The renegade Supreme Court exhibits an over-exercise of power, open contempt for the laws Congress passes, and a heavy partisan tilt. It doesn't have to be this way
I agree. So what if each change of party would further enlarge the court! Who cares. Even if the court grows so large that they need to hold session in Yankee Stadium to be able to seat all the justices. They're a bunch of bright girls and boys and will figure out how to make it work.
I actually think the best approach is rotating terms, including currently seated justices. Start with the most senior justice, and then work down. 18 year terms, with a justice rotating off every 2 years. That justice can have the option to join any of the 13 circuit courts, at no loss in salary. If a justice does not complete the term (due to death, retirement, impeachment, etc) then the President can nominate a replacement, subject to Senate confirmation, to fill out the term, and then go off the court. It might be Constitutional, but the final decision will lie with the current court-- TALK ABOUT CONFLICT OF INTEREST!
So the easiest approach is to expand the court with 4 justices. The legality of that is unquestioned.
Yeah, but the constitutionality of rotating terms is not certain, while setting the number of Justices is an unquestioned power of Congress. And the most frustrating thing is that if rotating terms were implemented, guess who would have a final say as to its Constitutionality? You got it-- the current SCOTUS would get to decide its own fate. Talk about a conflict of interest!
Similarly, Orenstein's proposal to remove certain laws from SCOTUS jurisdiction is probably Constitutional (since the Constitution gives a few specific area for SCOTUS jurisdiction and says the rest are determined by Congress), but again, the current SCOTUS would get to decide, and they're hardly a neutral arbiter.
"unleashing Trump with the ahistorical and bizarre immunity decision that would have left the Framers bewildered that the third branch of government would undermine the first branch of government to create a dictator from the second branch of government."
Without doubt the single most nefarious Court decision in history.
This Extreme Court knowingly unleashed the fascist felon to do his worst in destroying our democracy.
If only we had the congressional numbers to impeach at least one of them and reveal their corruption and self-subjugation to the billionaire oligarchs now running our country.
As bad as the Roberts Star Chamber's decision was to give sweeping immunity to the executive, I think it's Citizens United that may ultimately sink us. It has allowed oligarchs and plutocrats to control information, buy elections, and control our political narrative, forcing politicians of both parties to dance to their tune to one degree or another. The rest is mostly symptom of the rot that comes from that decision.
The only solution to the crime wave started by 47 is to remove the Toadies in Congress. They are co-conspirators in the Fascist takeover. Until that happens there can be no relief from the terrorism.
I taught American Government and for a few. years also Civil Rights as well. I am not shocked by the behavior of Scotus now - it was coming - but disgusted that members of the USSC are destroying the court. The majority do not care - they have power now. - they care not at all about the future.
I agree with everything you say. Given the inventive powers of this court, it is highly likely that the super court of appeals you outline would be declared unconstitutional by them. Instead, leaders and skilled practitioners like you must take the inevitable leadership task of calling for the resignations of the grifters (Roberts, Alito and Thomas) insurrectionists (Thomas and Alito) and perjurer Kavanaugh. A peaceful ,loud and unrelenting campaign will have more effect than the proposed reforms that will probably be struck down by the court being reformed.
This Supreme Court may well be described in the history books as the worst Court America has ever had, because of its poor reasoning and very un-American holdings and the values these reflect. Seven of the nine Justices have some degree of Roman Catholicism in their background (with (five calling themselves practicing Catholics). As a once-faithful adherent to the Church's teachings, I find it hard to comprehend how they square the moral teachings found in the Gospels with how they rule in matters affecting people's lives.
I wasn't impressed much by the new Pope until he said that It was time to realize that sex shouldn't be the moral issue that the Church focuses on, it should focus on peace and justice issues. (Oh, and until he opposed our president.) I'm not quoting him exactly but that was the gist, if I understood him correctly. The Church seems to put obedience and sexual denial at the top of its list of virtues, which doesn't seem very Christ-like.
