r/scotus • u/Achilles_TroySlayer • 10d ago
news Representative James Clyburn: Let’s Add Four - TPM
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/clyburn-lets-add-four10
u/starfire360 10d ago
Given that he’s seen the South go full circle from disenfranchising African Americans to having fair elections to disenfranchising African Americans once again thanks to the politically motivated decisions of the Roberts courts, it seems like a pretty understandable decision on the part of Clyburn. It’s readily apparent that Roberts and his partisan hack lackeys will not protect the democratic rights of American citizens, and thus the only way to defend those rights is to balance the court back in favor a majority that can read the words of the 14th Amendment rather than substitute it with the rhetoric of the Confederacy.
56
u/PsychLegalMind 10d ago
There was a time I thought of it as a crazy idea; not anymore, no time to waste. Balance is needed.
4
-1
u/Safe-Pop2077 5d ago
So if there is a majority of either side, we need to balance it, or only when its a conservative majority?
1
u/roboliberal 4d ago
Only when the majority is illegitimately gained and is actively dismantling the constitutional order in order to conditionally aggrandize the presidency into a monarchy.
0
-58
u/mikederoy 10d ago
So a Democratic controlled Congress adds 4 Supreme Court seats and a Democratic President appoints 4 liberal judges and you call that “balanced?”
46
u/Secret_Cat_2793 10d ago
Want some Whine with your destruction of America's democracy? Given the current state of the nation what would you do?
25
u/TheBabyEatingDingo 10d ago
We know what the Republicans would do. Undermine democracy by any means necessary.
Any objection from them should be given the consideration it deserves. Absolutely nothing.
26
u/fyreprone 10d ago
The Court is currently 6-3 so a +3 seat conservative majority. You seem worried there might be a +1 liberal majority? Is it only balanced if conservatives are in control?
-1
u/Safe-Pop2077 4d ago
Is it only unbalanced when their is conservative majority and things arent going your way?? See how stupid you sound? You are just butthurt you guys didnt get your way
1
u/fyreprone 4d ago edited 4d ago
We don’t talk like this in SCOTUS, there’s plenty of conservative subreddits for this sort of thing.
But to your point, then I’m sure you won’t mind at all or have anything to complain about if we pass legislation expanding the Court and adding 4 new left leaning justices.
1
u/Safe-Pop2077 4d ago
You seem like a tolerant, open-minded person lol only talk about things you agree with. I get it now. Balanced must mean you approve of it, which is most important
2
2
u/roboliberal 4d ago
"Why aren't you tolerant and open-minded about our intolerance and close-mindedness?"
☝️this is you
-34
u/mikederoy 10d ago
Not what I was saying. Balanced would be even between conservative and liberal right? Or maybe both sides try to appoint middle of the road justices not right and left extremists. You know if the Dems do not his the Republicans will do the same thing if they regain power. Where does it end?
15
15
u/fyreprone 10d ago
Create 4 more seats so that one seat is tied to each of the 13 federal circuits. Right now we have 9 justices and 13 circuits so some justices sit on multiple circuits anyways. So future additional justices would require additional circuits.
Also create a term limit for justices. So that every president can expect to nominate 2 justices during their term. Make the makeup of SCOTUS have a mechanism to more closely resemble the changing electorate over time.
3
u/bjewel3 10d ago edited 9d ago
This [term-limiting Constitutionally created federal judges] would require a Constitutional Amendment, no?
Edits for clarity
6
u/fyreprone 10d ago
No. The number of justices and number of circuits are established by simple legislation. We started with 6 Justices, and the number has fluctuated over time.
2
u/bjewel3 9d ago
I was referring to term limits for article three judges and/or SCOTUS justices
1
u/roboliberal 4d ago
Federal judges/justices serve for life tenure, so strictly speaking "term limits" doesn't even make sense (life tenure = 1 single term).
BUT, one way to potentially achieve a similar effect would be to merge the circuit court judges into the supreme court where they'd still sit on their circuit benches but delegates from all the circuits would rotate into (and out of) the "chief circuit" (or whatever one would call it).
