Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Democratic Primaries
In reply to the discussion: Buttigieg says he wants more Supreme Court justices who are like Justice Kennedy. [View all]demmiblue
(39,957 posts)13. For those who want more context (like myself):
Read Mayor Buttigiegs full response about how hed approach changes in the Supreme Court, below:
So this is something thats very important to me in terms of the independence and the integrity of the Supreme Court. As you know, its especially important for LGBTQ rights, but its important for access to abortion and many other issues too. When I look at the Supreme Court, I cant help but remember that my marriage only exists by the grace of a single vote in that body.
Now, what Im proposing that we do in terms of reform is to stop the descent of the Supreme Court into becoming yet another political body. This is not about making sure that it agrees with me on everything. My appointments will definitely be people who share my values. But when Im talking about the structure of the Supreme Court, Im talking about something deeper. Im talking about depoliticizing the Supreme Court. Because right now, every time theres a vacancy, theres this apocalyptic ideological battle and it hurts the court and it hurts the country.
So Ive floated several ideas and deliberately kept some level of open-mindedness about which ones are going to work best. One of them would be to have 15 members, but 5 of them can only be seated if the other 10 unanimously agree. The idea here is you get more justices who think for themselves. Justices like Justice Kennedy or Justice Souter, and there are many legal scholars who think this could be done without a constitutional amendment under current law.
Another approach would be to have term limits. You know, Supreme Court justices, they used to just retire like everybody else. But now, we have these strange scenarios of people clinging, almost seeming to cling on for dear life because they want to make sure that they leave the bench under the right presidency. And this would help deal with that issue. Someone suggested that we rotate judges on and off the appellate bench.
The reason Im introducing these very bold ideas is to elevate our imagination about them. But Im not arriving in office saying I have the answer on this one. So the first step that Ill do is to appoint a commission with this mission: Make the Supreme Court less political. Give us a road map to do that. And then based on their recommendations, I will go to Congress with a proposal. If absolutely necessary, we might have to have a conversation about an amendment, but I believe most of these reforms could be achieved within the framework of the current constitution.
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a29565248/pete-buttigieg-supreme-court-restructure-president/
So this is something thats very important to me in terms of the independence and the integrity of the Supreme Court. As you know, its especially important for LGBTQ rights, but its important for access to abortion and many other issues too. When I look at the Supreme Court, I cant help but remember that my marriage only exists by the grace of a single vote in that body.
Now, what Im proposing that we do in terms of reform is to stop the descent of the Supreme Court into becoming yet another political body. This is not about making sure that it agrees with me on everything. My appointments will definitely be people who share my values. But when Im talking about the structure of the Supreme Court, Im talking about something deeper. Im talking about depoliticizing the Supreme Court. Because right now, every time theres a vacancy, theres this apocalyptic ideological battle and it hurts the court and it hurts the country.
So Ive floated several ideas and deliberately kept some level of open-mindedness about which ones are going to work best. One of them would be to have 15 members, but 5 of them can only be seated if the other 10 unanimously agree. The idea here is you get more justices who think for themselves. Justices like Justice Kennedy or Justice Souter, and there are many legal scholars who think this could be done without a constitutional amendment under current law.
Another approach would be to have term limits. You know, Supreme Court justices, they used to just retire like everybody else. But now, we have these strange scenarios of people clinging, almost seeming to cling on for dear life because they want to make sure that they leave the bench under the right presidency. And this would help deal with that issue. Someone suggested that we rotate judges on and off the appellate bench.
The reason Im introducing these very bold ideas is to elevate our imagination about them. But Im not arriving in office saying I have the answer on this one. So the first step that Ill do is to appoint a commission with this mission: Make the Supreme Court less political. Give us a road map to do that. And then based on their recommendations, I will go to Congress with a proposal. If absolutely necessary, we might have to have a conversation about an amendment, but I believe most of these reforms could be achieved within the framework of the current constitution.
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a29565248/pete-buttigieg-supreme-court-restructure-president/
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
82 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Buttigieg says he wants more Supreme Court justices who are like Justice Kennedy. [View all]
DURHAM D
Oct 2019
OP
It's potentially noble, but good luck selling "depoliticization" in this environment
BeyondGeography
Oct 2019
#40
That is a valid point of view to take, but I do not think depoliticisation of the courts whilst
Celerity
Oct 2019
#41
there're many options to consider, and it's not bullshit to call out disingenuous pull quote attacks
Celerity
Oct 2019
#69
Seriously!! That's TWO strikes against Mayor Pete... and he was in my top five.
InAbLuEsTaTe
Oct 2019
#51
These swing voters always seem to go against us when it costs the bosses money.
Hassin Bin Sober
Oct 2019
#32
Not what he said at ALL. He has repeatedly said he would appoint justices who share his progressive
jezebel321
Oct 2019
#6
and that is a fair policy argument to have. I just take issue to the claiming he said something
jezebel321
Oct 2019
#15
In what countries? Do you know what the right wing stands for in Europe? People called centrists
emmaverybo
Oct 2019
#59
....Ssssoo, Pete Wants a Justice Willing to Retire Out of the Blue on His Say-So?
The_Counsel
Oct 2019
#9
Could it be that Buttigieg was thinking about Kennedy's opinion in Obergefell?
alwaysinasnit
Oct 2019
#14
I think it would be wise for everyone here to read Post #15. See what you think then. n/t
CaliforniaPeggy
Oct 2019
#25
We need the next 2 justices to be extremely liberal, just to have any semblance of balance!
Meadowoak
Oct 2019
#28
Lots of ideas from a lot of contenders for POTUS. Regardless, Buttigieg will not get the nomination.
YOHABLO
Oct 2019
#54
Such ridiculously disingenuous takes on what candidates actually SAID should be banned on the forum
mr_lebowski
Oct 2019
#57
not at all, because it is a disingenuous pull quote, spun up and taken out of context
Celerity
Oct 2019
#66
He is a social liberal on some issues, but not really progressive in a global sense. It is not
emmaverybo
Oct 2019
#60
pointing out repeated patterns of misinformation and out of context pull-quote attempts
Celerity
Oct 2019
#74