10mo ago

Sweeping Bill Introduced by Ron Wyden (D) Would Completely Overhaul Supreme Court as We Know It

Sweeping Bill Would Completely Overhaul Supreme Court as We Know It

Reminder that getting control of the house and senate could make stuff like this potentially get through

This proposal is not only one that expands the number of justices over time but alter things like the court's shadow docket, require justices to release tax returns, and more

69 comments

Requiring the HIGHEST JUSTICES in the Country to NOT take Bribes from Defendants or Plaintiffs depending on the case is DEEP STATE WOKE SOCIALISM!
- They are gratuities, not bribes, DUH
  /s
  
  Just a small treat.
  
  indulgences
  
  Based on recent rulings you don’t need the /s
- DO allow them to go through a lengthy process, complete with a mountain of precise paperwork, and a committee chosen by their peers, on both sides of the aisle, to accept any form of donation.
  Why?
  Cause they're gonna find a way anyway. That or literally just give them excellent benefits that basically equal the recent Thomas bullshit.
  Basically I'm searching for other ways to reduce these issues to a minimum long term.
  
  Most of the fix should be much simpler. Pay them each $600k, indexed to inflation.
  That should make them pretty resistant to bribery. Your quality of life really doesn't improve much past that $600k point, even if you're maintaining two houses. (And the justices aren't representatives. They don't need a second house.)
  But yes, their tax returns should be public as well.
We can also ask for term limits and other structural things that require a Constitutional Amendment, but we need to do this first.
Then, after passing the law, go to Republicans and say "There! We undid your fucking up of the courts. You have a choice now: either work with us on a constitutional amendment to help us fundamentally restructure the Court and make is less political, or watch us appoint all these Liberal judges to lifetime appointments and you roll the dice on getting control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress to re-fuck it at some nebulous point in the future".
- Are we going to pretend they're not just going to jump to the latter without feigning an attempt to do the prior?
  
  You need a supermajority of states to ratify an amendment, and there is no reason for Republican-led states to back any amendment that will reform the current court. But add six young liberal justices with lifetime tenure, and now they will go out of their way to pass an amendment to term-limit the,.
Eliminate the fixed size of the court entirely. We don't need to define 9 or 15 people.
Every presidential term, the president appoints two new candidates, 9-15 months after the presidential election, and 9-15 months after the midterms. We do not fill any vacated seats.
That resolves the problems with multiple seats unexpectedly swinging on a small court, and limits the effects a single president can have on the court. Yes, the numerical swings can be as large, but the percentage swings will not be; the court will likely fluctuate between 15-20 justices.
Now to fix the Senate playing games...
First, we establish a line of succession with the circuit courts. The chief judges of the circuits, in line of seniority, then every other active judge. Every case before SCOTUS requires at least 6 justices to hear the case. If the court falls below 6, the next judge in line is automatically elevated to the court. If the court is larger than 6, but due to recusals or abstentions, fewer than 6 are able to hear the case, the next judges in line are automatically, but temporarily elevated to hear that case. Only when we have exhausted all judges from the district courts does the president get additional, temporary appointments.
Any appointment to the circuit court requires senate confirmation. After we enact this, any judge confirmed to a district court could (eventually) find themselves on the court. Their confirmation thus includes the (remote) possibility that they will be elevated to the court. So any circuit court appointment after this goes into effect also serves as a SCOTUS confirmation.
When it comes time for the president to appoint a candidate to SCOTUS, anyone who has previously been confirmed to the line of succession can be immediately elevated to the court, without needing additional confirmation.
Where the president and Senate are sympatico, the president can choose anyone they want. When they are at odds, the president still has a list of pre-approved candidates the Senate can't block.
- I think it would even be better to allow the president to appoint two new justices and the two most senior judges have to step down. It would make the turn over high enough that we don't end up with corrupt trash like we have now for decades. Not until death the way it is now.
  
  What happens when three justices retire in one term, or the senior justice dies right before being forced out? Do we still force out two more justices? We obviously can't shrink the court each time, so either we don't force a justice out when we normally should, or we give the president an extra appointment. Neither seems like a good option.
- why don't we just appoint 6,000 life term judges? and then make every single person in America a senator on rotation, and select a president at random. and then ask Chad GPT how to solve the problem in Ukraine
  
  Ooh, and let's give everyone a pony!
- Why don't we just take away their exclusive right to interpret the constitution. They can interpret laws but they have no claim to be the sole proprietors of the document that all branches have a stake in.
  
  That would require a constitutional amendment, and with a change that radical, it would pretty much require a new constitution.
and require two-thirds of the Supreme Court and federal circuit courts of appeals to overturn any law passed by Congress
Netanyahu would be proud.
Was Ron Wyden not usually one of the few forces for good in relation to internet bills, like SOPA and such? Now he's proposing something like this.
The other things mentioned in the article are unobjectionable, some of them even good, but this?!
Sounds good to me but:
One of the three co-equal branches (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) limiting another can't last without popular appeal or a Constitutional Amendment.
Even trying to explain that to the average U.S. voter is a lot.
- The idea that one branch limiting another requires "popular appeal or a Constitutional Amendment" is a bit misleading. The Constitution already provides the Legislative Branch with various checks on the Judiciary. For example, Article III, Section 1 gives Congress the authority to structure the federal judiciary and set the number of Supreme Court Justices. Congress has used this power in the past to both expand and contract the size of the Court (changing the number of justices in the 1800s). This can happen without an amendment or mass public support.
  Wyden's proposal to expand the Supreme Court to 15 justices over 12 years is another example of using these constitutional mechanisms. The proposal also includes measures to increase transparency, such as requiring a supermajority to overturn acts of Congress, automatic Senate calendar placement for stalled nominations, and stricter financial disclosures for justices. None of these steps require changing the Constitution; they rely on existing legislative powers.
  Explaining this to the average voter might be challenging, but the fact remains: Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate the judiciary, even if it's not commonly exercised or well understood. Wyden's bill seeks to use those powers to restore trust and transparency in the Court without needing a constitutional amendment.
  So, the checks and balances already exist – it’s a matter of political will and the legislative process, not necessarily popular appeal or constitutional change.
  
  anything Congress does can just as easily be repealed by Congress.
  requiring a supermajority to overturn acts of Congress, automatic Senate calendar placement for stalled nominations,
  I'm all for it, hope it goes well. because if it doesn't, this is a fast track to shit
- Keep in mind that Judicial Review (deciding if laws are constitutional or not) isn't even a constitutional power. It's one the court gave itself in Marbury v. Madison.
  
  Thanks
- Doesn't the Supreme Court limit the powers of the house and the presidency, like, a lot?
  
  The 250 year old document establishing the government makes everything clear as mud, but outside of eating mud pies, I am not an expert.
  Edit I got some meaty responses, look to that
- This is why I like the 127 DC states plan so much - it's a viable way to turn a three-way Dem bare majority (Dem Pres, Senate with 50 Dems and dropped filibuster, and Dem house) into lasting change via constitutional amendment.
  https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21063591/modest-proposal-to-save-american-democracy-pack-the-union-harvard-law-review
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
Silly. Democrats want to change something because it's not fitting THEIR agendas...
- Yeah how dare they demand the supreme Court actually be JUST and honest.
  The audacity!!!
- Are you honestly ok with them being bought and paid for? You are against the financial transparency?
  
  Yes they are ok with that and that's the point They only need to support rule by corporation.
- It's these damn activist judges, we need to get a few.
- I mean, it is unexpected. Usually they want to change nothing when it doesn't fit their agenda.

69 comments