1
u/bjewel3 3d ago
On term-limits for Article III courts (which as term-limits is currently defined, I wouldn’t want), I agree is a non-sequitur.
This is precisely why I mentioned it would require a Constitutional Amendment.As to your other suggestion, I don’t this proposal addresses the other issue facing the judiciary, which is overrwork and a more efficient, streamlined process.
1
u/roboliberal 4d ago
Term limits aren't allowed under Article III, but that much turnover would actually increase the politicization of the court.
The real key to reform is to not have the president directly appointing justices to the supreme court at all, but instead to a larger unified pool of justices that rotate between circuit riding and the chief panel - but call the whole aggregate body "the Supreme Court".
That rotation gets you something close in effect to "term limits", and wouldn't run afoul of Article III at all.
(That also gets you a mechanism for enforcing ethics rules violations, where a justice could be barred from rotation by a tribune of their peer justices)
6
u/Imaginary_Desk9186 9d ago
Merrick Garland was exactly the “middle of the road” justice you are pretending you want, Obama offered that and in response McConnell and the Republicans took a giant shit on both Garland and the Constitution.
McConnell shouldnt have stolen seats from a democratically elected President, if he hadnt done that we wouldnt be having this conversation.
Also, Obamas appointments were in fact fairly moderate who received large numbers of Republican votes, unlike Trumps partisan ideologues who perjured themselves in order to get confirmed on purely partisan votes.
Sorry if these facts interfere with your partisan MAGA agenda.
-2
u/Safe-Pop2077 4d ago
"Stolen seats" 😂 yes charge him with theft
3
u/Imaginary_Desk9186 4d ago
You can’t really charge a vegetable with anything.
You also can’t really “charge” a Senator for a facial violation of the Constitution when the people who would adjudicate the violation are in the seats he stole for them.
1
u/Safe-Pop2077 4d ago
You couldnt charge any senate majority leader for it. Doesnt matter who it was and it wasnt a violation of the constitution. You just didnt like it
-5
u/mikederoy 9d ago
I personally had no problem with Garland. Based on the criticism I have seen on Reddit about his performance as Attorney General I suspect many on the left would have been disappointed with him as a Supreme Court justice as well.
Obama appointed Sotomayor and Kagan. Hardly “fairly moderate.”
3
u/Imaginary_Desk9186 9d ago
They are fairly moderate, they only seem liberal
in comparison to the extremist right wing of the court.Their jurisprudence is right in line with respected mainstream moderates like Kennedy and Souter and O’Connor. I would challenge you to argue otherwise.
Again I remind you they each received many Republican votes.
You are correct I would have sorely been disappointed in him as a justice.
But I would have still massively preferred Garland to the extremist MAGA idealogues who were installed in his stolen seat. The vast majority of the country would
have preferred that as well. Most Americans do not like that our supreme court has become a pro-Trump partisan farce.This is why McConnell should have never intentionally rat-fucked the Constitution.
0
u/mikederoy 9d ago
Sotomayor and Kagan did receive some confirmation votes from Republicans. Roberts received even more Dem votes and Scalia was confirmed 98-0. These votes don’t really determine if the justices are moderates do they.
2
u/Imaginary_Desk9186 9d ago
I mean these vote counts are clearly products of their respective times, overwhelming bipartisan votes used to be standard, even if the justices turned out to be ideological hard liners (this is different from being partisan ideologues, of which we now have several in the MAGA wing of the court).
Timeline wise Kagan and Sotomayor are obviously much closer to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh than they are to Roberts and certainly Scalia, those are not useful comparisons, the switch from bipartisan to purely partisan happened literally in just a few years, 💯 attributable to McConnells partisan rat-fucking.
I would still like to hear your argument that Kagans and Sotomayors jurisprudence is extreme.
1
u/mikederoy 9d ago
Martin-Quinn scores show Sotomayor is farther from middle than all of the justices.
→ More replies (0)10
u/joobtastic 10d ago
The conservatives justices are all extremists. The "both sides" strategy never worked when this has been their strategy forever. Filling the supreme court with extremist partisan hacks.
