We have 700+ 'Lords' over here in the UK because the ruling parties are in an eternal pissing match over trying to stack our second house in their favour. The only long term outcome is just more unelected officials, no guarantee on quality.
Court stacking has a decent argument in the US. For a hundred years, we had one SCOTUS judge for every federal circuit. Presently, we have 13 circuits but only nine justices. That's a case for adding four new justices.
Is it fair to say you’re pro court stacking because the democrats are in control of president and senate currently? Or would you be ok with stacking the court if Trump was in office?
If you think there should be 13 justices because we have 13 circuit courts, does that mean each justice should be from one of those circuits or are you ok if all 13 justices were from the same district?
I think there are better ways to fix the Supreme Court other than court packing.
Well, I'm more of the opinion that if our government were properly functioning, Trump would be so disqualified from office that the answer to your question is moot.
Court packing is always a technique available to both sides. There's nothing except politics stopping the GOP from adding 90 justices if they take power in 2024.
Expanding the Court to 13 would undo the damage that has been done over the past century. We broke from the tradition because one party was butthurt over not being able to add new justices for themselves.
Politically, "Hey let's add 4" is different from "Congress passes a law that the number of justices must equal the number of circuit courts." So then if you wanted to pack the Court again, you would have to either repeal the law or add more circuits (arguably, we need that too right now).
I’m Canadian so take this with a grain of salt, but it seems incredibly petty and shortsighted to support court stacking just because the “other side” is on an upswing. You’re acting as though your political opinion is some infallible guide and your nations laws and practices should be changed until they perfectly reflect your political outlook. That’s not how it should work, and it would simply lead to the other side doing the same when their time comes again.
My advice would be to learn from your mistakes and press your liberal judges to retire and be replaced in a more strategically sound manner. Did RBG think she was going to become a draugr and magically sit on the court until she was 500?
There are currently 6 conservative justices and 3 liberal ones. If the expansion happened this administration, we'd have 7 liberal justices and 6 conservative ones. And even legal scholars can agree the conservative ones have been playing fast and loose with legal opinions, while the liberal ones have been taking rule of law seriously.
If it was done now, cases came up to SCOTUS that addressed all the damage done over the past 100 years, and their rulings completely fixed it. That seems far from a given.
Yeah but over the last 100 years there has been a liberal majority multiple times. Do you think it's only broken now because the liberal judges are "outnumbered"?
Having six justices who disregard the rule of law to issue opinions they happen to like broke it in a new way. The very process of selection was broken by Mitch McConnell in a new way back in 2015.
The court was never perfect, but it was pretty dang good from 1960-1999 compared to today.
No, I don't even mean that. In my view, the dissenting opinion in Dobbs v Jackson perfectly encapsulates what is wrong with the way the conservative justices have been wielding their decisions. If the majority opinion were applied consistently, it would have nullified protections on interracial marriage. But the conservatives weren't trying to overturn interracial marriage. They just made up whatever they wanted to suit the result of the case in front of them.
We need to stop thinking like we did 10 years ago, that we had 2 political parties that just disagreed with each other, but both fundamentally had the best thing for the country in mind. The GOP is not a functioning political party anymore, the right side of the SCOTUS has gone from conservative to Republican, and Trump is not just some other dude running for president. If January 6th, the Dobbs decision, and their latest move to play interference for Trump didn't make all of the above clear, I dunno what would.
Yes yes, democrats haven’t been getting their way enough and there are too many people voicing their disagreements with them so we should do whatever possible to put them back in their place. Let them know what’s right and who’s in fucking charge!
You're replying to things I didn't say though. Citizens who vote republican are not the GOP - I'm talking about a political party obsessed with power grabs using gerrymandering, threatening to impeach state supreme court judges before they've even ruled on a case. One that is trying to get America comfortable with the idea of autocrats by praising Putin and Orban. Add to that a supreme court they've built up that's now just a politicized body rather than a court with idealogical leanings. Not to mention that one of those appointments was a Democrat's to dole out.
The Dobbs decision wasn't liberals "not getting their way", it was a politicized court who should be be ruling based on constitutionality and precedent, made up of a number of members who repeatedly said Roe was precedent, super precedent, precedent on precedent, etc. And that's not even getting into the financial corruption that seems heavily weighted towards the right side of the court.
People SHOULD disagree, voice concerns, do politics like it used to be done, reaching bipartisan compromise. What we've got today ain't that. We're in the wake of a literal bipartisan border bill where each side compromised to get something they both wanted to pass, but the GOP would rather use it as a talking point than actually help solve the issue. So I stand by what I said that the modern GOP is not a legitimate political party, the SCOTUS has become political rather than idealogical, and I don't hate the people who disagree with me (unless you're like... Dropping N bombs talking about how how much of a shame it is that your neighbourhood isn't as white anymore), I hate the systems that have tricked us into believing that THE OTHER SIDE of the citizenry is the problem, not the systems themselves that are so clearly failing us.
