General Discussion

mwooldri

(10,818 posts)

54. Exactly!

Thu Sep 26, 2024, 08:38 PM

Sep 2024

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Rom-Pom-Pom-Pom Wednesdays

97 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Wyden bill would add 6 scotus justices [View all] DoBW Sep 2024 OP

Harlan Crow won't like this PedroXimenez Sep 2024 #1

Hate to be a downer, but... Dennis Donovan Sep 2024 #2

Not if we win the Presidency (love our chances), the House (looking pretty good), the Senate (admittedly Grown2Hate Sep 2024 #3

Change those filibuster rules and GET IT DONE! maspaha Sep 2024 #40

Not only the filibuster but the Electoral college! Paper Roses Sep 2024 #74

That would require a constitutional amendment. yourout Sep 2024 #76

I don't see why not tavernier Sep 2024 #21

SCOTUS reform is needed LetMyPeopleVote Sep 2024 #4

Maybe we could cap the number of Captain Zero Sep 2024 #6

Yes... and Federalist Society judges too. liberalla Sep 2024 #12

Exactly! mwooldri Sep 2024 #54

True indeed. As it's structured right now, the court is vestigial and diseased. Magoo48 Sep 2024 #31

Damn, I'm all for this, something very new. republianmushroom Sep 2024 #5

And if they can, install the menace moonscape Sep 2024 #20

I like this bill, it's well crafted. We also need a bill to require, within... NNadir Sep 2024 #7

Abso-fucking-lutely! nt Wounded Bear Sep 2024 #10

THIS! Mad_Machine76 Sep 2024 #22

OMG, YES! ShazzieB Sep 2024 #64

The bill contains that provision. It requires a nomination to go to the floor if it hasn't been reported within 180 days onenote Sep 2024 #83

Great! It needed that. Thanks. NNadir Sep 2024 #87

Some of them been there long enough! bucolic_frolic Sep 2024 #8

Unfortunately that would require ... Dave says Sep 2024 #55

original intent bucolic_frolic Sep 2024 #57

Given that the first Supreme Court justice appointed lived to be 84 onenote Sep 2024 #84

Of course, with the filibuster intact, it's DOA Fiendish Thingy Sep 2024 #9

Yeah, Tester is already down by 5-6 Polybius Sep 2024 #16

FYI, 538 shows the difference currently at 3.7% Wiz Imp Sep 2024 #23

The last three polls have been 5-6 though Polybius Sep 2024 #26

One of those was for the Montana Republican Party Wiz Imp Sep 2024 #34

Fair enough Polybius Sep 2024 #62

this is one of the most important items needed to save this country samsingh Sep 2024 #11

What happens if scotus tries to throw out this law? ColinC Sep 2024 #13

They can't, because Congress sets the number of SC Justices Polybius Sep 2024 #17

I just wonder what to do if they tried. I just don't put it past them ColinC Sep 2024 #18

It's a slippery slope Polybius Sep 2024 #27

They can do it anyways -and given they kinda started this slippery slope ColinC Sep 2024 #32

Glad you asked. Congress controls all things having to do with the judiciary's structure. ancianita Sep 2024 #29

I understand this. But the court has already seemed to ignore the constitution with insane rulings. What if they go just ColinC Sep 2024 #33

They can't. Congress is not subject to SCOTUS' opinions re Congress's constitutional right to expand SCOTUS. ancianita Sep 2024 #35

So my question is: does congress ignore the ruling if they try (because they probably would)? ColinC Sep 2024 #36

And my question to you is: why do you think SCOTUS can rule on anything Congress does to restructure it? ancianita Sep 2024 #45

Because some things would still be unconstitutional MichMan Sep 2024 #48

Is it unconstitutional for Congress to restructure the judiciary, and expand the Supreme Court? ancianita Sep 2024 #49

Because they can..? ColinC Sep 2024 #50

No. They can't. ancianita Sep 2024 #52

Judicial review is a scotus power. Not a legislative one ColinC Sep 2024 #56

Fine. You call judicial review ONLY as related to laws passed by Congress. Got it. ancianita Sep 2024 #59

I mean.. that would be an extraordinary change of the term and practice ColinC Sep 2024 #60