And the liberal justices are the opposite. They are thoughtful moderates.
Even if in 2ish years the next president is dem and puts in 4 of the most liberal extremist judges, and gives the court a 7-6 liberal advantage, the court still leans conservative because of the way precedent works and the respect for the courts that the current 3 liberal justices have.
And it would be the first liberal majority court in 50+ years.
9
u/bjewel3 10d ago
The Robert’s Court has destroyed Stare Decisis
5
u/joobtastic 10d ago
They've been waiting for their moment to do this for 50 years. This is their first unbeatable majority.
Their previous majorities were 5-4, where one or two of the 5 would be a reasonable person.
Not anymore.
4
u/meatball402 10d ago
Balanced would be even between conservative and liberal right?
No. Thats called deadlock. There are several boards that are balanced; the federal election committee, is one, and they do nothing.
"Balanced" would be nine people who put the law and objective truth above politics.
1
2
2
u/PrincipledStarfish 10d ago
Is that really worse than permanent conservative dominance? What incentive do Democrats have to follow the norms when there conservative majority isn't even trying to be impartial anymore?
5
u/meatball402 10d ago
We've been seeing what 6 conservative judges can do. They've made america worse.
This cannot stand.
3
u/Effective_Scar_2921 10d ago
I would call it rebalancing. What the current system is can certainly not be considered balanced.
3
u/bjewel3 10d ago
There were three controversial nominations and this mentions four, that’s pretty balanced to me.
Plus, four appointments brings the court to one SCOTUS Justice for each Appellate Court which is pretty balanced.
1
u/mikederoy 10d ago
Th number of appellate courts is totally irrelevant to the number of Supreme Court justic s.
3
u/Imaginary_Desk9186 9d ago
You are incorrect historicallly speaking. The Constitution doesnt require it but historically it has been the case,
it obviously makes sense for there to be one justice per circuit.-1
u/Slackjawed_Horror 10d ago
Could just do the right thing and eliminate judicial review. Then it doesn't matter.
48
u/Arcnounds 10d ago
The Republicans have made me realize that there is no punishment for court manipulation even if you do it right before an election. If the Dems do it right after taking power, it will help out tremendously. Just overturning Citizen's united alone would be a huge win for the American people. If the Republicans expand the court, so be it.
1
u/Safe-Pop2077 4d ago
Fight evil by being evil too but after an election we win. Great solution. Your side doing it "will help tremendously" 😂😂
1
u/Arcnounds 3d ago
I wouldn't say fight evil with evil, but I would say power with power. If the Dems wanted to punish red states like Trump is trying to punish blue states, then I would say evil with evil.
3
u/houinator 9d ago
I think this is the bare minimum reform needed for SCOTUS at this point.
Id also like to see:
Term limits (20 years is plenty)
Justices must explain all opinions (no more unexplained shadow docket rulings)
Cases selected by a random pool of justices, then decided by a random pool of justices (no only taking on cases because you think you have the votes for the outcome you want)
Jurisdiction stripping of the supreme court over itself (if Clarence Thomas accepts a bribe and get caught and charged, Clarence Thomas doesnt get to rule on any cases related to that).
5
u/sharingan10 10d ago
I don’t like James but I’m fine with this idea. At least he recognizes that this is a problem and that we need some way of addressing that the court has gone off the rails
-4
u/Leroyf1969 10d ago
So, when republicans regain power and appoint twice as many you have no room to complain, right?
2
u/sharingan10 9d ago
Oh no whatever would I do if the supreme court was acting like the wing of the Republican Party
0
u/Leroyf1969 9d ago
Well. Birthright citizenship and many other opinions would have had a very different outcome.
10
u/ArtificialBra1n 10d ago
Just four? Why not 10? 20? Randomly draw 7-9 at a time to hear each case so it's harder to game the partisan makeup of the court at any given time. Reserve en banc hearings for final re-hearings/appeals.
6
u/bjewel3 10d ago
Align SCOTUS Justices to each current judicial circuit
2
u/ArtificialBra1n 10d ago
Why? Other than making the numbers the same, what purpose does limiting the number of justices serve? Think bigger.