I totally agree that term limits are needed for SCOTUS. It makes sense to have at least 13 justices when there are 13 circuits. Thanks for the clarity on this topic.
I still find the idea of 13 Justices with term limits very appealing. I favor 13 year terms with the next justice in that slot being the Chief Judge in that respective Circuit stepping into that slot. I favor eliminating presidential appointments wherever possible. This Court will never accept a legislative solution - if they would gut the VRA, they will surely gut Court reform. It is going to need to be through a Constitutional Amendment. To do this we need to light a fire under the high-level Democrats to come up with a true 50 state plan which includes taking majorities in as many state legislatures as we can.
As a simple American citizen, not claiming any qualifications as a legal scholar, I offer for consideration in 1869 with a USA population of 31,443,321 people the court was expanded to 9 seats, one justice for each of the 9 appeals court sections. Today there are 13 appeals court sections but only 9 justices!
The current Population of the USA is 344,023,146 people the court still has only 9 seats! The current population number is more than TEN Times the population of 1869 when the court was expanded!
The ‘what if’ hand wringing over REBALANCING the court is utterly unfounded! Simple math tells us that our democracy cries out for more people on the court in order to properly SERVE the citizens of OUR COUNTRY and to restore the rule of law!
Thank you Norman Ornstein for this piece. I have been arguing for years that Congress should use its authority under the Constitution to restrict the SCOTUS when its acting as an appellette court (most of the time). It is crystal clear the founding fathers did not envision a SCOTUS with this kind of unchecked power.
Republicans in Congress have taught us that ultimately there's no document, not even our cherished Constitution that can protect us from a totally corrupt and immoral political system. The American people are the only ones that can guide us towards a democracy more consistent with what our founders envsioned. If Democrats can regain power they must show the courage to make radical changes to our political system. First stop is elections. Remove the stink of corporate money. No more partisan gerrymandering.
Court reforms, yes. BUT first all Americans of every color, religion and gender need to work together to create a BLACK TSUNAMI of voting this Fall, to take back our power from these racist, misogynistic smug men! Then, we hold onto it for dear life, because failure means the loss of that dear life for generations to come.
Clearly there are good options for improving things. Options without a plan are unlikely to succeed. Planning for significant change will require considering all time scales up to and especially including multi-generational planning. Solid analysis (AI assisted) will be needed.
It is a simple exercise in MS Excel to demonstrate that perfect gerrymandering can assure that less than 40% of the voters can always elect a president. Tools like AI can enable much more robust planning, e.g., a point-by-point practical plan to counter P2025. You can assume that Muck and Thiel are busy planning enhanced transition to authoritarian apartheid rule.
I’ve long advocated expanding the Court to match the number of circuits, and I’m glad to see Ornstein arguing the same. If we create a law that permanently ties the size of the Court to the number of circuits, that could prevent constant expand-the-Court battles. If you want to expand the Court beyond 13, you’d have to create a new circuit, which is more difficult.
I completely agree: all options should be on the table. We need to reform the Court. One option not mentioned, Mr. Ornstein, is a Congress faithful to its oath of office and the attendant responsibilities. There are enough crimes committed by Alito and Thomas to have had them removed from the Court. The corruption should have been investigated, not just by the fourth estate (itself now often an extension of a corrupt executive through its corporate agents), but by Congress. Not being a Constitutional scholar, I don't know whether this move is permitted, but I think it's high time that the Supine Court were held to the same ethics standards as the rest of the judiciary.
If there has to be a court packing war, then bring it on. The alternative is intolerable.
I agree. So what if each change of party would further enlarge the court! Who cares. Even if the court grows so large that they need to hold session in Yankee Stadium to be able to seat all the justices. They're a bunch of bright girls and boys and will figure out how to make it work.
