Expanding the court to 13 would match the number of federal court circuits, but why stop there? Remove life appointments, rotate the position of Chief Justice every three years, and have a documented and enforceable code of ethics.
Yes, this is not the time for false dichotomy. Several reforms need to be carried out for the reasons Contrarian makes clear. And, if Democrats are too timid, too worried about a Republican hissy fit, we should remind them consistently to stop acting like the abused partner. Republicans got us into this mess and keep it going. It’s called making an argument like Ossoff is so skillfully doing & which Dems seem to have forgotten how to do. If they can’t or won’t explain the obvious, then they don’t deserve to serve let alone be in the majority.
Democrats should learn to expect a Republican "hissy fit" if they do anything! Democrats need to learn to shrug their shoulders and say, "What can expect from a bunch of angry two years olds?" Then, they need to prove and confirm the fact that Democrats actually know how govern in a democracy. Republicans are no longer capable of doing it.
Right, Hal. If you can read seriously the rulings of this SC majority & still blame Dems, that’s too bad. The shadow docket, where nothing is public, nothing is explained, only simply decided, is only one example. The bias of the Heritage six is blindingly obvious. The so-called ‘originallists’ have often gone beyond the Constitution & precedent. The oligarchs, with much help from McConnell, have worked hard to stack the court. Dems on the hand, don’t want a stacked court, they want a balanced court that -surprise! - would be accountable, fair minded, and representative of democratic principles.
Because people who respect & value democratic government, knowing that it is meant to serve all, not just a certain powerful few, do government better. Those who hate democratic government should not be put in charge of it. Maybe one good thing to come out of this mess will be that more American voters will take governance & voting more seriously.
That last one --an enforceable code of ethics -- may be the surest, quickest way to solve our current crisis. How long do you think it would be before several justices -- think Thomas and Alito -- got caught with their fingers in the cookie jar?
I hope that in that ethics code there will be a stipulation that any work (paid or otherwise) a post-SCOTUS justice might do, would avoid conflict-of-interests issues or face consequences. We’ve seen how ex-Senators become lobbyists, and their biased work in the Senate lays the groundwork for them to make $$$$.
Great idea. Hadn't thought of that but it makes total sense. And also stop ex-Senators from becoming lobbyists while they're at it. What crooked system!
I think the deal is that while they would no longer be a justice on the Supreme Court, they would still be judges available to other courts because of the lifetime appointment thing in the Constitution. They would essentially be kicked upstairs.
They could work as regular lawyers like they did when they first got their degrees. Probably wouldn't need to though since they've got so much money pocketed by then anyway.
One would think that having risen to the highest court in the land, the appointees would at the very least be well acquainted with the Constitution and have a reputation for personal and professional integrity. This MAGA crowd doesn't even believe in the rule of law, appears to have no familiarity with the Constitution, and obviously has zero integrity. It makes one wonder how they ever earned a law degree in the first place.
Unfortunately this applies to too many JDs lawyering for corporations and certain other entities. Did they learn in law school how to circumvent the law as well as how (and when) to obey it? I'm not sure. Possibly it was the post-grad temptation of a six-figure salary with stock options.
I believe they know full well what they are doing — even Amy C. Barrett. I do empathize with her that her family has been threatened as a result of a past decision: djt calling her out specifically and then referencing her family reminded me of January 6th — and no one said anything to him.
Our Country must wake up: I’m sorry — but the war isn’t in Normandy any longer..
None of the points mentioned in the comme t and in the column will need constitutional ammendment. Where in the constitution does it say any of thesevare prohibited?
It doesn't. The Democrats have been working hard to formulate this plan and I read that Jeffries has put Jamie Raskin in charge of executing it in the next session which is good new for us, bad news for corrupt justices. Raskin is probably the leading constitutional scholar in congress and he's really kick ass!
Yes, it must. It was “never allowed”. Similar to our current administration, some of the justices behave as if they’re in the wild west. Their disregard for the Constitution and for standing case law suggests arrogance, ignorance, immaturity, and a lack of appreciation for cultural norms and mores, writ large. Congressional action is needed: measured and clear actions of taking the Court in hand and purposefully guiding a return to accountability are needed. We cannot wait until everything is perfected: mistakes will be made. It’s how we will then navigate those situations together — without folding, falling on a sword, or failing to address the needed course correction of a rogue group that is supporting a Coup of the United States of America.