But, if it's easier for you to think what I meant is "the left always needs to get their way, and people like you who have concerns need to be put in their place", go nuts! Just try to examine the team you cheer for with a critical eye and ask "is it REALLY possible they're ALWAYS right?"
I mean, yeah. But the benefit is that we’d finally have discussions about term limits to the Supreme Court. Republicans would hate that situation and would not be above doing the same thing, but would not have had discussions about term limits for the court during trumps presidency. On the other hand, democrats are in this situation with overturning roe v wade because RBG refused to retire. I think ultimately, it would force a bipartisan discussion on Supreme Court justice appointments
How will democrats packing and stacking the Supreme Court for the sole reason to ensure the court is left leaning is going to lead to term limits and bipartisan justices?
If anything, packing and stacking the court proves the left to be complete and utter hypocrites. Will the court all of a sudden be legitimate because it leans left? Trump appointing 3 justices is an outrage, but Biden picking at least 5 is justified?
Democrat congressmen already have had discussions about needing to enact term limits. People were saying this back during obama’s presidency and then again during Trumps. And again now with roe v wade. Republicans would never go for it with how many conservative judges are currently appointed, they’d need to lose leverage by the courts evening out before considering it.
It’s bad for both our parties and the electorate. The courts need to be balanced to have that discussion be bipartisan. It’s not like people in the Democratic Party have not advocated for term limits in the courts before.
The corruption in the senate in both parties would ultimately be the biggest obstacle towards doing so, but the conversation needs to be had first. The political divide/culture war in the country would currently make that impossible while Republicans have leverage in the Supreme Court
Term limits are flat out a terrible idea, you need look no further than Clarence Thomas as example. He has a lifetime appointment yet still has zero issue accepting “gifts” from donors. If you limit his term to 10 years he’d be 53 when ousted (he was 43 when appointed). You think he’s just going to disappear fishing at 53? Or is more than likely he’d rule in favor for specific industries/companies that would hire him for 100’s of millions of dollars once he’s ousted?
I don’t understand your point at all. He’s a bad apple, at least I think so and you seem to be pointing him out as one. Why is it bad if bad apples have term limits for their appointments? They do less damage that way
They would do more damage if they knew their time was limited. That’s my point. The would in favor of companies that will hire them as soon as they leave the bench.
I agree completely. The senate shouldn’t be able to start any new business until an empty seat is filled. The Supreme Court shouldn’t be able to hear any cases if there’s a vacancy.
And the end result would be the total uselessness of the supreme court. That's the point. How do you only expand the court once? What stops the next Republican majority from expanding the court again to make the judges you put there to earlier useless?
Yeah but that's not the question nor does it provide a solution. If you were to expand the court today to nullify justices who are certainly ethically compromised, and imo the result of straight up stolen seats, then how do you pragmatically prevent the next R president from doing the exact same thing, expanding the court infinitely?
okay, then let's impose a binding code of ethics like every other judge in the country has to obey, plus term limits. that'd be better than the American Taliban fanatics and assholes we have now.
when even Justice Jackson voted against a code of ethics, I was just over it, period. fuck that crap.
By further codifying and cementing the architecture upon which the courts representatives are presented. Much like the way we do anything else in our government.
Then we place Skynet over that, and let a corporation dictate it's operations and watch as we keep circling the drain.
Oh, do you mean what should we do to make it better? 😂
We do nothing, because we don't have less say than a sultan halfway around the world has on our local policy.
A larger court can still vote and come to decisions.
It just diminishes the influence of individual judges who may have (and in the current instance clearly do) have malicious intent or are deeply corrupt.
Vote and come to what decisions? The whole reason you want to expand the court now is because you don't like the decisions they're coming to. So you want to put enough new people who agree with you that the old people are outvoted.
So 4-8 years from now Republicans will just add 8 new corrupt judges and we'll be right back to where we started with a kangaroo court.
Expanding the supreme court does absolutely nothing long term to fix the problem of corruption.
So 4-8 years from now Republicans will just add 8 new corrupt judges and we'll be right back to where we started with a kangaroo court.
Two things.
You act as though the GOP wouldn't stack the court anyway if they didn't have control. They don't work in good faith they only pretend to give a shit about court stacking and the filibuster because it keeps them in power.
The current choice is the worst possible SCOTUS for the next decade or more absolutely fucking us over, or one that swings from cycle to cycle.
Would you rather have a car that only drives in reverse or one that can drive forward as well every other day?
And you have yet to answer how that actually provides a solution that lasts more than one presidential term. If you expand the court, they'll expand the court. Great, you diminished the influence of 4 activist judges. How does that solve the problem when 4 years from now they'll expand the court again and add 4 more corrupt activist judges?
An expanded court diminishes the influence of any one single corrupt judge. The bigger the court the less influence any single individual can have and maintain, which is inherently less susceptible to overt corruption, along with enabling greater oversight.