I actually think the best approach is rotating terms, including currently seated justices. Start with the most senior justice, and then work down. 18 year terms, with a justice rotating off every 2 years. That justice can have the option to join any of the 13 circuit courts, at no loss in salary. If a justice does not complete the term (due to death, retirement, impeachment, etc) then the President can nominate a replacement, subject to Senate confirmation, to fill out the term, and then go off the court. It might be Constitutional, but the final decision will lie with the current court-- TALK ABOUT CONFLICT OF INTEREST!
So the easiest approach is to expand the court with 4 justices. The legality of that is unquestioned.
Start the cheer, like in a football game;
PACK THAT COURT!
PACK THAT COURT!
PACK THAT COURT!
PACK THAT COURT!
PACK THAT COURT!
PACK THAT COURT!
rotating sup crt terms could be part of the rewrite
Yeah, but the constitutionality of rotating terms is not certain, while setting the number of Justices is an unquestioned power of Congress. And the most frustrating thing is that if rotating terms were implemented, guess who would have a final say as to its Constitutionality? You got it-- the current SCOTUS would get to decide its own fate. Talk about a conflict of interest!
Similarly, Orenstein's proposal to remove certain laws from SCOTUS jurisdiction is probably Constitutional (since the Constitution gives a few specific area for SCOTUS jurisdiction and says the rest are determined by Congress), but again, the current SCOTUS would get to decide, and they're hardly a neutral arbiter.
part of the rewrite Ivan...
"unleashing Trump with the ahistorical and bizarre immunity decision that would have left the Framers bewildered that the third branch of government would undermine the first branch of government to create a dictator from the second branch of government."
Without doubt the single most nefarious Court decision in history.
This Extreme Court knowingly unleashed the fascist felon to do his worst in destroying our democracy.
If only we had the congressional numbers to impeach at least one of them and reveal their corruption and self-subjugation to the billionaire oligarchs now running our country.
As bad as the Roberts Star Chamber's decision was to give sweeping immunity to the executive, I think it's Citizens United that may ultimately sink us. It has allowed oligarchs and plutocrats to control information, buy elections, and control our political narrative, forcing politicians of both parties to dance to their tune to one degree or another. The rest is mostly symptom of the rot that comes from that decision.
The only solution to the crime wave started by 47 is to remove the Toadies in Congress. They are co-conspirators in the Fascist takeover. Until that happens there can be no relief from the terrorism.
I taught American Government and for a few. years also Civil Rights as well. I am not shocked by the behavior of Scotus now - it was coming - but disgusted that members of the USSC are destroying the court. The majority do not care - they have power now. - they care not at all about the future.
I agree with everything you say. Given the inventive powers of this court, it is highly likely that the super court of appeals you outline would be declared unconstitutional by them. Instead, leaders and skilled practitioners like you must take the inevitable leadership task of calling for the resignations of the grifters (Roberts, Alito and Thomas) insurrectionists (Thomas and Alito) and perjurer Kavanaugh. A peaceful ,loud and unrelenting campaign will have more effect than the proposed reforms that will probably be struck down by the court being reformed.
amy uncumley also lied in her confirmation hearing
This Supreme Court may well be described in the history books as the worst Court America has ever had, because of its poor reasoning and very un-American holdings and the values these reflect. Seven of the nine Justices have some degree of Roman Catholicism in their background (with (five calling themselves practicing Catholics). As a once-faithful adherent to the Church's teachings, I find it hard to comprehend how they square the moral teachings found in the Gospels with how they rule in matters affecting people's lives.
Catholics LOVE rules, I know I used to be one, I notice a lot of hard nosers are Catholic...bill oreilly sean hannity laura ingram and more
I wasn't impressed much by the new Pope until he said that It was time to realize that sex shouldn't be the moral issue that the Church focuses on, it should focus on peace and justice issues. (Oh, and until he opposed our president.) I'm not quoting him exactly but that was the gist, if I understood him correctly. The Church seems to put obedience and sexual denial at the top of its list of virtues, which doesn't seem very Christ-like.