A 13 Justice Court is long overdue because, as you mention, that's the number of circuits. It really doesn't even qualify as reform. The only real reform we need is an enforceable code of ethics.
If we retake the Senate, Democratic leadership has to be ready to make it clear that as of January 2027 it's too close to the next Presidential election to replace any Justices. McConnell opened the door and we should probably close it in 2028 but, even though they clearly don't agree, Republic don't get to play by a different ser of rules.
Agreed! I'm not sure whether increasing the number of justices or putting term limits in place would work better so maybe doing both would increase the chances of our actually having a SUPREME court once again. And ethics should be a no-brainer!! I love the idea of rotating the position of Chief Justice! Why didn't I think of that?
"Expanding the court to 13 would match the number of federal court circuits, but why stop there?"
Congress could just as easily return to nine federal circuit courts or reduce SCOTUS to perhaps seven or even five seats, but why stop there?
"Remove life appointments, rotate the position of Chief Justice every three years, and have a documented and enforceable code of ethics."
The biggest reason for life tenure was stability, and the only legal way to remove them is by impeachment. That's a good thing. As for some "enforceable code of ethics", let's start with whomever leaked the Dobbs decision, especially if the leaker was one of the Justices themselves.
"Demand Justice urges Congress to keep expansion as a viable option, observing that the “most persuasive argument in favor of expansion is the aggressive approach of the Court itself: the right-wing majority will continue to dramatically remake the law to favor the oligarchy.”
It's hard to admit that we are, indeed, an oligarchy, and not by accident.
Not only Citizens United, but the execrable "presidential immunity" decision that this Extreme Court handed over to our fascist felon leader has proven beyond any doubt that court reform is mandatory if we want to remain a Democratic Republic.
I see more and more people supporting the idea of term limits and SCOTUS expansion, mostly because they have nakedly demonstrated their partisan, corrupt leanings.
Look in the mirror, Justice Roberts, if you want to know why so many people have lost faith in your branch of government!
The drop dead date [pun intended] for Mitch to finally show himself is September 14th when his vote will be crucial to the republicans if they hope to pass another round of farm bailouts in committee.
Exactly. If he's still alive, may he be suffering the torments of a guilty conscience for the destruction his "leadership" has wrought on the nation. Or if dead, may he be installed in the hell of Sartre's "No Exit" with the appropriate roommates.
I think they will roll him into his voting locale in a wheelchair and have his attendant guide his dead hand to make his voting selections, then wheel him out and drive him to the cemetery where his open grave awaits him.
Absolutely agree that McConnell's office needs to be more forthcoming about his health - what's going on now is absolutely inexcusable. In the case of Biden, so-called "journalists" such as Jen Rubin deliberately ignored signs of Biden's failing mental health for his entire term. Even after watching the June debate, Jen was more concerned about Trump's lying than Biden's obvious cognitive decline.
Another great Jen column. Increasing the Supreme Court is a MUST if we don't want another half-assed attempt to topple our democracy. We're lucky that, as much damage Trump and his goons have done, they're too stupid, shortsighted, and greedy to have ruined the great American Experiment. We should also try to get the votes to make D.C. and PR states. While we're at it, abolish the Electoral College. There is a statewide movement already afoot for that, and it won't take many more states to sign on to make it happen. And finally, when Democrats take back control, they need to codify voting rights, Roe, and other key issues. Oh, and speaking of SCOTUS, I almost forgot—we need to go after the corrupt members of the court and impeach and/or arrest them. If we're going to fascism-proof our country, let's just go all the way.
Yes,yes, & yes. There’s so much to be done but Dems, if they’re allowed to win, if we are allowed to vote, must make clear WHY they’re doing said reforms. Typical Dem action - bringing tea & crumpets to a knife fight - simply will not do. Jeffries meeting with Kushner is not a good sign but it is another sign that Dems will have to think & act differently. (And need new leadership? The Clinton era is long past) Voters don’t want appeasement, they want action.
