face of lifetime appointments?

Impeach all the Trump appointees?

[Irish_Dem]

36. Let's be honest. The damage caused by Trump and the GOP will take decades to heal.

Just the damage to national security alone is going to take decades to repair.

Some of the damage done will never be repaired.
There are going to be some real scars in our national psyche and in our country.

[rzemanfl]

45. We can at least stop the infliction of new wounds by his appointees. n/t

[Irish_Dem]

49. The important thing is to get the root of the problem.

Anything else is a waste of time.
We are just spinning our wheels.

[rzemanfl]

51. How do you propose we do that? n/t

[Irish_Dem]

57. Fighting the good fight.

But we need to be focused and understand what is happening.

The GOP wishes to have unlimited, permanent total power and access to all US financial assets and resources.

The autocratic global bloc wages war on us by installing their puppets into US high office.
And they wage a tremendously successful psy-ops campaign against us.
They have done a good job dividing the country and damaging our military and national security.

Bandaids will not fix the problem, not by a long shot.

We face the most serious threat to our country since WWII.
While I have ideas about what must be done, it is above my paygrade to start telling Biden
what he must do.

[rzemanfl]

59. So, you feel it is about the whole global mess, not just the Court.

I think fixing the Court is a prerequisite to being able to go after the whole global mess.

[OnlinePoker]

4. What you need is age limits.

Canada uses 75 and it works quite well. If this was the case in the U.S., Thomas would be gone next year and Alito would be gone in 2 1/2 years.

[rzemanfl]

10. I can't imagine getting the Constitution amended. n/t

[TwilightZone]

6. If it had expanded to 13 under Trump...

it would be 10-3.

Adding a bunch of liberal justices would only be a temporary solution, though you'd have to find the support for it first, which is lacking.

[rzemanfl]

12. This court is in bag for the Orange Asshole. I don't think support would be lacking

for fixing a corrupt, political, Christo-fascist high court.

[TwilightZone]

14. If support was there, it would have been passed already.

That's kind of how these things work. Support in Congress is the only support that matters.

At present, there is zero chance of it passing the House and very little chance of it passing the Senate.

First step would be to elect more Democrats.

[Emile]

9. I blame Mitch McConnell

[rzemanfl]

24. He gets a lot of the blame. n/t

[jmowreader]

13. What are you thinking, one per judicial circuit?

I can agree with this on one condition: the justice for that circuit has to come from that circuit.

Yes, this means King Matthew Kaczmaryk could find himself on the Supreme Court.

Try this for size: divide the court into three classes. Each president gets to nominate one class. So, if we would have had this set up before 2008, President Obama gets to nominate a third of the court, Trump gets to nominate a third, President Biden gets to nominate a third and the president after Biden gets to replace Obama's justices. If Trump steals 2024 he doesn't get to replace Obama's justices because he's already nominated his class. If you're talking about having 13 justices, one class will have five instead of four. This gets rid of another huge problem - Trump's justices (the guy who drank his way through high school, the religious extremist and the one who thinks truck drivers should freeze to death) are going to be infesting our highest court for the next forty years.

[rzemanfl]

25. Trying that on for size would require an Amendment to the Constitution.

Not much chance of that happening.

[misanthrope]

27. I don't think that one justice for every federal circuit (plus a chief) is unreasonable.

It might more accurately reflect the state of American jurisprudence.

[rzemanfl]

29. The appointments have to be for life under the Constitution. You have Justices being "replaced."

Last edited Fri Dec 22, 2023, 06:35 PM - Edit history (1)

Edit- I mistook this as a defense of the longer post above. I was wrong.

[misanthrope]

41. I didn't say anything about anyone being "replaced"

I think that was another poster, the one who detailed a more elaborate plan. I wasn't speaking to the intricacies of their plan, just the equal number of justices to circuits.

[rzemanfl]

43. Sorry! I thought I was replying to another poster. Silly me. n/t

[TexasDem69]

75. There's no support for expanding the court either

So here we are with what we have

[rzemanfl]

78. Source? n/t

[WarGamer]

15. So then the next GOP President and Congress can make it 19?

How about just defeating the political opposition based on sound governance, as provided by President Biden... and making good arguments to the public at large?

If we lose... there was a reason we lost and that will make the party stronger in the future.

Play within the established system because that is all we've got.

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. The more the merrier

The bigger the court, the less power each Justice has, and the lower odds of a solid consistent voting block.

Remember, to expand the court, a party would have to have a trifecta- WH, senate and house, which seems to be getting more difficult, especially for Republicans.

[rzemanfl]

23. If the GOP, democracy, and the union all survive Drumpf that is

possible. It looks like a long shot to me.

[dpibel]

38. I wish you'd talk to my slaves!

They keep talking some nonsense about not actually being chattel.

And--you won't even believe this--the little lady keeps whining about the fact that she's got a PhD but she can't vote.

You've given me the perfect response: "Play within the established system because that is all we've got."

Thanks a million!

