Can we talk, ONLY from a civics perspective, about 9 Supreme Court Justices?

[Ginevra]

I understand that “9” is not in the US Constitution. Therefore...what would be bad if a President “packed the court” in order to re-balance the ideological leanings? I truly want to know why (from a legal standpoint) this would be wrong. 

Please let’s not discuss this as current US politics. 

[Sneezyone]

It wouldn’t. The number nine is one of many norms that have fallen by the wayside. It would be restorative to have a larger number and upsetting to those who’ve bartered so much to impose minority rule.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Jean in Newcastle]

The main thing that I see as important is that it be an odd number so that there aren't tie votes. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

The main thing that I see as important is that it be an odd number so that there aren't tie votes. 

Yes, I definitely do agree with this. I actually think - though it is a number with bad superstitions - 13 would be terrific. That would be a nice possibility for balancing of ideologies. 

[Pen]

It has been different numbers prior to 1869.

It could even be an even number. It seems like that would cause a ties problem, but it might or might not. An even number of justices might result in more need to reach consensus.  I am not sure how often the court actually splits 5-4.  I think 5-4 decisions tend to get news media attention but that they may not be the majority. 

 

(ETA - the above is a civics/history answer. It can and has been different, and started as an even number of justices, and could be so again.  I was trying to avoid a political answer.

However, I do not think the number of seats should be changed at this time even though they can be and have been different. 

In addition, Life appointments have allowed Justices to mature into seasoned jurists who do not always decide issues the way one would expect, and do not need to consider future employment or other factors beyond trying to make the best decision on a case they can.

I think change to the system - from either political spectrum side would tend to be destabilizing beyond the Supreme Court. )

 

Edited October 8, 2020 by Pen

[RootAnn]

I guess my question would be, what's the upper limit? It seems like it it is okay to change the number, then some years down the line, it could be done again, right? If there is nothing against the practice then 13 could turn into 19 and then maybe 25.

Slippery slope argument.

I do know just enough history that presidents & congresses have, in the past, attempted & sometimes succeeded in changing the number of justices for political reasons. Reading those histories, I feel a little disgust for them in their political machinations (whether they succeed or not). What would have happened if Andrew Johnson had appointed a justice? What about if FDR would have been able to pack the court? I don't know. Just seems wrong.

[EmseB]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

Yes, I definitely do agree with this. I actually think - though it is a number with bad superstitions - 13 would be terrific. That would be a nice possibility for balancing of ideologies. 

But if a president is adding more justices to the court, they aren't doing it to "balance ideologies". They are putting justices on the court that they think will rule in their favor.

[TechWife]

I think when considering an upper limit one needs to look at available data on the size of groups that work effectively. By that I mean that they fulfill their stated purpose as a group, communicate well with one another and respect one another. I would think that there is probably some sociological research on this. Fifteen sounds like it might be a breaking point. Seventeen sounds to big to me. I think if the number were to change going to eleven would be doable from a worksbility standpoint. 
 

Another thing to consider would be a realistic size for the pool of qualified candidates. You don’t want a court so big that everyone who is currently qualified is currently sitting on it - you need qualified people in reserve, so to speak. 

[Carol in Cal.]

I think that making a change like that in a custom of long standing would throw even more shade on the supposed impartiality of the court, and that that would be destabilizing in a time when that’s fairly dangerous.

[Moonhawk]

Totally not-informed-opinion incoming:

The problem isn't the number of justices, the problem is the selection process. The system was supposed to be checks and balances, but obviously if two thirds of the government can agree together to put their finger on the scale when forming the last third, it's not necessarily balanced. It's worked out mostly okay in the past but past results do not guarantee future returns. 

I'd say that justices should be chosen by other judges; or at least have to be vetted and approved by a plurality of them* before being able to be appointed.

*I have no idea how to compose this group of them, if this is all federal judges or a selection or whatever. "Who chooses the choosers?" etc.

[easypeasy]

I think a larger group of justices would more accurately encompass/represent the entire nation's legal opinion (if that sentence even makes sense?)

One thing I have wondered, but haven't bothered to google yet - how many justices (other than the originals) has any one president seated before? Because it seems incredibly unbalanced for one president to choose a full third of the Supreme Court (no matter who he/she is). But maybe this isn't as unusual as I am thinking it is?? 
 

The public's unsettled feeling about SCOTUS isn't a new thing - the current setup doesn't seem like it is aging very well. 
 

Either way - an odd # is essential, I think. 
 

