General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhen (not if) we gain power, should we reform the Supreme Court?
Expand the court
Term Limits
Ability to recall

Eliot Rosewater
(33,187 posts)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
(31,127 posts)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
(20,543 posts)And that is tinfoil fantasy. We complain that this Administration borders on strong-man tactics, but that proposal would trounce anything he did.
orangecrush
(25,727 posts)JI7
(92,338 posts)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
(3,840 posts)Polybius
(20,543 posts)orangecrush
(25,727 posts)
Polybius
(20,543 posts)But not either of those.
orangecrush
(25,727 posts)I'm a complete legal dumbass.
No sarcasm.

Polybius
(20,543 posts)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
(25,727 posts)Much appreciated!
The Grand Illuminist
(1,844 posts)It will guaranteed take Article V remedies just to get a fair vote.
walkingman
(9,576 posts)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
(2,750 posts)I am surprised that there would be any controversy about that.
Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)
PeaceWave This message was self-deleted by its author.
bucolic_frolic
(51,514 posts)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
(72,498 posts)Volaris
(10,947 posts)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
(52,545 posts)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
(10,947 posts)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
(52,545 posts)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
(5,134 posts)Not only for bringing fairness back, the case loads can be resolved faster.
Xolodno
(7,081 posts)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
(8,002 posts)Constitutional amendments through?
Xolodno
(7,081 posts)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
(19,377 posts)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. Its not impossible to take it back by conventional means, in the fairly near future.
LR3
(37 posts)His reputation as a moderate has long since expired
EdmondDantes_
(639 posts)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
(339 posts)and 230 in the house, so that is a long way off.
SickOfTheOnePct
(8,002 posts)Polybius
(20,543 posts)The first is a majority vote, unless filibustered.
Polybius
(20,543 posts)We are not going to pass any more constitutional amendments.
JCMach1
(28,815 posts)At their confirmation hearing...
Polybius
(20,543 posts)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
(25,727 posts)SSJVegeta
(1,153 posts)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
(1,080 posts)To try to remove them via impeachment because we disagree with their rulings will do two things:
1) Jack and 2) Shit
AllyCat
(18,075 posts)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
(2,631 posts)Get rid of the filibuster, expand to 13, get young, ultra liberal judges, impeach and remove the disgraceful six.
HAB911
(9,709 posts)TnDem
(1,080 posts)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.