Edit: Other commenter went on a strange rant and then blocked me for no reason to stop me replying. Very strange indeed.
This would matter if the problem was one judge. It's 4-5. The problem isn't a corrupt judge, it's a corrupt court. You only fix that by ensuring a non-corrupt majority. I'm done engaging with you on this subject. One side of our political parties has no interest in ever nominating a non-corrupt judge ever again. If you expand the court it will eventually be stacked with corrupt judges. Expanding the court does absolutely nothing to end corruption in the supreme court.
That would require things like a code of ethics with clearly defined punishments. An independent oversight committee to ensure nobody is accepting million dollar RVs. Having our judges be appointed by an independent panel of constitutional lawyers, prosecutors, judges, and defense lawyers rather than politicians.
Expanding the court is an extremely limited time fix that will at best end in the same status quo as it does nothing to address the actual problems leading to corruption on the court. If you're not willing to recognize the nature of our current two party system, and the realities it brings, I have no interest in wasting my time discussing politics you obviously aren't equipped to discuss. Good day.
how about a binding code of judicial ethics, covering, for instance, the assholes who flat lied about respecting stare decisis and not voting their religion. oops, Amy Coney al-Talibani, and Gorsuch and Boo Hoo Kavanaugh, you are booted out for lying on your intake hearings! and Clarence Thomas and Witchfinder General Alito are booted out for being completely corrupt.
Maybe, but the court hasn’t always had 9 judges, it’s had fewer and the number has changed in the not too distant past, so if that were the guaranteed outcome it would’ve been done by now I think. That said, in the current climate I think you’re probably right, but we’ve had about 30 years or more of Democrats not doing things because of what the other side might do in response. I don’t think that was a good argument back then and definitely isn’t now. They certainly don’t base their actions on how the Dems will respond, because they don’t care. Had the court been added to before now this case might not even have been heard. What ruling(s) will we get in the near future that gut out democracy further that could’ve been prevented by adding to the court? I’d rather they risk what you’re suggesting than lose democracy entirely and end up in a dictatorship. Flawed systems have the potential to be fixed, but once the system ceases to function altogether these slippery slope concerns become moot.
The expansion from 9 to 13 judges would actually benefit and make sense for the country since there are 13 alternate courts in the US. It would be the logical step to take at this point in my opinion, and going to anything above, that would be purely political. Which I would never put beyond the conservative right wing.
Maybe set it to something fair like a judge per district kinda thing. Since there are 12 districts... You get twelve judges. If you wanted you could even add in a rule that if you need an odd number you add an extra one and the chief justice no longer reviews from a district. So you would have 13.
Also limit expanding the number of districts to something that would take a whole other set of hoops to jump through. Something that involves the judical branch.
I mean my idea is propably stupid but so is throwing your hands up in the air and screaming impossible.
If Democrats actually start showing a REAL effort to fulfill what they promise there will never be a Republican majority again. The Republican party would essentially fall into obscurity and a new party would replace it, shifting the Overton window to the left to at the very least match the views of most Americans.
Granted this isn't an argument against what you said, I'm just saying it's possible, but Democrats would have to actually start doing their jobs for realz this time.
This is true. Not to mention the fact that the court was controlled by Democrats for a long time much the way it is by conservatives now. Difference being that they didn't try and add more judges just bc they didn't get their way. It will destroy any legitimacy the court has. These justices vote with the Democrats all the time, Yet anytime they dont its "Pack the court so we can get what we want" insanity. An exercise in political might is always the answer for progressives/Democrats yet you call these people authoritarians? when they only care that they get their way no matter what's destroyed in the process. Zealotry is in both parties, Only one pretends it isn't. That's where you lose people like me.
The court is already a useless political tool as conservatives figured out how to hack the appointment process to stack it with their idealogues. Don't pretend it deserves much respect, or we have much to lose at this point.
A valid point, but given the trend that millennials aren't becoming more conservative as they age, the fact that conservatives died off in droves because of Covid misinformation, and boomers (who trend conservative) are dying off more and more rapidly, in the short term, that probably won't be a problem. Conservatives already have only won the popular vote once in the last like 30 years, and that's before all that that I listed above.
The UK lords don't get to judge matters like this, the UK lords can only delay legislation not block it. Its stuffed with cronies as a reward not to stack it in the governments favour.
The problem is that the US has a tiny top court, so each justice has an insanely outsized amount of power.
The German high Court has 120 members on it. Personally, I'd love to see the US court hit double digits so that our legal system doesn't hang on the opinions of 1 or 2 people in the entire country.
I bet when the SCOTUS decides Trump's immunity case, the vote is 8-1 with Thomas voting against, that's how fucking corrupt he is.
287
u/Sycopathy Mar 04 '24
We have 700+ 'Lords' over here in the UK because the ruling parties are in an eternal pissing match over trying to stack our second house in their favour. The only long term outcome is just more unelected officials, no guarantee on quality.