Wyden bill would add 6 scotus justices

[DoBW]

"In addition to creating six new vacancies on the High Court, Wyden's bill would also impose several new accountability measures for both the judges and to check the power of the Court itself." (from AlterNet via Wapo)

https://www.alternet.org/senate-bill-supreme-court/

[PedroXimenez]

1. Harlan Crow won't like this

greatly reduces the value of his investment

[Dennis Donovan]

2. Hate to be a downer, but...

...that would be impossible with the Congress we have or will have for the foreseeable future.

[Grown2Hate]

3. Not if we win the Presidency (love our chances), the House (looking pretty good), the Senate (admittedly

the hardest of the three this year and a bit of an uphill climb), and eliminate the Filibuster. All at least POSSIBLE this cycle.

[maspaha]

40. Change those filibuster rules and GET IT DONE!

Oh and elect Kamala and give her a Democratic House and Senate

[Paper Roses]

74. Not only the filibuster but the Electoral college!

[yourout]

76. That would require a constitutional amendment.

Would be welcome but highly unlikely in my lifetime.

[tavernier]

21. I don't see why not

Trump would do it if he wanted to and no one would stop him.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

4. SCOTUS reform is needed

[Captain Zero]

6. Maybe we could cap the number of

Opus Dei judges?

[liberalla]

12. Yes... and Federalist Society judges too.

[mwooldri]

54. Exactly!

I haven't read his proposed bill but all future SCOTUS judges should be chosen by an independent body. Senate would still have to approve though.

[Magoo48]

31. True indeed. As it's structured right now, the court is vestigial and diseased.

[republianmushroom]

5. Damn, I'm all for this, something very new.

...accountability measures for both the judges and to check the power of the Court itself." That will be new. Accountability and ethics. WOW !
Supreme Court will declare this to be un-constitutional.

[moonscape]

20. And if they can, install the menace

to prevent it.

[NNadir]

7. I like this bill, it's well crafted. We also need a bill to require, within...

...a time limit, action on a nominee. We cannot allow the likes of Mitch McConnell to spit on precedent to make a partisan hack court.

[Wounded Bear]

10. Abso-fucking-lutely! nt

[Mad_Machine76]

22. THIS!

[ShazzieB]

64. OMG, YES!

[onenote]

83. The bill contains that provision. It requires a nomination to go to the floor if it hasn't been reported within 180 days

Specifically: "If a committee of the Senate fails to report the nomination of an individual nominated to serve as a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States during the 180-day period beginning on the date on which the nomination was referred to the committee, such nomination shall be automatically discharged from the committee and placed on the calendar."

Garland's nomination was received by the Senate and referred to the Judiciary Committee on March 16, 2016. Under the bill's proposed language it would have moved to floor consideration in September 2016. Of course, it would not have guaranteed Garland's confirmation -- the repubs could have voted it down at which point there would not have been time force consideration of a new nominee.

[NNadir]

87. Great! It needed that. Thanks.

[bucolic_frolic]

8. Some of them been there long enough!

Impose term limits and appy it to sitting Justices!

[Dave says]

55. Unfortunately that would require ...

… a Constitutional amendment. Congress, tough, at least as it’s generally understood, controls the number of justices that sit on the court.

[bucolic_frolic]

57. original intent

woud restrict the duration of lifetime appointments to the prevailing old age in 1793, about 75

amendment my ass!

[onenote]

84. Given that the first Supreme Court justice appointed lived to be 84

one would have trouble establishing anything approaching "intent".

The actual life expectancy of a male born in the 1790s was much shorter than 75.

[Fiendish Thingy]

9. Of course, with the filibuster intact, it's DOA

Time to hear from every Dem senator/senator-to-be on where they stand on court expansion and killing the filibuster.

Looking at you, John Tester, Adam Schiff, Angus King, Colin Allred, Bob Casey…

You can wait until after election day to answer.

[Polybius]

16. Yeah, Tester is already down by 5-6

Especially don't need him to say that he supports this.

[Wiz Imp]

23. FYI, 538 shows the difference currently at 3.7%

[Polybius]

26. The last three polls have been 5-6 though

I'm not counting polls taken in April, only middle of August on.