Extraordinary is the point. We're in the inflection point Biden has continually pointed out that we're in. ancianita Sep 2024 #65

Right. It's pretty clear that congress can override a decision with 2/3rds ColinC Sep 2024 #66

Well, the SCOTUS can rule on a law to expand Dave says Sep 2024 #61

Exactly. One way around it would be to ignore them completely as they would be clearly in violation of the constitution ColinC Sep 2024 #63

Agreed. Neanderthal "law" is no foundation Dave says Sep 2024 #70

It WON'T BE A LAW. It will be a vote on an ACT OF CONGRESS. Entirely different. ancianita Sep 2024 #68

Are we still talking about adding seats? Cause that would definitely be a law. Right? ColinC Sep 2024 #72

No. It would be act of Congress. ancianita Sep 2024 #75

A law is an act after it is signed by the president. An act is the proposal for a law. ColinC Sep 2024 #77

Okay, fine. Nevertheless, it's wholly within the power of Congress to structurally expand SCOTUS. ancianita Sep 2024 #86

I mean the constitutionality shouldn't be debated in principle ColinC Sep 2024 #90

Yes, Congress could blow off any SCOTUS opposition and will prevail. ancianita Sep 2024 #93

We can do it!! I really really want it to happen and I think Dems should be super aggressive ColinC Sep 2024 #94

We will ancianita Sep 2024 #96

I love that picture ColinC Sep 2024 #97

Either that or subtract 6. Rhiagel Sep 2024 #14

Presidentially Immune can send in Seal Team 6. Kid Berwyn Sep 2024 #58

I thought we were pushing for four more Polybius Sep 2024 #15

I think Democrats should push for something outrageously high ColinC Sep 2024 #19

This MichMan Sep 2024 #39

Technically ... krkaufman Sep 2024 #24

Wyden is an On Time Patriot. When we retake the House, Hakeem Jeffries will get this done. ancianita Sep 2024 #25

Gotta eliminate the filibuster for it to pass the Senate though Polybius Sep 2024 #30

Checks and balances are out of whack; they must be restored hawkeye21 Sep 2024 #28

Four new justices would be manageable, dobleremolque Sep 2024 #37

Need a total of 51 MichMan Sep 2024 #41

Don't forget the quorum of 27 dickthegrouch Sep 2024 #46

The bill proposes creating two new circuits. See post #80 onenote Sep 2024 #82

Ron is my senator !!!!!!! Trueblue1968 Sep 2024 #38

unless Trump wins then no more Justices. WarGamer Sep 2024 #42

This NEEDS to be done ASAP. 634-5789 Sep 2024 #43

Nice!!!! uponit7771 Sep 2024 #44

It would be much easier to pressure Alito, Roberts and Thomas to resign based on Sibelius Fan Sep 2024 #47

Think they should have waited until after election. Silent Type Sep 2024 #51

The Senate is in recess until after the election. onenote Sep 2024 #81

More reason not to announce something like this before election. Silent Type Sep 2024 #85

Why? What exactly is the downside? onenote Sep 2024 #88

Simple, we will not gain one vote from announcing that, it's unlikely to pass, there is not one Undecided who will say Silent Type Sep 2024 #89

It's not going to cost one vote. I'm going with "Wyden knows what he's doing" onenote Sep 2024 #91

I think it will impact Undecideds. Long-term might not hurt because we don't have the votes to pass it. n/t Silent Type Sep 2024 #92

Undecideds that weren't bothered by the current Court's imbalance? By the Garland nomination stall? By ethics issues? onenote Sep 2024 #95

Ethics laws first Jilly_in_VA Sep 2024 #53

Yes, Two Parts Desert Dog Sep 2024 #67

It's a nice idea but it can't pass now. Martin68 Sep 2024 #69

It's very difficult to hold these justices to a 'code of ethics', as one must first possess a personal code of ethics Joinfortmill Sep 2024 #71

SCrOTUS needs term limits pfitz59 Sep 2024 #73

Six - no. Four can be argued for by logic. haele Sep 2024 #78

The bill also proposes adding two new circuits, bringing the number to 15. onenote Sep 2024 #80

Some detail on the bill I haven't seen discussed here. For example, it would take nearly 12 years to add 6 new justices onenote Sep 2024 #79