You are so right. No more harshly worded letters. Those accomplish nothing. We need to get out the sledgehammer and fix things. When we start giving the power back to the people, it could establish Democratic rule for decades. Because the Republicans have no policies except to enrich themselves and their donors. They literally care about NOTHING else. For too long, they've thrown up smokescreens like abortion, gay rights, the transgender community, taking away guns, etc., to fool their voters. Now they're trying to conflate socialism with communism. Big difference. Lindsey Graham's first impresssion of Trump was right on—if they made him president, he would ruin their party, and they will have deserved it.
Appeasement works about as well in international deal-making as it does in the domestic arena. In short, it doesn't. What it does is practically beg for more concessions, which is a loss for the cause.
“We're lucky that, as much damage Trump and his goons have done, they're too stupid, shortsighted, and greedy to have ruined the great American Experiment. “
Bingo. I keep reminding myself of that. Every day I thank the Universe these bozos couldn’t pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel. 1930’s Nazis are laughing themselves silly in hell watching this clown show screw up everything they touch.
Passing Move to Amend would be good too: a constitutional amendment that might actually pass. It says simply "Corporations are not people and money is not speech." That would nuke the entire justification for Citizens United.
I'm totally on board with that. Citizens United might be ground zero for the mess we're in, unless you count Mitch McConnell's theft of two SCOTUS seats.
Abolishing the Electoral College WOULD take a a Constitutional amendment, though the workaround that's being state-proposed is circomventing the problem. Codify is the word! We have left too many points supported by agreements, traditions, and honorable behavior. We have seen all three thown in our collective faces. As for disciplining Justices of the Court - I'm all in favor.
Agreed. Our country ran on so many unspoken rules and norms that no one—not even previous Republican presidents—ever challenged. Trump is that rare breed with no conscience or concern for norms or laws, written or unwritten. We've got to codify everything so SCOTUS, or at least six of its members, can keep their mits off it. And for that matter, we've got to fundamentally alter SCOTUS.
Lifetime appointments create too much job security and present too much time for the unscrupulous to get their mitts on the Justices. Term limits with rotation back to other federal courts is a good idea. The supreme court also needs to follow the ethics rules that all other federal employees do; these rules should not be selective. Considering a couple of the appointees lied in their confirmation hearings and involved in graft, they need to be investigated and impeached.
All other courts have codes of ethics. It's appalling that the highest court is the only one that doesn't. Accepting any outside gifts or donations should be totally banned. So should speaking at partisan events of any type. And justices should be required to recuse themselves if they've done business or have ties with a litigant and they should not be the ones making the decision about whether those ties are significant enough to require recusal — an outside panel should do that.
Yes yes and yes. SCOTUS, Inc. will continue to dismantle our democracy until We the People demand that it be unpacked. This corrupted court needs to be expanded immediately or nothing Dems do (if we are lucky enough to get out of this mess) will pass the muster of CFO John Roberts and his corrupt brethren on the court.
James Clyburn is hardly anyone's idea of a lefty, but when even moderate stalwarts like him are calling for SCOTUS expansion, it shows how much traction this issue has gained. And the Roberts court has only itself to blame. Their abuse of the shadow docket to allow Trump to do things no other president has done is, by itself, sufficient reason to rebalance the court. Ex, it was through the shadow docket that the MAGA justices allowed Trump to bypass Due Process and quickly ship migrant detainees to third countries, including to hell holes like CECOT and to war zones.
Court expansion is just one element of court reform that's desperately needed since the current court has proven itself unwilling to police its own ethical and financial problems and never shows to congress the same deference it gives to the executive branch. Court reform is coming. Like a freight train. I'd LOVE to see Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse on The Contrarian talking about why its needed and what should be done.
Historians, notably Heather Cox Richardson, generally favor expanding the Supreme Court. Their arguments for doing so are persuasive. We’ve certainly seen the damage to democracy with the status quo.
Yes. I think states need to be urgently formulating a plan to deliver ballots that does not involve the USPS. City workers? Amazon vans? Door Dash drivers? There are other ways to move pieces of paper around.