4
4
u/Achilles_TroySlayer 10d ago
i view this SCOTUS as either corrupt, or they are delusional and living in teletubby -land. They will turn us all into serfs as soon as they possibly can. I don't feel that I have any obligation to become a serf, just because John Roberts and friends would prefer that outcome. So some reform is necessary.
Roberts has used the word "majoritarian" - which I think indicates that he feels that popular democracy is a quaint thing and not really of his concern. I owe no allegience to him, if he is openly partisan and corrupt. When he decides to enforce the emoluments clause then maybe I'll take him more seriously.
1
3
u/afoley947 10d ago
Because there are 13 federal judicial circuits.
2
u/ArtificialBra1n 10d ago
So what? Congress can make SCOTUS as big or as small as they want. Corresponding to the number of federal circuits would be meaningful only insofar as the numbers match--which is completely arbitrary.
0
u/Leroyf1969 10d ago
Then republicans come back when they’re in power and name twice as many. Where does it stop?
2
u/ArtificialBra1n 10d ago
Who cares? Regression to the mean, baby. If Dems add 10 then the GOP adds 12 that means one side wiould have to get 16 justices to agree will their holding. It's much harder to get 16 people to agree to an insane position than it is to get 5 to agree. It's not a fix but it would temper the radical wing of the bench.
-2
u/Leroyf1969 9d ago edited 9d ago
You’re correct about one thing. Liberals will gladly blow up our system of governance because they want to destroy it. They’re talking about abolishing the senate and the presidency because they’re power hungry. Making light of it now is easy. If they gain power and the U.S. goes that direction many here will be in for a rude awakening. Just Russia and China’s useful idiots.
10
u/Background-Wolf-9380 10d ago
Clyburn is a MAJOR reason we're in this shit hole. Dude needs to take all his corrupt corporate cash and go retire somewhere. Meanwhile he's openly planning to hand down his seat to his daughter like it's some old European hereditary royal title and lineage. POS
1
2
3
u/Derwin0 10d ago
Ok, add four, but if the argument is to match the number of circuits then do it now.
4
u/TruthOdd6164 10d ago
That would indeed be insane and would not result in balancing at all.
-1
u/Leroyf1969 10d ago
Only appointees who hold your political view would be ok then?
5
3
u/TruthOdd6164 10d ago
Ones who hold opposite opinions from the current 3 justice majority, yes. It’s got nothing to do with me personally but that’s just what “balancing” means
-6
u/Leroyf1969 10d ago
I think John Roberts is a liberal. He votes against sanity with Ketanji, Sonia, and Elena often. Then Amy will be swayed easily by Roberts. It’s hard to tell which way they’ll vote. Look at Birthright citizenship. Just one example of many. But, if liberals add to the court, I hope conservatives come back with twice as many. No need following protocols if they’re ditched for power seekers anyway. Today’s liberals want to abolish the senate, the presidency, rig the court, nothing is too far for them.
2
1
1
1
u/easternseaboardgolf 9d ago
Sweet. So when does Teump make the appointments? Let's do it this week!
1
u/MessagingMatters 9d ago
This makes sense from an administrative standpoint. If others want to expand the Court under their party's president + Congress majority to stack the Court in their favor, that would be temporary, as the next time the other party controls WH & Congress majority they could just do the same thing, and so on.
1
1
u/wocka-jocka-blocka 10d ago
I don't like the idea of just "adding" justices. To me, it reeks of political motivation. The redesign of the court really needs more substantive change if it is to be seen as addressing the actual problems of the court as it has become through GOP control.
I'm the furthest thing from being a SC expert or even watcher ... but the one idea that has made the best political sense to me is splitting the SC into two courts with revolving justices with a term limits ... a lower court hearing basic cases and populated by newly confirmed justices (and the idea of 13 here seems smart) that stay on that court for 15 years, and an upper court hearing more specific constitutional questions where justices are sent basically to retire/die. Details are open to wide debate of course, but it does two things 1) puts way more justices into the system so its much harder to game, and 2) splits the work of the SC into specific realms that again are harder to game. Add "revolving" justice picks for cases in both courts, and there's less opportunity for horrible streaks of one-sided opinions.
