Improve the Supreme Court??

[HomerJS]

Agree or disagree with the latest high profile decision there have been far too many cases decided along party lines. Biggest IMO was Bush v Gore.

I propose this as a way to get more honest decisions.

Increase the number of justices to 10. We would allow 5 appointed by Demoratic presidents and 5 by Republican.

Each President upon taking office nominates 5 people for promotion to the Supreme Court. The vetting would occur after the nomination. One person is chosen as next for promotion.
When a justice retires or dies the next inline from which ever side maintains the balance is automatically promoted. Each President is responsible for keeping 5 justices in waiting. Each President chooses a Chief Justice the the current retires or dies.

If the pool is exhausted and that party does not have the Presidency, the House and Senate leader from that party will replenish the pool.

These people are smart and this would force more decisions based on the facts and less on ideology.

 

[dawp]

there has to be an odd number so the court is never deadlocked.

 

[Fear No Evil]

We could just make Obama Supreme Chancelor as well? Why even have a President, or Supreme Court, or Congress for that matter?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

how would adding 1 more = "improve" the court? Keep in mind that the court is not a partisan entity and is totally unelected and not beholden to the electorate.

 

[JayhaVVKU]

how would adding 1 more = "improve" the court? Keep in mind that the court is not a partisan entity and is totally unelected and not beholden to the electorate.

That's what they want you to think.

 

[ichy]

there has to be an odd number so the court is never deadlocked.

There can be cases when the Supreme Court is deadlocked (if one justice recuses him or herself from a case.) In those situations the lower court's decision is upheld, although that could lead to a problem if two different appellate circuits have conflicting rulings.

 

[kage69]

Keep in mind that the court is not a partisan entity

Hrmmmmm...

 

[Atreus21]

Ask FDR how that worked out for him.

 

[Craig234]

IMO, the court is a very serious problem with the four right-wing radicals. This isn't really a solution though. We need to not put right-wing radicals on the court, not split the parties evenly permanently.

Unfortunately, while presidential elections if we're lucky might be about one or two issues instead of who you'd like to have a beer with, this os one of those issues determined by the election, but not determining the election, and when we get a radical like Bush was or a President otherwise inclined to appoint a radical, that's the kind of nominee we're likely to get.

When the people decide badly, people often rush to change the rules to fix the problem. The President appointed X badly? Let's not let him appoint!

The thing is, the people did not get very involved in the Supreme Court approvals, and did not pressure their Senators to vote no. That's the legitimate democratic way to address this.

If our political system isn't working because the voters are not doing their part, it's hard to see how a rules trying to make up for that in this case is going to improve things.

The question is raised of this bad of justices as these 4 being recalled because they so consistently and so badly rule the same radical way, but it's a very tricky matter that abuses the constitution.

FDR seems to have gotten around it by threatening to expand the court, at a big political cost, after which some of the 'problem' justices seem to have moderated. That's not likely to help here.

We're paying a big price for our bad justices - our nations legal system being altered by the radicals over and over overturnig established law, fitting the Federalist Society agenda.

 

[Lemon law]

The OP suggestion of court packing was tried during the time of FDR. And it quite properly, IMHO, got shot down.

But my guess is that SCOTUS will not improve until a death by natural causes or resignation removes either Alito, Thomas, Scalia, or Roberts. And then Scotus will likely spend the next four or five years reversing stinking precedents set by the last dozen years of Scotus.

The legal other alternative would be to pass some constitutional amendments, but that takes like a 2/3 or 3/4 majority when we can't get 3/5 now. But if the American people get disgusted enough with GOP lockstep obstructionism, its starts to be possible in the future. And even then, the constitutional amendment process is very very slow. But by then, its likely many current court members will be dead of old age.

 

[ichy]

IMO, the court is a very serious problem with the four right-wing radicals. This isn't really a solution though. We need to not put right-wing radicals on the court, not split the parties evenly permanently.

John Roberts is hardly a "right-wing radical." He's certainly a conservative, but not an extremist. Ginsburg and Stevens are just as radical as Alito & Thomas. The only real right-wing loony on the court is Scalia, and even he's not as bad as some has his detractors paint him. Honestly, the Supreme Court does pretty well compared to the high courts in a lot of states. Look at that asshat Roy Moore, the "Ten Commandments Judge" in Alabama, or the thug-lovers that dominate the Maryland Court of Appeals. These guys don't get nearly as much attention, but they end up doing far more harm than the Supreme Court.

 

[Pens1566]

How Thomas qualified to be on the court still baffles me. He's an intellectual midget.

 

[Fear No Evil]

The OP suggestion of court packing was tried during the time of FDR. And it quite properly, IMHO, got shot down.

