• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

SCOTUS getting a makeover?

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
5,772
693
126

I guess it didn't take the Big Guy long to start in with changing the Supreme Court. Since VP Harris has the border running like a fine Swiss watch, Biden can concentrate on the important things.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,979
3,479
126
I think we should reform the terms so that, in essence, each Presidential term results in one seat filled in the SCOTUS.

Make it so not voting on them results in automatic approval of the nominee. Unless they are voted down by 6 months.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba

MrSquished

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2013
9,644
5,498
136
Nothing will happen. It is a sad fact that 5 of 6 R appointed judges were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote and who were confirmed by Senators representing around 40% of the population.

We are being ruled by a regressive minority of people of which most have simply not evolved properly and never will.
 

Lost_in_the_HTTP

Platinum Member
Nov 17, 2019
2,336
1,311
96
Three main things need to happen:

Term limits.

The ability to overturn SCOTUS rulings, though there would have to be a high bar to do it.

A defined process for consideration and confirmation, not subject to partisan hankerings.

--------

Across the Judiciary, we need the ability to remove Judges who are unfit or consistently make bad rulings.
 

Shamrock

Golden Member
Oct 11, 1999
1,204
220
106
I think they should also be elected, not appointed. Why not? The other 2 branches of Gov't are elected.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
27,627
4,672
126
I think they should also be elected, not appointed. Why not? The other 2 branches of Gov't are elected.
National popular vote for each one?

I mean I like the idea but you are going to end up with a supreme court filled with celebrity judges.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,408
10,278
136
I'd like to see staggered terms for SCOTUS seats such that in any four year term of an executive two seats come up. All SCOTUS nominations must be voted on in 60 days if they clear the judiciary committee or not otherwise they are automatically confirmed. If a seat is left empty a lottery is held and an appeals court judge appointed by the executive's party is automatically appointed to finish the term.

Other suggested constitutional renovations 1) abolish the electoral college 2) permanently float the house seat count based on population 3) explicit 50 vote threshold for all legislation and confirmations in the Senate 4) permanent ban on partisan gerrymandering.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
26,395
11,606
136
Nothing will happen. It is a sad fact that 5 of 6 R appointed judges were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote and who were confirmed by Senators representing around 40% of the population.

We are being ruled by a regressive minority of people of which most have simply not evolved properly and never will.
You and your salient points for the OP to ignore.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
26,395
11,606
136

I guess it didn't take the Big Guy long to start in with changing the Supreme Court. Since VP Harris has the border running like a fine Swiss watch, Biden can concentrate on the important things.
Important things like the border is more important then the pandemic? At least according to you people ;)

Every right in the country is effected by the vote. Republicans managed to get the 65 Voting Rights stripped by this SC and that hardens minority rule. It needs to be corrected. There would be less of an apatite for this if Mitch didn't steal Obama's SC pick. That was a real steal not Trump losing the election.
 

Zorba

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 1999
8,987
2,971
136
I think we should reform the terms so that, in essence, each Presidential term results in one seat filled in the SCOTUS.

Make it so not voting on them results in automatic approval of the nominee. Unless they are voted down by 6 months.
I mostly agree, except I'd expand to 11, with a 22 year term, so a new one in the first and third year of each president. If there is an off cycle opening the replacement only serves the remainder of the original term.

And I agree, failure to deny in x amount of time is an approval.
 

GodisanAtheist

Platinum Member
Nov 16, 2006
2,986
1,470
136
Could the supreme court use some basic reforms and updates that don't involve "packing" to elevate the institution above the political fray and cement some even handed rules? Yes.

Is this all just a political pipe dream and pissing into a hurricane? Also yes.
 

Lost_in_the_HTTP

Platinum Member
Nov 17, 2019
2,336
1,311
96
A thought. Fundamentally change the structure. Eliminate it as it currently is.

Increase the seats to 13, one for each Circuit. Rotate Circuit Judges in and out every X years, or maybe every SC Session. If a case comes up that a Circuit Judge has already ruled on, that Judge would be recused from that case by law. When the SC is not in session, the Circuit Judges could return to cases in their own Circuit.
 

crashtech

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2013
9,722
1,566
126
Nothing will happen. It is a sad fact that 5 of 6 R appointed judges were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote and who were confirmed by Senators representing around 40% of the population.

We are being ruled by a regressive minority of people of which most have simply not evolved properly and never will.
Here we have dislike of appointed judges.
dear god fuck no. No judge anywhere should ever be elected. Ever.

that is the dumbest fucking "thought" anyone can have. Talk about corrupting justice.
And here we have dislike of elected judges.

I'm pleased to see that some dissent can still exist within acceptable boundaries.
My own opinion is that appointed judges are more free from capricious and ideological influences. As to an earlier comment about overturning Supreme Court rulings, only the Supreme Court itself can do that. I wonder what secular authority one might place above the Supremes to interpret law in the US?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zinfamous

ASK THE COMMUNITY