Democrats to introduce legislation to expand Supreme Court

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/14/democrats-supreme-court-481640

by koolba • 5 years ago

22 36 5 years ago

politico.com

xploit• 5 years ago

Wow, 13 is just enough to give the democrats a majority on the court. Interesting.

jessaustin• 5 years ago

This sort of thing might split the Union, so I completely support it.

minikites6• 5 years ago

The Supreme Court is an extremely political institution and it's nice to see the Democrats finally realize this. If the court had been 6-3 in favor of the Democrats, Republicans would have done this years ago.

rileymat2• 5 years ago

It is impossible to know, but I suspect the Garland nomination is the key factor that made this politically palatable.

In this hypothetical scenario we don’t know what precipitated the 6-3 majority.

WannaFly• 5 years ago

Yeah extremely political with bias to Democrat, realize it? Supreme Court is biggest friend of Democrats because everything it does Unconstitutional.

cm21873• 5 years ago

If the court had been 6-3 in favor of the Democrats, Republicans would have done this years ago.

History suggests the opposite. The only attempt was a democrat one.

https://www.weblinenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/supre...

emodendroket6• 5 years ago

Warren Court aside, the Supreme Court is typically more useful for conservative ends.

cm21873• 5 years ago

So the supreme court will become a parliament. In a sense it is the logical consequence of it shifting to making laws rather than enforcing the compliance to the constitution.

But that's also the death of a counter-power. And this should not be taken lightly. If you can take it over, the other side can too.

diegoholiveira• 5 years ago

So the supreme court will become a parliament.

It already is.

minikites6• 5 years ago

If you can take it over, the other side can too.

The Republicans already have. Remember Merrick Garland?

emodendroket6• 5 years ago

The whole notion of judicial review was from its conception a political tool.

cm21873• 5 years ago

My limited understanding of the history is that until recently (I think probably the 80s), supreme court judges were confirmed at a near unanimity. But then the supreme court decided to use the constitution as a tool to make changes that should be the realm of congress. And logically, appointment to the court became highly politicized.

MikeUt4• 5 years ago

the first legislation in recent years designed to add seats to the high court

The article bizarrely does not qualify "recent", but that's an understatement, to say the least. The court has been at 9 justices since 1869, and the most recent unsuccessful attempt to change it was in 1937. If successful, this would be the first change in size in 152 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_St...

cochne• 5 years ago

I think we can all agree the current Supreme Court system is broken. It is completely based on 1) during what term a judge happens to die in. 2) wether the party controlling the senate will grant the president his constitutional right to appoint a judge. (So even if a judge dies before the term is over, they can just say nah let’s wait for the next guy)

Adding more judges would help a little because the random affect of a judge dying is smaller, though it’s still not a good long term fix.

minikites6• 5 years ago

A reasonable idea I've seen floated: Each presidential term gets exactly one new "seat" and the size of the court fluctuates between these additions and justices retiring. There's no reason it needs to be a fixed size.

spiritplumber• 5 years ago

It needs to be an odd number.

helsinkiandrew• 5 years ago

Is the problem that the wording of the constitution is so old its interpretation is so dependent on the political and personal leanings of the judges?

emodendroket6• 5 years ago

Judicial review was dreamt up by nervous federalists looking for a way to tie Jefferson’s hands. It is not so much a matter of it being unable to keep up as people not necessarily finding it desirable for it to work as designed anymore.

MikeUt4• 5 years ago

wether the party controlling the senate will grant the president his constitutional right to appoint a judge

The president only has a right to nominate a judge. He needs the consent of the senate to appoint one. If the senate does not consent, no rights are being denied.

happytoexplain• 5 years ago

Yes, but that's not what happened in the salient case - they didn't say they believed the nominated judge was unsuitable and turned them down. They said it was inappropriate to even look at a nomination "so close" to the end of the president's term (an entire year).

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would consider any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president

TakuYam• 5 years ago

I find this schtick to be incredibly shortsighted at best and stupid at worst.

If the Dems do this now, it gives the GOP cover to do the exact same thing in 4-8 years and the whole process will be repeated ad nauseam.

pupppet• 5 years ago

Too late for playing fair, the GOP threw down the gauntlet when they rammed through as many senators as they could on Trump's watch.

minikites6• 5 years ago

Exactly. Republicans realize politics is about attaining, preserving, and exerting power and they're mad that the Democrats are finally starting to figure this out after 40+ years.

taylodl• 5 years ago

If Biden "isn't a fan" of the idea then this legislation is DOA. There's better things reform can look at, starting with term limits. Lifetime appointments may have made sense in the 18th century, but now it doesn't make so much sense. Especially given the trend of appointing younger justices. I would suggest a 20 year term.

I would also suggest a Senate supermajority should be able to remove a justice at any time, without incurring the process of impeachment. If you can get 2/3 of the U.S. Senate to agree on anything then it must be something seriously impacting the country.

Finally, there needs to be the concept of a quorum. If enough justices aren't able to hear a case due to term expiration or reclusion, then the court can't hear the case at that time.

As always, the Devil is in the details.

Democrats to introduce legislation to expand Supreme Court

Related Stories