Maybe it would be as simple as mailing the ballots in plain envelopes so the USPS can't identify them as ballots.
The whole issue is election meddling and voter tamepering. Why it hasn't been scratched as an illegal act is beyond reason. Who is doing it should be immaterial.
Because the Republicans in Congress are afraid to speak up. Senator Blumenthal, who broke the story on the whistleblower regarding what the USPS has been doing, should start a filibuster to stop the Senate from doing any work, and hold the floor until the Court does the right thing and declare what the USPS is doing is unconstitutional.
Something that bears considering in Supreme Court reform is removing the grandeur of being a Supreme Court Justice. Since federal judges have lifetime tenure, a justice doesn't need to necessarily be termed out of office completely. We can rotate federal appellate court justices in and out of the Supreme Court. So, you are a federal appellate judge. You do five years in the 5th Circuit, then five years at the Supreme Court, then five years in the 4th circuit, and so on and so forth.
That is a lot of moving around. But, the military does it as do other kinds of jobs. If you are serious about the law and not caught up in the political and egotistical aspects of the Supreme Court you will do this. Put the emphasis back on the law.
I absolutely agree. For quite a while now I have insisted that if the majorities and President are Democratic, the first order of business is appointing 4 progressive Justices and re-litigating the worst decisions, such as Citizens United, Presidential Immunity, and Roe. Republicans will squeel, but they created the disaster and must be ignored. Building a new and better country can only happen with voiding of the current corrupt Court.
Dem candidates must state boldly what they want done. In specific terms. We need to know exactly what we are voting for. No one now wants more of the same old same old. Establish dems might actually have to do some bold things for a change.
Pete Buttigieg had Supreme Court reform, abolition of Citizens United and the Electoral College and elimination of gerrymandering in his 2019-20 Presidential Campaign platform and discusses them constantly in his many media appearances today.
I agree with Robert Hubbell’s analysis pushing to 21 or more. 13 is still asking for trouble if there is a slim majority and one liberal justice (who actually believes in the Constitution!!) gets sick or injured. We need to take back our country from these sycophantic so-called justices, and reverse the mountain of corrupt and unconstitutional decisions.
My concern at the moment is that Justice Thomas, and possibly Justice Alito, will resign while Trump still has a majority in the Senate, so Trump can pick a young, unqualified, reactionary or two to replace them. That is one of the problems with lifetime appointments - an unscrupulous President can control the makeup of the court long after leaving office.
If Thomas and Alito are smart they will step down to allow Trump to pick two more justices. But they will not if Trump tries to force them out, and I wouldn't blame them.
Expanding the court to 13 would match the number of federal court circuits, but why stop there? Remove life appointments, rotate the position of Chief Justice every three years, and have a documented and enforceable code of ethics.
Yes, this is not the time for false dichotomy. Several reforms need to be carried out for the reasons Contrarian makes clear. And, if Democrats are too timid, too worried about a Republican hissy fit, we should remind them consistently to stop acting like the abused partner. Republicans got us into this mess and keep it going. It’s called making an argument like Ossoff is so skillfully doing & which Dems seem to have forgotten how to do. If they can’t or won’t explain the obvious, then they don’t deserve to serve let alone be in the majority.
Democrats should learn to expect a Republican "hissy fit" if they do anything! Democrats need to learn to shrug their shoulders and say, "What can expect from a bunch of angry two years olds?" Then, they need to prove and confirm the fact that Democrats actually know how govern in a democracy. Republicans are no longer capable of doing it.
"Democrats should learn to expect a Republican "hissy fit" if they do anything!"
The ones having the "hissy fit" right now are the Dems. The Court doesn't vote the way they like, so they'll just reconfigure the Court until it does.
Right, Hal. If you can read seriously the rulings of this SC majority & still blame Dems, that’s too bad. The shadow docket, where nothing is public, nothing is explained, only simply decided, is only one example. The bias of the Heritage six is blindingly obvious. The so-called ‘originallists’ have often gone beyond the Constitution & precedent. The oligarchs, with much help from McConnell, have worked hard to stack the court. Dems on the hand, don’t want a stacked court, they want a balanced court that -surprise! - would be accountable, fair minded, and representative of democratic principles.
