In the battle over the US supreme court, Democrats can still have the last laugh

[kurtcagle]

4. There's another, similar rationale

Right now, even at the Appelate level where you may have as many as twenty nine judges (ninth circuit court, for instance), a typical en banc court is prescribed at eleven judges. One of the central problems that the SC currently faces is that its court load is horrendous, as it is the choke point through which most major judgments end up being heard by. What I suspect would make reasonable sense (though will of course be opposed by Republicans) is that fifteen judges are appointed, but that a case can only be heard if a quorum of 11 of those judges are present. Judges are appointed for life, but this way, should a judge be in the hospital or otherwise be unable to hear a case, the court can function as an independent entity with fewer than the full fifteen.

The other recommendations would require a constitutional amendment:

* A president can recommend no more than two judges per term. This means that it may take a few years for a full court to be established, but it also keeps any one president from shifting the ideological balance of the SC significantly.
* The Senate must vote on any candidate within sixty days of their submission. Should it fail to do so, then the right to vote on the candidate passes to the House. If after 120 days, neither Senate nor House have voted on that candidate, then the candidate will be automatically approved.
* A president who has been impeached forfeits the right to appoint Supreme Court Justices.