But my guess is that SCOTUS will not improve until a death by natural causes or resignation removes either Alito, Thomas, Scalia, or Roberts. And then Scotus will likely spend the next four or five years reversing stinking precedents set by the last dozen years of Scotus.

The legal other alternative would be to pass some constitutional amendments, but that takes like a 2/3 or 3/4 majority when we can't get 3/5 now. But if the American people get disgusted enough with GOP lockstep obstructionism, its starts to be possible in the future. And even then, the constitutional amendment process is very very slow. But by then, its likely many current court members will be dead of old age.

Why would the people get disgusted with GOP lockstep when they clearly seem to behind the GOP blocking this Obama/Democrat garbage? You need to take your head out of the sand. Its funny how democrats with a supermajority and the whitehouse can do nothing but blame the GOP. I wonder if your failure of a party would be able to do anything even if it had a majority in the SCOTUS as well?

Obama is a inexperienced FAILURE being led around like a puppy by Pelosi and Reid. Instead of doing whats best for the country they are only interested in ramming extreme left wing policies down our throats. But don't let almost all of the major elections since Obama was elected tell you otherwise. Obama lied about his agenda and he's about to be punished severely for it unless he starts moving toward the center.

 

[Craig234]

John Roberts is hardly a "right-wing radical." He's certainly a conservative, but not an extremist. Ginsburg and Stevens are just as radical as Alito & Thomas. The only real right-wing loony on the court is Scalia, and even he's not as bad as some has his detractors paint him. Honestly, the Supreme Court does pretty well compared to the high courts in a lot of states. Look at that asshat Roy Moore, the "Ten Commandments Judge" in Alabama, or the thug-lovers that dominate the Maryland Court of Appeals. These guys don't get nearly as much attention, but they end up doing far more harm than the Supreme Court.

We disagree. Roberts is the same radical the other three are, just with a pretty face. You know, the guy who said he'd never been in the federalist society until evidence showed up - and then oh, ya, he forget. Except he had a ledarship position. Oops. All four of these guys are federalist radicals - there's a reason we have so many 5-4 decisions with the same justice on the same side, because they are at such odds with our judicial status quo and have another agenda.

They do far more harm than any other justices because it's the Supreme Court.

I'd said in 2004 that I felt the Supreme Court nominations alone were important enough to decide the choice of president, and I stand by that.

Seriously, go read a book about Bush's nominees at all levels, that's not a partisan Republican whitewash of them, and see how badly he's done for the country. Look at the few Democrats tried to block.

 

[Craig234]

How Thomas qualified to be on the court still baffles me. He's an intellectual midget.

A Republican political calculation and moral sellout to find any right-wing black justice to replace the nation's first black Justice. "Vote against a black, Democrats, I dare ya!"

It's not entirely unlike the way Republicans made the political calculation and moral sellout to find a FEMALE far right-wing person for McCain's VP at the last minute and got Palin close to the presidency.

Funny thing is, they love to attack Democrats for what they claim is Democrats' willingness to do this. But no Democratic nominess forced by gender or race as unqualified come to mind like these do.

 

[Craig234]

Why would the people get disgusted with GOP lockstep when they clearly seem to behind the GOP blocking this Obama/Democrat garbage? You need to take your head out of the sand. Its funny how democrats with a supermajority and the whitehouse can do nothing but blame the GOP. I wonder if your failure of a party would be able to do anything even if it had a majority in the SCOTUS as well?

Obama is a inexperienced FAILURE being led around like a puppy by Pelosi and Reid. Instead of doing whats best for the country they are only interested in ramming extreme left wing policies down our throats. But don't let almost all of the major elections since Obama was elected tell you otherwise. Obama lied about his agenda and he's about to be punished severely for it unless he starts moving toward the center.

Define supermajority. Is it anything like 'majority' that can pass legislation? Or is it a number needing every single Democrat and people like Joe Liebermann, the planned 2004 Republican VP nominee?

You are not honest whatsoever about the agenda the Democrats have.

The Republicans abuse the filibuster into a tiny minority of 40 blocking anything the majority want to pass and you giv them ZERO accoubtability, dishonestly attacking the people who point out their bad behavior.

I'm sure he appreciates your quality political advice, but no dbout you mistyped and meant to say his best chances to get re-elected are to follow a fr-right wing agenda.

 

[lothar]

All Justices should be limited to serving a term of no more than 15-20 years.
I am all for limiting terms of justices but not for congress.

I don't believe in lifetime appointment.

 

[Patranus]

LOL - FDR threatened to stack this, got away with it, and bullied the court. It resulted in the last 70 years of failed social policies that have bankrupted the country and allowed the federal government to grab power from the states and micromanage our lives.

The only reason FDR was able to get away with it was because it happened in a day/age when there was little to no television and there was not questioning of the government.