Because people who respect & value democratic government, knowing that it is meant to serve all, not just a certain powerful few, do government better. Those who hate democratic government should not be put in charge of it. Maybe one good thing to come out of this mess will be that more American voters will take governance & voting more seriously.
You can add Pete Buttigieg to the stand Ossoff is also taking.
Buttigieg had Supreme Court reform in his 2019-20 Presidential Campaign platform. Ossoff is not in favor of it.
Had not read that about Ossoff. If he’s re-elected he, hopefully, will find himself in the minority of Dems & reconsider.
That last one --an enforceable code of ethics -- may be the surest, quickest way to solve our current crisis. How long do you think it would be before several justices -- think Thomas and Alito -- got caught with their fingers in the cookie jar?
It would also be the easiest to enact, IMO.
I hope that in that ethics code there will be a stipulation that any work (paid or otherwise) a post-SCOTUS justice might do, would avoid conflict-of-interests issues or face consequences. We’ve seen how ex-Senators become lobbyists, and their biased work in the Senate lays the groundwork for them to make $$$$.
Great idea. Hadn't thought of that but it makes total sense. And also stop ex-Senators from becoming lobbyists while they're at it. What crooked system!
I think the deal is that while they would no longer be a justice on the Supreme Court, they would still be judges available to other courts because of the lifetime appointment thing in the Constitution. They would essentially be kicked upstairs.
They could work as regular lawyers like they did when they first got their degrees. Probably wouldn't need to though since they've got so much money pocketed by then anyway.
Or how quickly would they resign because the cookie jar would no longer be available to them without impeachment consequences?
They already have been so about zero days.
That would require a Constitutional amendment. I'm in favor though.
The code of ethics wouldn't. It's really bizarre that supreme court justices can openly take bribes. That needs to stop.
One would think that having risen to the highest court in the land, the appointees would at the very least be well acquainted with the Constitution and have a reputation for personal and professional integrity. This MAGA crowd doesn't even believe in the rule of law, appears to have no familiarity with the Constitution, and obviously has zero integrity. It makes one wonder how they ever earned a law degree in the first place.
Unfortunately this applies to too many JDs lawyering for corporations and certain other entities. Did they learn in law school how to circumvent the law as well as how (and when) to obey it? I'm not sure. Possibly it was the post-grad temptation of a six-figure salary with stock options.
I believe they know full well what they are doing — even Amy C. Barrett. I do empathize with her that her family has been threatened as a result of a past decision: djt calling her out specifically and then referencing her family reminded me of January 6th — and no one said anything to him.
Our Country must wake up: I’m sorry — but the war isn’t in Normandy any longer..
None of the points mentioned in the comme t and in the column will need constitutional ammendment. Where in the constitution does it say any of thesevare prohibited?
It doesn't. The Democrats have been working hard to formulate this plan and I read that Jeffries has put Jamie Raskin in charge of executing it in the next session which is good new for us, bad news for corrupt justices. Raskin is probably the leading constitutional scholar in congress and he's really kick ass!
It is the only court without a code of ethics.
Yes, it must. It was “never allowed”. Similar to our current administration, some of the justices behave as if they’re in the wild west. Their disregard for the Constitution and for standing case law suggests arrogance, ignorance, immaturity, and a lack of appreciation for cultural norms and mores, writ large. Congressional action is needed: measured and clear actions of taking the Court in hand and purposefully guiding a return to accountability are needed. We cannot wait until everything is perfected: mistakes will be made. It’s how we will then navigate those situations together — without folding, falling on a sword, or failing to address the needed course correction of a rogue group that is supporting a Coup of the United States of America.
No it would not! Read the article.
I like the addition of rotating chiefs, maybe to 1/2 of the Supreme Court’s term limit?
@Elvi
Probably deepsixed. Anyone who appears now claiming to be Mitch is an imposter.
A 13 Justice Court is long overdue because, as you mention, that's the number of circuits. It really doesn't even qualify as reform. The only real reform we need is an enforceable code of ethics.
