When (not if) we gain power, should we reform the Supreme Court?

[Stinky The Clown]

Expand the court

Term Limits

Ability to recall

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Unfortunately a the piece of shit and those around him can't afford

Risking Democrats taking over because they would have so much to lose so they will do whatever they have to do to make sure there are no elections or they are interfered with in major ways.

Maybe everybody will better understand that after they arrest Obama here soon or something like that 😡

The piece of shit will do anything and the DOJ and FBI will follow orders to change the subject from Epstein and to make sure no Democrat is ever any kind of power ever again.

[lapfog_1]

2. simple majority vote to convict and remove

impeach 6 of them and replace with people that have both the law and a soul

Not constitutional? Doesn't seem to stop this President or Congress.

[Polybius]

25. The Supreme Court controls what is constitutional, not the President

And that is tinfoil fantasy. We complain that this Administration borders on strong-man tactics, but that proposal would trounce anything he did.

[orangecrush]

27. "borders on" strong man tactics?

[JI7]

3. No

If we do gain enough power to be able to make these changes than it probably wouldn't be necessary.

Getting rid of the electoral college will be better .

[in2herbs]

13. Can't we do both??? nt

[Polybius]

24. We'll never do either n/t

[orangecrush]

28. Yeah, we'll never do anything

[Polybius]

35. Nah, we'll do a lot

But not either of those.

[orangecrush]

38. You probably have a good point

I'm a complete legal dumbass.

No sarcasm.

[Polybius]

40. No one is a dumbass here

To be clear, I was only rereferring to getting rid of the Electoral College, term limits for Supreme Court members, and ability to recall them. Those are pretty staggering tasks, and we would need supermajorities not seen since the 30's.

With that being said, expanding the Court is much more realistic. We theoretically can do it with simple majority votes in the House and Senate*.

The asterisk is for overcoming the filibuster. It can be removed, but I don't know I feel about it. Look at the state of things now. It's good that we have it during this term.

[orangecrush]

42. Thanks

Much appreciated!

[The Grand Illuminist]

19. In order to do that....

It will guaranteed take Article V remedies just to get a fair vote.

[walkingman]

4. If we can get a big enough majority (big if) I definitely think we should make reforms to SCOTUS.

I think there is a good likelihood that both Thomas and Alito will resign to allow Trump to appoint two younger justices - that being the case, that would ensure for at least a generation the draconian destruction of our democracy.
Of course the big question is will the voter of America support a party that believes in diversity, inclusion, and that everyone deserves a fiat shake in this society? That hasn't been the case for most of our history but I have to think it is possible.

[Cirsium]

5. Of course

I am surprised that there would be any controversy about that.

[bucolic_frolic]

7. Yes

There is a thing of too old, and also too young. Forty year olds haven't weighed the seasons and cycles of life, law, economics, and culture, enough. The McConnell stolen seat should never have happened. He should have been told he waved his advisory powers by not acting. No president should appoint more than 3, or more than 2 per term.

[Irish_Dem]

8. How about sending justices to prison who commit treason by taking bribes from billionaires?

[Volaris]

9. My ansewrs:

Expand: yes--13 districts, 13 justices
Term Limits-- KIND OF.. 13 justices sitting, mandory retirement from active work at 70. (plus an emeritus block)
A normal case would consist of 12 of the 13 judges, and the last vote would be the majority opinion of the aforementioned Emeritus Block (ergo, all of the judges with constitutional lifetime appointments, BUT ALSO with mandory 'retirement' at age 70)

[jmowreader]

12. Add one thing

The justice for a circuit has to be a resident for minimum 10 years of one of the states that make up that circuit.

We don't need thirteen Fifth Circuit judges elevated to the Supreme Court.

[Volaris]

15. So, youre suggesting locking the circuits,

I.E., if a Justice X hits 70 and 'retires' from all duties (including running that circuit) the replacement judge would have to be nominated from the appellate bench of that circuit?