[Wiz Imp]

34. One of those was for the Montana Republican Party

I think 538 takes that into account in weighting to come up with the averages which may be why the average is lower. Looks like most of the polling in Montana has been from Republican pollsters. Doesn't mean it's automatically biased but there haven't been any polls from any high rated pollsters either and only one in the past month overall so hard to know what the real state of the race is.

[Polybius]

62. Fair enough

Another one came out two days ago, but that's RMG Research which is certainly Right-leaning. Take it with a grain of salt but it shows that 50 percent back Sheehy, compared to 43 percent who would back Tester.

https://www.newsweek.com/montana-poll-tim-sheehy-jon-tester-senate-1958532

[samsingh]

11. this is one of the most important items needed to save this country

and eliminate the vehicles republicans use to steal, be traitors and attack democracy itself.

[ColinC]

13. What happens if scotus tries to throw out this law?

….were it to pass?Does it get rewritten? Are they ignored?

[Polybius]

17. They can't, because Congress sets the number of SC Justices

But it's not passing.

[ColinC]

18. I just wonder what to do if they tried. I just don't put it past them

While I can confidently say it will not pass in this congress, I do not know the make up of the next congress -and have no clue if it will pass in the next congress.

[Polybius]

27. It's a slippery slope

If we lose 2028, then what? Republicans add 10 more?

[ColinC]

32. They can do it anyways -and given they kinda started this slippery slope

By refusing to confirm a Supreme Court nominee and stacking the court with Trump through an inconsistent set of declared standards, I think there is no doubt they will probably do it anyway if they think it necessary.

[ancianita]

29. Glad you asked. Congress controls all things having to do with the judiciary's structure.

Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. Congress first exercised this power in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This Act created a Supreme Court with six justices.

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about#:~:text=Although%20the%20Constitution%20establishes%20the,Supreme%20Court%20with%20six%20justices.

[ColinC]

33. I understand this. But the court has already seemed to ignore the constitution with insane rulings. What if they go just

One step further and declare this kind of law unconstitutional?

[ancianita]

35. They can't. Congress is not subject to SCOTUS' opinions re Congress's constitutional right to expand SCOTUS.

Of course SCOTUS made up its immunity ruling based on a whole cloth override of the Constitution. All the MORE reason for Congress to restructure SCOTUS and after that, to pass a law that reverses the immunity ruling after the expanded court gets the inevitable suit against the former SCOTUS 6-member majority unconstitutional immunity ruling.

Win both Houses first. EXPAND the SCOTUS second, rescind previous SCOTUS rulings, third. That's the order of change that will reverse the MAGA 6 rulings.

And at that point, impeachment and removal of Thomas & Alito can happen. Then two new justices can take their place.

Harris has a real chance to be the new FDR and re-make the court. And Wyden is opening up the discussion in Congress that sets the stage for those future actions.

[ColinC]

36. So my question is: does congress ignore the ruling if they try (because they probably would)?

Since there is clearly no authority in the constitution for them to do this?

[ancianita]

45. And my question to you is: why do you think SCOTUS can rule on anything Congress does to restructure it?

[MichMan]

48. Because some things would still be unconstitutional

Pretty certain Congress can't pass a law that states only Democratic presidents are permitted to make SC appointments for example. Or that all votes by Republican appointed justices are invalid and those cases shall be overturned without further review, or that anyone graduating from Yale Law school must resign immediately.

[ancianita]

49. Is it unconstitutional for Congress to restructure the judiciary, and expand the Supreme Court?

[ColinC]

50. Because they can..?

Technically scotus can rule on anything they want. That doesn’t mean that it is a legal ruling. Or does it?

They also are clearly given judicial review -meaning they can essentially rule any law passed by congress as unconstitutional. And the only way to overrule such a ruling is with a 2/3rds majority which the democrats don’t have.

You can’t just say because it is unconstitutional that the Supreme Court doesn’t have the authority to make a ruling, because the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of what is and isn’t constitutional.

[ancianita]

52. No. They can't.

SCOTUS can only rule on existing law. It can't rule about its own expansion.