If we retake the Senate, Democratic leadership has to be ready to make it clear that as of January 2027 it's too close to the next Presidential election to replace any Justices. McConnell opened the door and we should probably close it in 2028 but, even though they clearly don't agree, Republic don't get to play by a different ser of rules.
Agreed! I'm not sure whether increasing the number of justices or putting term limits in place would work better so maybe doing both would increase the chances of our actually having a SUPREME court once again. And ethics should be a no-brainer!! I love the idea of rotating the position of Chief Justice! Why didn't I think of that?
Democrats aren't proposing either/or: their plan has four different aspects.
Yous are all great ideas for working democracy to protect all citizens.
Agreed!
"Expanding the court to 13 would match the number of federal court circuits, but why stop there?"
Congress could just as easily return to nine federal circuit courts or reduce SCOTUS to perhaps seven or even five seats, but why stop there?
"Remove life appointments, rotate the position of Chief Justice every three years, and have a documented and enforceable code of ethics."
The biggest reason for life tenure was stability, and the only legal way to remove them is by impeachment. That's a good thing. As for some "enforceable code of ethics", let's start with whomever leaked the Dobbs decision, especially if the leaker was one of the Justices themselves.
Agree but increase to 15 and give the nation - the court - some breathing space.
That reminds me — where’s Mitch?
"Demand Justice urges Congress to keep expansion as a viable option, observing that the “most persuasive argument in favor of expansion is the aggressive approach of the Court itself: the right-wing majority will continue to dramatically remake the law to favor the oligarchy.”
It's hard to admit that we are, indeed, an oligarchy, and not by accident.
Not only Citizens United, but the execrable "presidential immunity" decision that this Extreme Court handed over to our fascist felon leader has proven beyond any doubt that court reform is mandatory if we want to remain a Democratic Republic.
I see more and more people supporting the idea of term limits and SCOTUS expansion, mostly because they have nakedly demonstrated their partisan, corrupt leanings.
Look in the mirror, Justice Roberts, if you want to know why so many people have lost faith in your branch of government!
The drop dead date [pun intended] for Mitch to finally show himself is September 14th when his vote will be crucial to the republicans if they hope to pass another round of farm bailouts in committee.
Thanks for the info!
Exactly. If he's still alive, may he be suffering the torments of a guilty conscience for the destruction his "leadership" has wrought on the nation. Or if dead, may he be installed in the hell of Sartre's "No Exit" with the appropriate roommates.
I think they will roll him into his voting locale in a wheelchair and have his attendant guide his dead hand to make his voting selections, then wheel him out and drive him to the cemetery where his open grave awaits him.
Still dead, unless proven otherwise. 😏
Who cares? The Republicans are down a vote as long as he's gone.
who cares ?? He's out of the senate ...tying up a seat and not able to vote , since one must be present to vote
The Repubs are playing the same game Dems did with Biden by not telling us the truth about his health. This will come back to bite them.
This is a lot worse than the lack of candor about Biden. Biden did not disappear with no convincing proof of life for 12 weeks and counting.
Absolutely agree that McConnell's office needs to be more forthcoming about his health - what's going on now is absolutely inexcusable. In the case of Biden, so-called "journalists" such as Jen Rubin deliberately ignored signs of Biden's failing mental health for his entire term. Even after watching the June debate, Jen was more concerned about Trump's lying than Biden's obvious cognitive decline.
Another great Jen column. Increasing the Supreme Court is a MUST if we don't want another half-assed attempt to topple our democracy. We're lucky that, as much damage Trump and his goons have done, they're too stupid, shortsighted, and greedy to have ruined the great American Experiment. We should also try to get the votes to make D.C. and PR states. While we're at it, abolish the Electoral College. There is a statewide movement already afoot for that, and it won't take many more states to sign on to make it happen. And finally, when Democrats take back control, they need to codify voting rights, Roe, and other key issues. Oh, and speaking of SCOTUS, I almost forgot—we need to go after the corrupt members of the court and impeach and/or arrest them. If we're going to fascism-proof our country, let's just go all the way.