Just me, but I'd assign them by seniority; the most senior judge that's not the chief, gets the 'most important' circuit to sit, and the chief automaticly gets the 'least important', as a matter of power-sharing.

[jmowreader]

18. If you want the court to "look like America" that's what has to be done

Otherwise, the next Trump is going to pull all his justices from the most extreme circuit.

I've got a better way to handle term limits. Divide the court into three groups, which we'll call Classes 1, 2 and 3. It will be the 49th president who'll be the first to enjoy this system, but the 49th president will install Class 1, the 50th Class 2, the 51st Class 3, the 52d Class 1...

[DiverDave]

10. Yes, it's way past time.

Not only for bringing fairness back, the case loads can be resolved faster.

[Xolodno]

11. Term Limits.

A bunch of 80+ year olds should not have the power to overturn precedent because of a few generations of old school values. And term limits will dissuade anyone looking for a cushy job. Yes, we may get some bad apples over time, but they won't be lifetime bad apples.

While we're at it, lets put term limits on Congress as well.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

21. And how would we get the required...

…Constitutional amendments through?

[Xolodno]

32. That's obviously the elephant in the room.

How do we? When the system is set up against it. Career politicians are not going to vote for their demise when they prefer to "demise" when the grim reaper shows up. I'm just opinionating a better solution, but have no illusions that it will ever get done.

[tritsofme]

14. I'm more open than I used to be. But I can't help but wonder if Thomas ends up being their Ginsberg.

Too stubborn to retire, and we end up getting his replacement.

Could Roberts be sick of this whole mess and leave town after Trump is gone?

All of the sudden we have a 5-4 Court in our favor. It’s not impossible to take it back by conventional means, in the fairly near future.

[LR3]

39. Roberts is just as big of an ass as the rest of the Rightwing 6

His reputation as a moderate has long since expired

[EdmondDantes_]

16. The second two would require a constitutional amendment

That's not going to happen.

Expanding the court does risk causing an escalating cascade, but I am more open to considering options. Just unilaterally with a 50+1 majority expanding the court would be problematic. Maybe open the new seats over time to let the public have time to reflect and digest in terms of how it impacts their votes.

[bob4460]

17. We would have to get 67 senate seats first

and 230 in the house, so that is a long way off.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

20. 230? n/t

[Polybius]

23. Only for the last two

The first is a majority vote, unless filibustered.

[Polybius]

22. Only the first is possible

We are not going to pass any more constitutional amendments.

[JCMach1]

26. No choice... Or deNAZIFY by impeaching all who lied

At their confirmation hearing...

[Polybius]

41. Hard to prove a lie, or even what is a lie during hearings

Justices are all intelligent. None specifically said that they would not overturn Roe. However, 5 of the 6 said it was precedent (Amy refused to call it precedent). You can technically call something precedent and still vote to repeal it.

[orangecrush]

29. Should have been done long ago.

[SSJVegeta]

30. And impeach those who clearly have been ruling based on fear and politics as opposed to the rule of law?

Yes.

Any of these fuckers who have been appointed solely as a rubber stamp, or have become one for this wannabe dictator has GOT TO GO

[TnDem]

37. Impeach all you want

To try to remove them via impeachment because we disagree with their rulings will do two things:

1) Jack and 2) Shit

[AllyCat]

31. Yes. The whole constitution needs a rework because

As we have found, it has no teeth.

No lifetime appointments. Consequences for conflict of interest, poor behavior, and such. Raise up the minimum standards for eligibility to be appointed.

[EnergizedLib]

33. Absolutely

Get rid of the filibuster, expand to 13, get young, ultra liberal judges, impeach and remove the disgraceful six.

[HAB911]

34. Whatever is done, it better be RUTHLESS

[TnDem]

36. Adding Justices

If that Pandora's box is opened, then it starts a cascading effect that will never end.

We add 3...next election, they add 5 more...Next election we add 10 and then they get power back and add 25.

It will never end and the SC will end up with 10,000 justices.