How to Fix the Supreme Court

[durangodawood]

Refusing the stage a hearing is a denial of consent.

Whether your date sends you home after she's invited you up to her apartment or before she's gone on the date in the first place, she's still refused to consent to sleep with you.

It all looks fine when you ignore big portions of the story, as you persist in doing.

 

[hedrick]

I hope Democrats will think similarly. Most id the proposals are about depoliticizing the court, and reducing the temptation to pack it.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It all looks fine when you ignore big portions of the story, as you persist in doing.

I’m familiar with the story. I think McConnell is a naked hypocrite but your characterization of him is silly.

 

[Sketcher]

Fix the Supreme Court by getting rid of the left-leaning justices.

 

[Sketcher]

I hope Democrats will think similarly. Most id the proposals are about depoliticizing the court, and reducing the temptation to pack it.

The first step in depoliticizing the court is to depoliticize the nomination process. The left has made it viciously political since Robert Bork's nomination process.

 

[RDKirk]

Aside from "I don't think the Supreme Court will vote my way" what are all the reasons why we should expand the court?

That was the sole reason the Senate Republicans held up Obama's judicial appointments (not just for SCOTUS, but the lower courts as well).

Right now, the setting is, "You guys had no sense of fair play and ethics, so why should we?" That's a dirty game that the nation shouldn't be playing...but here we are.

 

[RDKirk]

The first step in depoliticizing the court is to depoliticize the nomination process. The left has made it viciously political since Robert Bork's nomination process.

It's been political as far back as Andrew Jackson's presidency.

 

[durangodawood]

I’m familiar with the story. I think McConnell is a naked hypocrite but your characterization of him is silly.

I didn't "characterize" him at all. Perhaps you're not aware, but I'm just relaying exactly what he said.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

It's been political as far back as Andrew Jackson's presidency.

It goes farther back than that. John Adams packing the courts full of Federalists in his final days as president was the Federalist Party’s last real swing for power before dying as a political entity.

 

[jayem]

Just confess: you want to Democrats to be able to legislate from the bench. All this other stuff is a fig leaf.

Really, that sounds kinda paranoid. In my post, did I even once use the terms Democrat, Republican, liberal, or conservative? And where do you get the idea that I want the court to hear every case? I want to modernize its protocols so that more cases can be heard. I honestly don't care if it's done by a Democrat or a Republican. This is pasted from a Georgetown Law website. With lots of SCOTUS related links if you're interested:

"In a typical year, over 8,000 petitions are filed with the Supreme Court for review of lower court decisions. The Court denies review in the vast majority of cases, and, in recent years, has issued full opinions in fewer than 100 cases each term".

Guides: Supreme Court Research Guide: Decisions and Court Documents

I said the Court hears about 80 cases a year. I'll be generous and assume 100 cases are heard. Do you really think the Court is doing an adequate job when it delivers full opinions in only 1.25% of cases it's petitioned to review? My proposal would maybe double that. How is it wrong to expect just marginally greater productivity from a part of the government that we, the taxpayers are funding? It floors me that in the 21st century, the 3rd branch of our government is still operating with 19th century procedures. Like so many others, you are mired in centuries-old traditions and either cannot see--or refuse to see-- how dysfunctional these have become in modern times. And I can't imagine how disastrous the future will be be if nothing is done.

 

[KCfromNC]

How do you balance a 9 member panel?

If the argument is that we can't balance a group which has an odd number of members, then there should be zero arguments about balance when Biden expands the court to 15 justices.

 

[KCfromNC]

That was the sole reason the Senate Republicans held up Obama's judicial appointments (not just for SCOTUS, but the lower courts as well).

Right now, the setting is, "You guys had no sense of fair play and ethics, so why should we?" That's a dirty game that the nation shouldn't be playing...but here we are.

The first step is to fix the immediate problem - by either removing Donald's tainted appointees or by out-numbering them and making them irrelevant.

Next up is changing the rules to make them more fair for both sides. And that includes not only the nomination and confirmation process but also making it so that a small minority of citizens don't get to impose their radical views on the rest of the country. So we need to expand mail-in voting to 100% of voters, expand congress in such a way the the GOP isn't over-represented, eliminate the electoral college, and so on.

 

[Aldebaran]

Exactly. Its not about whats in the constitution, as sistrin claimed. Its about power, what you can get away with.

Right! And right now, the Republicans are in control and can use what is in the Constitution against those who would rather see the Constitution burn up and disappear.

 

[Aldebaran]

Did you know California has considered secession?
Look at the West coast states.
Look at the East Coast states from Maine to Virginia.
They pay most of the taxes. They control finance, fashion, entertainment, government, aerospace industries.
They have a president who abandons them in forest fires and viral spirals.

They also have democrats as governors that have them paying those taxes.

They have a court shaping the country into one that violates all their principles.

How? Barrett hasn't been involved in a single SCOTUS case. But maybe it's their principles that need some examining.

Exactly why should they support the freeloading stayes who are running the country? The country is becoming a place they want no part of.

If they want no part of it, then they should move to a country they do want a part of.

The progressive Midwest states near Canada could join Canada.

Well, that's something I'd want no part of since I live in WI. But then again, I'd hardly call us Progressive since we voted for Trump last time.

One of the Times articles said that Dems should "threaten" to pack the courts and hold it over the justices' heads to force them into moderation...

Right. Try to intimidate SCOTUS justices. Sounds like a classic Leftist tactic.

And see if it works.

Or backfires.

You have gone too far. America will revolt.

Not America. Just the people who hate America.

 

[Aldebaran]

Legal court packing is an "established method and system" the same way that McConnell has employed "established methods and systems" to obstruct Obama's judicial nominations and rush through Trump's. Neither violates any rules; they only violate unwritten norms that make people feel uncomfortable.

Considering that the court has had 9 justices since 1869, the "unwritten norm" has clearly been working.

 

[Aldebaran]

If the argument is that we can't balance a group which has an odd number of members, then there should be zero arguments about balance when Biden expands the court to 15 justices.

Why 15? 9 is already a number that can't be balanced, and has been the standard since 1869.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Considering that the court has had 9 justices since 1869, the "unwritten norm" has clearly been working.

The "unwritten norms" weren't about the number of justices - they were about Senate procedures and the gentlemen's agreements among senators.

Either way, court nominations have become the fuel for an existential fight that poisons the rest of our democratic process and facilitates the grinding to a halt of the rest of our federal government. I wouldn't call that "working."

 

[KCfromNC]

Why 15?

Why not? Nothing against the law about changing it. Unwritten norms don't mean anything anymore. Elections have consequences. And so on, and so forth.

 

[Aldebaran]

Why not? Nothing against the law about changing it. Unwritten norms don't mean anything anymore. Elections have consequences. And so on, and so forth.

Keep that in mind for the mid-terms if Harris ends up winning this time around.

 

[KCfromNC]

Keep that in mind for the mid-terms if Harris ends up winning this time around.

Oh, ha ha, I get it. Biden is so old and feeble that he's not really even running. I can imagine how the echo chamber participants howl with laughter at such a clever attack on the man's campaign. Why, no one could possibly fail to be moved by such cunning.

Lol, come on, know your audience.