Yes,yes, & yes. There’s so much to be done but Dems, if they’re allowed to win, if we are allowed to vote, must make clear WHY they’re doing said reforms. Typical Dem action - bringing tea & crumpets to a knife fight - simply will not do. Jeffries meeting with Kushner is not a good sign but it is another sign that Dems will have to think & act differently. (And need new leadership? The Clinton era is long past) Voters don’t want appeasement, they want action.
Yes, new leadership absolutely necessary! Get rid of Schumer and Jeffries ASAP.
You are so right. No more harshly worded letters. Those accomplish nothing. We need to get out the sledgehammer and fix things. When we start giving the power back to the people, it could establish Democratic rule for decades. Because the Republicans have no policies except to enrich themselves and their donors. They literally care about NOTHING else. For too long, they've thrown up smokescreens like abortion, gay rights, the transgender community, taking away guns, etc., to fool their voters. Now they're trying to conflate socialism with communism. Big difference. Lindsey Graham's first impresssion of Trump was right on—if they made him president, he would ruin their party, and they will have deserved it.
Appeasement works about as well in international deal-making as it does in the domestic arena. In short, it doesn't. What it does is practically beg for more concessions, which is a loss for the cause.
“We're lucky that, as much damage Trump and his goons have done, they're too stupid, shortsighted, and greedy to have ruined the great American Experiment. “
Bingo. I keep reminding myself of that. Every day I thank the Universe these bozos couldn’t pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel. 1930’s Nazis are laughing themselves silly in hell watching this clown show screw up everything they touch.
Passing Move to Amend would be good too: a constitutional amendment that might actually pass. It says simply "Corporations are not people and money is not speech." That would nuke the entire justification for Citizens United.
I'm totally on board with that. Citizens United might be ground zero for the mess we're in, unless you count Mitch McConnell's theft of two SCOTUS seats.
Abolishing the Electoral College WOULD take a a Constitutional amendment, though the workaround that's being state-proposed is circomventing the problem. Codify is the word! We have left too many points supported by agreements, traditions, and honorable behavior. We have seen all three thown in our collective faces. As for disciplining Justices of the Court - I'm all in favor.
Agreed. Our country ran on so many unspoken rules and norms that no one—not even previous Republican presidents—ever challenged. Trump is that rare breed with no conscience or concern for norms or laws, written or unwritten. We've got to codify everything so SCOTUS, or at least six of its members, can keep their mits off it. And for that matter, we've got to fundamentally alter SCOTUS.
Lifetime appointments create too much job security and present too much time for the unscrupulous to get their mitts on the Justices. Term limits with rotation back to other federal courts is a good idea. The supreme court also needs to follow the ethics rules that all other federal employees do; these rules should not be selective. Considering a couple of the appointees lied in their confirmation hearings and involved in graft, they need to be investigated and impeached.
All other courts have codes of ethics. It's appalling that the highest court is the only one that doesn't. Accepting any outside gifts or donations should be totally banned. So should speaking at partisan events of any type. And justices should be required to recuse themselves if they've done business or have ties with a litigant and they should not be the ones making the decision about whether those ties are significant enough to require recusal — an outside panel should do that.
Yes yes and yes. SCOTUS, Inc. will continue to dismantle our democracy until We the People demand that it be unpacked. This corrupted court needs to be expanded immediately or nothing Dems do (if we are lucky enough to get out of this mess) will pass the muster of CFO John Roberts and his corrupt brethren on the court.
Court reform, like defunding ICE is a must, thank you.
How can the courts defund ICE? Last I looked, appropriations were up to Congress.
Right. Two issues that both need to be Congressional priorities. Congress can address both, with a majority that care about the rule of law.
And such a majority, "that care[s] about the rule of law," would be a welcome relief to what's going on now. May it be so!
James Clyburn is hardly anyone's idea of a lefty, but when even moderate stalwarts like him are calling for SCOTUS expansion, it shows how much traction this issue has gained. And the Roberts court has only itself to blame. Their abuse of the shadow docket to allow Trump to do things no other president has done is, by itself, sufficient reason to rebalance the court. Ex, it was through the shadow docket that the MAGA justices allowed Trump to bypass Due Process and quickly ship migrant detainees to third countries, including to hell holes like CECOT and to war zones.