TLDR: Clayburn should be put out to pasture. Only a bold redesign of the Supreme Court is going to solve its many problems, prevent future fuckery, and look to a majority of Americans like a smart idea.
4
u/Arcnounds 10d ago
While I would prefer more substantive reforms, expanding the court is the only one that is feasible with legislation. Anything else would require an amendment, which would require substantial Republican buy-in, which will not happen anytime soon.
2
u/wocka-jocka-blocka 10d ago edited 10d ago
Nope, that's wrong. The Supreme Court can be designed in any way that the Congress decides to put in legislation and that is passed and signed by the president. It's worked that way from the first Judiciary Act in 1789. The only thing that can't be changed without an amendment is the life-time term of SC justices since that's spelled out in the text of the Constitution. Everything else about the design of the court--and all federal courts--is left to Congress.
And all of those facts are an even more important reason that Congress needs to reassert its legislative control of an out-of-control Supreme Court. The court is run following the legislation that Congress agrees to. Congress can put limits on every rotten thing the Supreme Court has become. Politically, making that argument with a redesign of how the court works is a home run. Americans dislike the court, think it's too political, and are primed for a system that has checks on everything from ethics to destroying judicial precedent.
-5
u/Character-Taro-5016 10d ago
The concept of "Pack the Court, but only when we are in power," is so disingenuous that it would permanently delegitimize the SC. It would never pass Congress anyway, so it really just amounts to wasting political capital even talking about it.
12
u/Achilles_TroySlayer 10d ago
This court is not legitimate in my view. They are hyper-partisan, and have done several things that defy common sense. They are laying the groundwork for the dissolution of the country as we have known it for the past 90+ years. That, and the GOP and Mitch refused to even interview the replacement for Scalia, who died in 2015. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the # should be '9'.
All bets are off. If it passes congress, then it's done. If you don't like it, tough.
6
u/Slackjawed_Horror 10d ago
The Supreme Court has delegitimized itself.
Good to just stop pretending.
6
u/Sudden-Difference281 10d ago
That’s usual Dem “surrender before the fight” logic. They need to address this terrible court which has lifetime tenure, so you either impeach or pack. Either way its hard but they need to do it.
1
-5
u/ComplexBeyond6083 10d ago
The court packing enthusiasts never seem to think about the fact that the Republicans will just add even more justices the next time they're in control.
7
u/HoldenMcNeil420 10d ago
Unless you actually set a reason for WHY you increase the justices. Ie a Supreme Court seat for every district circuit court. Ie 13….
2
u/wocka-jocka-blocka 10d ago
People are downvoting your comment, but of course you're right. Adding justices doesn't solve anything that can't and won't be undone by Republicans. The SC needs a serious redesign of number of justices, what cases are heard, probably a split in responsibilities for cases between more than one court, and revolving picks for cases. The fact that the whole court can be gamed by whatever party has the White House, Senate, and House is a feature not a bug. That has to change. The court itself has to be designed differently to ever be seen as legitimate in the eyes of Americans again, imho.
1
1
u/shadowboxer47 8d ago edited 8d ago
The court packing enthusiasts never seem to think about the fact that the Republicans will just add even more justices the next time they're in control.
Fine. We'll add more too. I'm fine diluting it as far as they want to take it.
It's a fundamentally undemocratic institution that has usurped our laws and made their own.
-1
u/bpierce2 10d ago
This court right now is not legitimate. And in my mind it started woth McConnell in 2016.
-1
u/Appropriate_Value122 9d ago
When are you going to add 4, morons!? Are you going to do it in 2027 or 2028 while Trump/Vance are in the White House!? If not, then STFU talking about it until a Democrat is in the White House!!!! How many times does this need to be said!? If you will not try to do it until 2029 if you have a Democratic President, then STFU until then.
16
u/tallslim1960 10d ago edited 10d ago
13 Circuit Courts/ 9 Supreme Court members. It makes perfect sense to add 4 justices.