[rzemanfl]

64. Good response. Gonna rec it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. If Biden can't/won't do it in 2024-26...

I’m sure President Whitmer would happily sign a court expansion into law in 2028.

[Takket]

22. Biden opposes expanding the court.

What it needs are 13 seats, one for every appellate court, term limits, and QUALIFICATIONS. In other words you have to have served on the appellate courts and been rated highly non-partisan groups that rate judicial records. Se we can't stick some hack on SCOTUS that doesn't know what a gavel is just because the Heritage Foundation told a rethug president that that person hates abortion. Because we did that three times under drumpf.

[rzemanfl]

31. The Constitution doesn't allow terrn limits-

3/4 of the states are not going to agree to change that anytime soon.

[Takket]

47. I know that. I didn't say it did.

[rzemanfl]

50. Good luck with getting the Constitution amended, then. n/t

[red dog 1]

26. Kick

[NNadir]

33. I agree.

[rzemanfl]

35. This court is committing suicide IMHO. n/t

[Hekate]

34. Pick another number, though. "13" triggers a lot of people who think it's unlucky or accursed...

Nothing to do with being a Christian — it floats in the culture.

[rzemanfl]

40. Really? Okay, fifteen, or any odd number after that won't require a new building.

Oh, and the court shouldn't sit on the 13th of any month....

[misanthrope]

46. You mean like 13 colonies

Or 13 stripes on the flag?

[rzemanfl]

53. Your reply made me smile. Thanks for that.

[SunSeeker]

54. There are 13 federal circuit courts of appeals. There used to be 9, which is when we decided on 9 justices.

12 are organized geographically and one is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears specific national jurisdiction cases including patent lawsuits and appeals from the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Since there are now 13 circuit courts, there should be 13 justices.

[aggiesal]

37. I agree, here is what I proposed and I sent it to the White House ...

Last edited Fri Dec 22, 2023, 07:08 PM - Edit history (2)

Increase the number of SCOTUS to 13, but randomly draw only 9 justices per case.
Those 9 justices should have a majority based on who is sitting in the WH.
So if there is a Democratic President, then each case during that term, SCOTUS is 5-4 Liberal leaning.
If there is a Republican President, then each case during that term, SCOTUS is 5-4 Conservative leaning.

Also, there should be an Associate Chief Justice so that current CJ Roberts doesn't have to sit for every case.

This would make it hard for nefarious groups to create specific lawsuits to arrive at SCOTUS with a fixed justices to rule in their favor.
This makes it highly risky to do this.

Since there are 13 Circuit Courts, 13 seems to be the obvious number, assigning a Circuit Court per Justice.

Anyway, that's how I perceive the SCOTUS should be implemented.

[rzemanfl]

42. Way to politicize the Court. Lawyers would time their cases to election cycles. n/t

[TexasDem69]

73. The federal courts are supposed to be neutral

Which is why judges have lifetime appointments. And your proposal makes them political.

[aggiesal]

77. I don't think I've made it political ...

Democratic candidates have won the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 presidential elections,
yet (D) Presidents have only seated 6 of the last 21 justices seated.

In my suggestion, to the victor goes the spoils.
If the country wants a (D) President, then the Supreme Court should follow suit.
This way the country is not stuck with 20 years of 6-3 Conservative majority.
There is a suggestion that Sotomayor, who will turn 70 years old in 2024, to retire under Biden and not risk losing her seat to another (R) pResident making SCOTUS a 7-2 conservative majority.
In a random draw, the justices still have to abide by the law.
And all 13 justices would still have lifetime appointments.

If you want to see who politicized the court, take look at Leonard Leo, Harlan Crow & Sen. McTurtle.

[greatauntoftriplets]

39. As they say...

Life sucks and then you die.

[LiberalFighter]

44. There should be in my opinion one for each district.

[TexasDem69]

74. Each congressional district?

That’s a whole lot of SC justices

[LiberalFighter]

80. federal appellate courts

[SunSeeker]

52. Yes we do. The 6 Republican scumbags do not represent our country.

[PBateman70]

56. Hell yes!

With terms of service and term limits!

[rzemanfl]

60. Term limits would require a constitutional amendment that is not going to happen

in this divided, gerrymandered nation.

[PBateman70]

66. Agreed

Neither will expanding to 13 justices either. You're gonna need 60 votes in the Senate

[rzemanfl]

69. There is an election next year, and people, women in particular, are really fed up.

The current court is wildly unpopular.

[PBateman70]

71. Agreed

I hope that the unhappy people get out to vote! 😎

[tinrobot]

61. I'd opt for term limits on justices instead

Perhaps an 18 year term, so enough for a justice to have impact. Each president gets to pick 2 justices per term.

For the current court, Thomas has seniority so he'd be first to go.

[rzemanfl]

62. That would require an amendment to the Constitution. n/t

[Fla Dem]

68. Yes, 13 Justices and an age limit. I would suggest 70.

[rzemanfl]

70. I am so tired of pointing out the Constitution. Sigh.