You don't correctly define "Judicial review" here. Yes, of course SCOTUS can only rule on the constitutionality of other courts' rulings, if constitutionality is relevant to those rulings. For example, they decided that immunity for a president was constitutionally relevant, and so they accepted Trump's appeal and ruled.

That's not what I'm talking about, though. Congress's judicial review and change in the judiciary is what I'm talking about, and not about how SCOTUS operates.

Congress can begin a judicial review and expand SCOTUS. Period. Congress can also make any other changes in the judiciary it deems fit. Because it's the People's branch of government, the First Branch. And SCOTUS absolutely cannot rule against what Congress decides about changes to the judiciary. It can only rule on laws passed by Congress.

So I think we generally agree, except for your understanding of "judicial review." Judicial review is what Congress does. Jurisprudence -- ruling on existing laws -- is what SCOTUS does.

[ColinC]

56. Judicial review is a scotus power. Not a legislative one

Established by Marbury VsMadison in 1803


https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about

The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law).

And yes the judiciary can issue any ruling they want. What do you think would stop them? Literally the only thing would be a 2/3rds vote from congress. Which would never happen.

[ancianita]

59. Fine. You call judicial review ONLY as related to laws passed by Congress. Got it.

I call judicial review what Congress does to begin the process of judicial reform -- as in expanding SCOTUS, assigning more federal judges, etc. Get it?

A writ of mandemus cannot apply to what Congress can do to change the judiciary structure itself. There cannot be 'judicial review' of Congress's judicial reform, because Congress doesn't make laws about the judiciary; it votes and funds its changes to the judiciary.

[ColinC]

60. I mean.. that would be an extraordinary change of the term and practice

Judicial review is the practice of the courts interpreting the constitution. They have original jurisdiction (per the citation above). This means that they have the final say as to what the constitution’s intent is -even if it is against anything explicitly written in the constitution. It is a practice more than 200 years old and I don’t think that wanting it to change is in itself enough to make it happen.

Edit to clarify: the scotus does absolutely have final say as to the constitutions intent regarding legislative authority to shape the court. This is only if the 200 year practice stays in tact. Technically the legislature can overrule them with a 2/3rds majority which would reinforce what you are saying legally. Outside of that though, technically the court has the final say.

[ancianita]

65. Extraordinary is the point. We're in the inflection point Biden has continually pointed out that we're in.

Change in our judicial system is exactly what's necessary, among other changes the new Congress has to tackle.

As for Congress's 2/3, you're likely right. As for the court, no, it has no final say over that 2/3.

[ColinC]

66. Right. It's pretty clear that congress can override a decision with 2/3rds

But 2/3rds won’t happen. My question is if an insane ruling like that can be simply ignored with judicial review essentially thrown out the window -like it was in the GTMO ruling by the Bush administration.

[Dave says]

61. Well, the SCOTUS can rule on a law to expand

the court, but it would be the expanded court that rules. However, on day one the new seats will not yet have been filled, so the same 6 bags of meaningless slime get to block the law. On what grounds? O, Alito will refer to an ancient understanding of law that the Neanderthals held, and Thomas will follow the trail to yet another luxury land yacht. What matters is power, and that’s a much trickier matter than words written on paper.

At least, this is how I understand it from the bleacher seats.

[ColinC]

63. Exactly. One way around it would be to ignore them completely as they would be clearly in violation of the constitution

[Dave says]

70. Agreed. Neanderthal "law" is no foundation

For us, it’s the Constitution. Written in 1789. If a SCOTUS rules in ways at obvious variance to the Constitution, we - who bestow power on the court - should ignore their craziness. They can encourage amendments if they like. But there is a problem.

We the people have to agree to ignore obviously bad decisions by the court. They have no enforcement power. But we are a highly fractured nation. Many in the DOJ and in law enforcement can chose to protect and enforce their Neanderthal decisions as if they were the word of the Spaghetti Gods. I can see how such declining authority could lead to civil war.

Our nation is a mess.

[ancianita]

68. It WON'T BE A LAW. It will be a vote on an ACT OF CONGRESS. Entirely different.

[ColinC]

72. Are we still talking about adding seats? Cause that would definitely be a law. Right?

For instance the judiciary act of 1869 is the law that most recently changed the number of seats in the Supreme Court.