Court expansion is just one element of court reform that's desperately needed since the current court has proven itself unwilling to police its own ethical and financial problems and never shows to congress the same deference it gives to the executive branch. Court reform is coming. Like a freight train. I'd LOVE to see Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse on The Contrarian talking about why its needed and what should be done.
I’d like to see Whitehouse on the court!
Same!
Historians, notably Heather Cox Richardson, generally favor expanding the Supreme Court. Their arguments for doing so are persuasive. We’ve certainly seen the damage to democracy with the status quo.
If the Court approves Trump's plan to allow the USPS to determine who can vote, then it will be too late; democracy will die on that day.
I'll volunteer to go pick up and deliver ballots if we need to circumvent the postal system.
Yes. I think states need to be urgently formulating a plan to deliver ballots that does not involve the USPS. City workers? Amazon vans? Door Dash drivers? There are other ways to move pieces of paper around.
Maybe it would be as simple as mailing the ballots in plain envelopes so the USPS can't identify them as ballots.
It won't, believe me. It will make voters angrier and more determined.
The whole issue is election meddling and voter tamepering. Why it hasn't been scratched as an illegal act is beyond reason. Who is doing it should be immaterial.
Because the Republicans in Congress are afraid to speak up. Senator Blumenthal, who broke the story on the whistleblower regarding what the USPS has been doing, should start a filibuster to stop the Senate from doing any work, and hold the floor until the Court does the right thing and declare what the USPS is doing is unconstitutional.
Your relentless positivity braces me every morning. I’m so glad you are younger than me.👍
Something that bears considering in Supreme Court reform is removing the grandeur of being a Supreme Court Justice. Since federal judges have lifetime tenure, a justice doesn't need to necessarily be termed out of office completely. We can rotate federal appellate court justices in and out of the Supreme Court. So, you are a federal appellate judge. You do five years in the 5th Circuit, then five years at the Supreme Court, then five years in the 4th circuit, and so on and so forth.
That is a lot of moving around. But, the military does it as do other kinds of jobs. If you are serious about the law and not caught up in the political and egotistical aspects of the Supreme Court you will do this. Put the emphasis back on the law.
That's actually not a bad idea!!!
I absolutely agree. For quite a while now I have insisted that if the majorities and President are Democratic, the first order of business is appointing 4 progressive Justices and re-litigating the worst decisions, such as Citizens United, Presidential Immunity, and Roe. Republicans will squeel, but they created the disaster and must be ignored. Building a new and better country can only happen with voiding of the current corrupt Court.
This is an absolute priority.
Dem candidates must state boldly what they want done. In specific terms. We need to know exactly what we are voting for. No one now wants more of the same old same old. Establish dems might actually have to do some bold things for a change.
Pete Buttigieg had Supreme Court reform, abolition of Citizens United and the Electoral College and elimination of gerrymandering in his 2019-20 Presidential Campaign platform and discusses them constantly in his many media appearances today.
I agree with Robert Hubbell’s analysis pushing to 21 or more. 13 is still asking for trouble if there is a slim majority and one liberal justice (who actually believes in the Constitution!!) gets sick or injured. We need to take back our country from these sycophantic so-called justices, and reverse the mountain of corrupt and unconstitutional decisions.
Agree, 9 is too few people deciding critical issues. 13 is still too few.
Yes, I agree with expansion to 21.
if you have too many, would nothing ever be decided ?
The only alternative for curing this badly diseased Supreme Court would be very aggressive impeachments of the corrupt Federalist Society Injustices.
My concern at the moment is that Justice Thomas, and possibly Justice Alito, will resign while Trump still has a majority in the Senate, so Trump can pick a young, unqualified, reactionary or two to replace them. That is one of the problems with lifetime appointments - an unscrupulous President can control the makeup of the court long after leaving office.
It's not just the president. Look at what Mitch McConnell and his lackies lumbered us with!
True that. Trump would have had one nominee, not three, if McConnell had not run roughshod over fairness and custom.
If Thomas and Alito are smart they will step down to allow Trump to pick two more justices. But they will not if Trump tries to force them out, and I wouldn't blame them.
It's getting pretty late for that.