I totally agree that term limits are needed for SCOTUS. It makes sense to have at least 13 justices when there are 13 circuits. Thanks for the clarity on this topic.
term limits are needed for everyone who is elected in the New America constitution
I still find the idea of 13 Justices with term limits very appealing. I favor 13 year terms with the next justice in that slot being the Chief Judge in that respective Circuit stepping into that slot. I favor eliminating presidential appointments wherever possible. This Court will never accept a legislative solution - if they would gut the VRA, they will surely gut Court reform. It is going to need to be through a Constitutional Amendment. To do this we need to light a fire under the high-level Democrats to come up with a true 50 state plan which includes taking majorities in as many state legislatures as we can.
I like your concept, but I am doubtful we could get thirty-seven States to agree to the amendment.
As a simple American citizen, not claiming any qualifications as a legal scholar, I offer for consideration in 1869 with a USA population of 31,443,321 people the court was expanded to 9 seats, one justice for each of the 9 appeals court sections. Today there are 13 appeals court sections but only 9 justices!
The current Population of the USA is 344,023,146 people the court still has only 9 seats! The current population number is more than TEN Times the population of 1869 when the court was expanded!
The ‘what if’ hand wringing over REBALANCING the court is utterly unfounded! Simple math tells us that our democracy cries out for more people on the court in order to properly SERVE the citizens of OUR COUNTRY and to restore the rule of law!
There is no such thing as a simple American citizen Louis. You are part of a great experiment in self gov.
Still waiting for Thomas. and Alito recusal motions......
And waiting, and waiting, and...!
Don't hold your breath!
Thank you Norman Ornstein for this piece. I have been arguing for years that Congress should use its authority under the Constitution to restrict the SCOTUS when its acting as an appellette court (most of the time). It is crystal clear the founding fathers did not envision a SCOTUS with this kind of unchecked power.
Republicans in Congress have taught us that ultimately there's no document, not even our cherished Constitution that can protect us from a totally corrupt and immoral political system. The American people are the only ones that can guide us towards a democracy more consistent with what our founders envsioned. If Democrats can regain power they must show the courage to make radical changes to our political system. First stop is elections. Remove the stink of corporate money. No more partisan gerrymandering.
Court reforms, yes. BUT first all Americans of every color, religion and gender need to work together to create a BLACK TSUNAMI of voting this Fall, to take back our power from these racist, misogynistic smug men! Then, we hold onto it for dear life, because failure means the loss of that dear life for generations to come.
Big money needs to be removed from American politics immediately.
Nothing else will recover our democracy and if big money remains in politics.
Nothing
Clearly there are good options for improving things. Options without a plan are unlikely to succeed. Planning for significant change will require considering all time scales up to and especially including multi-generational planning. Solid analysis (AI assisted) will be needed.
It is a simple exercise in MS Excel to demonstrate that perfect gerrymandering can assure that less than 40% of the voters can always elect a president. Tools like AI can enable much more robust planning, e.g., a point-by-point practical plan to counter P2025. You can assume that Muck and Thiel are busy planning enhanced transition to authoritarian apartheid rule.
I’ve long advocated expanding the Court to match the number of circuits, and I’m glad to see Ornstein arguing the same. If we create a law that permanently ties the size of the Court to the number of circuits, that could prevent constant expand-the-Court battles. If you want to expand the Court beyond 13, you’d have to create a new circuit, which is more difficult.
I completely agree: all options should be on the table. We need to reform the Court. One option not mentioned, Mr. Ornstein, is a Congress faithful to its oath of office and the attendant responsibilities. There are enough crimes committed by Alito and Thomas to have had them removed from the Court. The corruption should have been investigated, not just by the fourth estate (itself now often an extension of a corrupt executive through its corporate agents), but by Congress. Not being a Constitutional scholar, I don't know whether this move is permitted, but I think it's high time that the Supine Court were held to the same ethics standards as the rest of the judiciary.