[ancianita]

75. No. It would be act of Congress.

[ColinC]

77. A law is an act after it is signed by the president. An act is the proposal for a law.

The judiciary act of 1869 is a law. It was an act when it was proposed by congress before it was signed.

[ancianita]

86. Okay, fine. Nevertheless, it's wholly within the power of Congress to structurally expand SCOTUS.

Wyden has written a bill. I get that. And there's no power that SCOTUS has to stop Congress from expanding it whether through a bill or a proposed action.

I'm for it, whatever form the change takes,, and the only roadblock will be getting sufficient votes. If Jeffries is the House speaker, he can be expected to call on Johnson to deliver votes the way he's helped Johnson.

[ColinC]

90. I mean the constitutionality shouldn't be debated in principle

But in practice it is unfortunately something else entirely. SCOTUS, in practice, has abused judicial review in areas where they clearly should not have, and I have no faith they wouldn’t attempt to do it in more egregious ways.

As I’ve said: I wonder if congress can simply blow off a scotus ruling like Bush did with their GTMO ruling. In this case they would have standing to do so.

Of course because congress can override any scotus ruling with a 2/3rds vote, perhaps they would just try and fail (cause I doubt they would get enough votes to do so).

[ancianita]

93. Yes, Congress could blow off any SCOTUS opposition and will prevail.

We'll see if we win a trifecta. That's what we have to focus on.
We can prioritize and sort the battles out after we win.

[ColinC]

94. We can do it!! I really really want it to happen and I think Dems should be super aggressive

In pushing it through. I feel like this tyranny of a minority has got to end!

[ancianita]

96. We will

roadblock this road to unfreedom!

Thousands of endorsements from all walks of government speak for The People!:

[ColinC]

97. I love that picture

Hoping for a full sweep in November and an early night

[Rhiagel]

14. Either that or subtract 6.

You know the ones who would be addition by subtraction.

[Kid Berwyn]

58. Presidentially Immune can send in Seal Team 6.

Arrest the corrupt traitors and their crooked spouses. Stream on TikTok their water boarding sessions and individual confessions. Replace with six justices loyal to the Constitution of the United States.

[Polybius]

15. I thought we were pushing for four more

Six?

[ColinC]

19. I think Democrats should push for something outrageously high

They might get 3 or 4 as a result.

[MichMan]

39. This

At least 51. One for each state plus DC

[krkaufman]

24. Technically ...

… “from WaPo via Alternet” … ?

[ancianita]

25. Wyden is an On Time Patriot. When we retake the House, Hakeem Jeffries will get this done.

Even if the Senate might not accept six, it would still likely amend the House bill to vote to expand SCOTUS by four. Biden will be working the bipartisan side of this bill, too.

No doubt about it, a lot has to happen in the next 40 days, but the Harris/Walz GOTV campaign has a day-by-day plan at work to insure victory so that we convene the 119th Congress as a newly elected majority.

[Polybius]

30. Gotta eliminate the filibuster for it to pass the Senate though

Otherwise we'd need 60 votes.

[hawkeye21]

28. Checks and balances are out of whack; they must be restored

Nothing in the Constitution says anything about the number of judges. The number has, in fact, changed over time. With the current composition of the corrupt, biased MAGA Court, decent Americans have no option but to do something to fix the huge problem. If this is that solution, fine. If not, find another one. But to let this MAGA Court stand, to let this corruption stand, to let this political bias stand is not an option.

[dobleremolque]

37. Four new justices would be manageable,

that would give one for each of the 13 US judicial circuits. Who knows? Maybe that would be a conference committee negotiating point. If it ever got that far.

[MichMan]

41. Need a total of 51

One for each state plus DC

[dickthegrouch]

46. Don't forget the quorum of 27

Yes, I know that’s more than 50%+1. Deliberate on my part.

[onenote]

82. The bill proposes creating two new circuits. See post #80

[Trueblue1968]

38. Ron is my senator !!!!!!!

[WarGamer]

42. unless Trump wins then no more Justices.

Amiright?