If Obama even hinted at a program to 'improve the courts' it would be game over - for him.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Its no surprise the lefties here think upholding the constitution is 'radical'.

 

[HomerJS]

Just to clarify...

I'm not suggesting packing the court, in fact quite the opposite. Making it 5 and 5 or some even number with the rule of no deadlocks. If they can't decide the lower court decision stands. (pptain)

To say the court is not partisan ignores reality. Just review Bush v Gore (which ever side you empathize)

Trying to make this a useful discussion without partisan sniping unrelated to the topic.

 

[lothar]

We disagree. Roberts is the same radical the other three are, just with a pretty face. You know, the guy who said he'd never been in the federalist society until evidence showed up - and then oh, ya, he forget. Except he had a ledarship position. Oops. All four of these guys are federalist radicals - there's a reason we have so many 5-4 decisions with the same justice on the same side, because they are at such odds with our judicial status quo and have another agenda.

They do far more harm than any other justices because it's the Supreme Court.

I'd said in 2004 that I felt the Supreme Court nominations alone were important enough to decide the choice of president, and I stand by that.

Seriously, go read a book about Bush's nominees at all levels, that's not a partisan Republican whitewash of them, and see how badly he's done for the country. Look at the few Democrats tried to block.

What do you have to say about Harriet Myers?

 

[Carmen813]

how about we drop it to seven...this should make the righties happy about having less government...right!?

 

[lothar]

how about we drop it to seven...this should make the righties happy about having less government...right!?

Why stop there?
Drop it all the way down to one.

 

[EagleKeeper]

IMO, the court is a very serious problem with the four right-wing radicals. This isn't really a solution though. We need to not put right-wing radicals on the court, not split the parties evenly permanently.

Unfortunately, while presidential elections if we're lucky might be about one or two issues instead of who you'd like to have a beer with, this os one of those issues determined by the election, but not determining the election, and when we get a radical like Bush was or a President otherwise inclined to appoint a radical, that's the kind of nominee we're likely to get.

When the people decide badly, people often rush to change the rules to fix the problem. The President appointed X badly? Let's not let him appoint!

The thing is, the people did not get very involved in the Supreme Court approvals, and did not pressure their Senators to vote no. That's the legitimate democratic way to address this.

If our political system isn't working because the voters are not doing their part, it's hard to see how a rules trying to make up for that in this case is going to improve things.

The question is raised of this bad of justices as these 4 being recalled because they so consistently and so badly rule the same radical way, but it's a very tricky matter that abuses the constitution.

FDR seems to have gotten around it by threatening to expand the court, at a big political cost, after which some of the 'problem' justices seem to have moderated. That's not likely to help here.

We're paying a big price for our bad justices - our nations legal system being altered by the radicals over and over overturnig established law, fitting the Federalist Society agenda.

Maybe they need to replace the 4 left wing radicals also.

If they do not agree with your view point; they must be bad!

 

[Craig234]

What do you have to say about Harriet Myers?

First, I'm not that familiar with her legal qualifiication, so I can't confirm for sure that she's as bad on them as pretty much everyone says.

But here's what seems likely to me and the background:

She was the worst sort of presidential 'insider' personal connection appointment. It's a long sordid story.

Remember how Bush liked Vietnam - for other people to go, and got his father's connections to skip him ahead of 500 people to join the nice safe champagne unit of the national guard?

It's connected, really.

Well, the way trading favors work, the guy who helped get Bush that spot, then-Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, was later a representative of GTech, a company contracted as Texas' lottery company. Now, it was a widespread belief that the company had gotten the contract with bribes and it was a corrupt situation. Bush had run for governor on a position of cleaning that up. Miers had met Bush soe years before and become his private lawyer and friend. Bush appointed her to chair the Texas lottery commission.

The commision hired an investigator who was looking into the GTech corruption - but months in, turns out, it seems Barnes stood to make millions by GTech keeping that contract - and things changed. It seems Bush called in a favor from Miers, and she halted the investigation and got rid of the investigator, and GTech kept the contract. Favor repaid.

Bush knew who did favors for him - and his personal attorneys did just fine. Gonzales, who had helped him cover up his drunk driving arrest in the presidential campaign, was made White House Attorney and later Attorney General, and Harriet Miers was hired as an assistant to the President and replaced Gonzales as White House Counsel.

To her credit, she joined a law firm - and became its president; she became the president of the Texas Bar Association. So despite the personal connections, she may not have been as terrible as some say.

I just don't know. The far right who opposed her may have had their own motivations that were political somehow - or they may have thoght she was terribly unqualified. Why they would care about her but not Thomas... tends to support there was something where she wasn't enough of a right-wing radical. To her credit, when the Bush administration replaced the ABA for evauating nominees withthe Federalist Society, Miers opposed it favoring the ABA. Perhaps that was a 'problem' for the radical right.