[634-5789]

43. This NEEDS to be done ASAP.

[uponit7771]

44. Nice!!!!

[Sibelius Fan]

47. It would be much easier to pressure Alito, Roberts and Thomas to resign based on

their abhorrent behavior, thus clearing the way for three liberal appointments and a 6-3 liberal majority.

[Silent Type]

51. Think they should have waited until after election.

[onenote]

81. The Senate is in recess until after the election.

In theory, it could be considered during the lame duck session between mid-November and the beginning of the new Congress in January 2025. If Trump was to win, it probably never gets brought up.

[Silent Type]

85. More reason not to announce something like this before election.

[onenote]

88. Why? What exactly is the downside?

[Silent Type]

89. Simple, we will not gain one vote from announcing that, it's unlikely to pass, there is not one Undecided who will say

"Oh yeah, I'm voting Democratic because they want to change rules that have been in place since 1869 because they lost in 2016."

Not gonna change my vote, but I think it's a stunt, that is best not to push a month before election.

[onenote]

91. It's not going to cost one vote. I'm going with "Wyden knows what he's doing"

over your concerns.

[Silent Type]

92. I think it will impact Undecideds. Long-term might not hurt because we don't have the votes to pass it. n/t

[onenote]

95. Undecideds that weren't bothered by the current Court's imbalance? By the Garland nomination stall? By ethics issues?

All addressed in the draft bill. If an undecided is upset about proposals to address those issues, I don't think they're really all that undecided.

[Jilly_in_VA]

53. Ethics laws first

And make them binding, dammit! Then term limits, retroactive to the current supremes.

[Desert Dog]

67. Yes, Two Parts

Strong ethics law first and see if the grifters jump ship. Then do court add ons as part two -if necessary. They might be necessary as GOP will likely do it themselves later.

One thing is.. If we are lucky enough to get congress and WH, Dems should go bold in the first 6 month. American public has no political memory. GOP will whine, but public won't care 6 month after.

[Martin68]

69. It's a nice idea but it can't pass now.

[Joinfortmill]

71. It's very difficult to hold these justices to a 'code of ethics', as one must first possess a personal code of ethics

Let's hope this has a hope of passing soon.

[pfitz59]

73. SCrOTUS needs term limits

and all government positions needs age limits. Let them be 'emeriti'.

[haele]

78. Six - no. Four can be argued for by logic.

13 court districts, 13 Supreme Court Judges is a justifiable argument. That reduces the stress on the jurists (or rather, their staff). It can also reduce the caseload as there's less of a backlog of appeals for their offices to go through and make hearing decisions on.

Or so it can be argued.

Haele.

[onenote]

80. The bill also proposes adding two new circuits, bringing the number to 15.

It would expand the number of circuits by splitting the Ninth Circuit and establishing a new Southwestern Circuit.

It also provides for the addition of 62 new appeals court judges and 101 new district court judges

[onenote]

79. Some detail on the bill I haven't seen discussed here. For example, it would take nearly 12 years to add 6 new justices

The bill calls for one new justice to be added in the first year of a president's term, with a second in the third year. The third new justice would be added in the first year of the succeeding term, with the fourth added in the third year of that term. And finally, in the third presidential term following the bill's enactment, a fifth justice would be added in year one and the sixth and final new justice would be added in year three. One thing that will be controversial is that it means there will be extended periods where there would be an even number of justices. something that has occurred in the past but is considered less than optimal.

Also, with respect to the judicial review discussion, the bill contains an interesting provision under which an Act of Congress can be invalidated only with the concurrence of at least 2⁄3 of the voting SCOTUS justices; and at least a majority of the total number of justices. A similar provision applicable to the courts of appeals provides that court of appeals may only invalidate an Act of Congress with the concurrence of every judge in the case of a panel of judges, or in the case of a rehearing en banc, at least 2⁄3 of voting judges. [ Interestingly, the summary refers to the invalidation of an Act of Congress on constitutional grounds, but the references constitutional grounds does not appear in the actual legislation ].

Links to the bill, a one-page summary, and a section-by-section analysis can be found at the end of this page on the Wyden webpage: https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-introduces-sweeping-court-reforms-to-restore-public-trust-as-supreme-court-faces-legitimacy-crisis