Oh - and I think one should have served as a federal judge for quite some time before being even considered for such a position. 

Edited October 8, 2020 by easypeasy

[Guest]

6 hours ago, RootAnn said:

I guess my question would be, what's the upper limit? It seems like it it is okay to change the number, then some years down the line, it could be done again, right? If there is nothing against the practice then 13 could turn into 19 and then maybe 25.

Slippery slope argument.

I do know just enough history that presidents & congresses have, in the past, attempted & sometimes succeeded in changing the number of justices for political reasons. Reading those histories, I feel a little disgust for them in their political machinations (whether they succeed or not). What would have happened if Andrew Johnson had appointed a justice? What about if FDR would have been able to pack the court? I don't know. Just seems wrong.

I suppose there is the possibility of ending up with too many justices, but I doubt it would or could happen in reality. Too many justices would mean too much time reaching a conclusive opinion, would be my guess. 

I admit I have not read up on this subject, which is why I want to hear this topic discussed. But so far, it seems to me a benefit to have a balance of ideologies on the court, and I mean that from both directions. Of course, a Supreme Court Justice doesn’t usually get to that position from being a political hack and, historically, Justices *do* make an effort to apply the law, which is their charge. In recent decades, Justices do not always rule the way their appointing Presidents may have expected. So I don’t conclude that other Presidents who don’t fit my ideals would have packed the court with terrible people who also don’t. Some of history’s worst decisions may have been decided differently if there has simply been a few more people to deliberate. 

Edited October 8, 2020 by Quill
Punctuation error

[Guest]

5 hours ago, EmseB said:

But if a president is adding more justices to the court, they aren't doing it to "balance ideologies". They are putting justices on the court that they think will rule in their favor.

How do you know that? 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I think that making a change like that in a custom of long standing would throw even more shade on the supposed impartiality of the court, and that that would be destabilizing in a time when that’s fairly dangerous.

I hear that. It is a good point. 

[Sneezyone]

I have heard some interesting proposals to remove the intensity of SCOTUS confirmation fights by increasing the size of the court such that it functions more like an appellate court, reserving en banc hearings for the most contentious issues. If the panel of 9 hearing a case was randomly selected from a larger group of justices (maybe 17-21), it could reduce the temptation to ensure only ideological purists are nominated. There are also proposals to add term limits (for ex. 20-30 years) in an effort to ensure the court better reflects the needs, concerns, and preferences of the citizenry.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Guest]

4 hours ago, easypeasy said:

I think a larger group of justices would more accurately encompass/represent the entire nation's legal opinion (if that sentence even makes sense?)

One thing I have wondered, but haven't bothered to google yet - how many justices (other than the originals) has any one president seated before? Because it seems incredibly unbalanced for one president to choose a full third of the Supreme Court (no matter who he/she is). But maybe this isn't as unusual as I am thinking it is?? 
 

The public's unsettled feeling about SCOTUS isn't a new thing - the current setup doesn't seem like it is aging very well. 
 

Either way - an odd # is essential, I think. 
 

Oh - and I think one should have served as a federal judge for quite some time before being even considered for such a position. 

Yes, I do agree with you that this system is not aging well. I feel the same way about our election process. I think it is time for some Constitutional Amendments but it seems pretty impossible that either party will call for changes that might hamper themselves in the future. 

I don’t know the answer to your question but it seems like a good point. I also think, with it kept at 9, it literally makes it more dire within seconds of any Justice’s death. Because 8 is an even number and 7 would be too few. If we had 13, it wouldn’t be such an “emergency” when a Justice dies or resigns. 

Also agree with your last point. Ideally it should be impossible for a President who placed a Justice on a lower court can then pick them for the SC. It should be greater than eight years required since placement on the lower court. 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I have heard some interesting proposals to remove the intensity of SCOTUS confirmation fights by increasing the size of the court such that it functions more like an appellate court, reserving en banc hearings for the most contentious issues. If the panel of 9 hearing a case was randomly selected from a larger group of justices (maybe 17-21), it could reduce the temptation to ensure only ideological purists are nominated. There are also proposals to add term limits (for ex. 20-30 years) in an effort to ensure the court betters reflect the needs, concerns, and preferences of the citizenry.

That’s a very interesting idea! 

I have long thought there really needs to be term limits. If for no other reason, I personally would not want my *life* to be what stands in the way of someone’s nefarious plans...I might suffer an unfortunate accident. Or, if anything is surprising about the timing and manner of my death, it creates suspicions. 

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Quill said:

That’s a very interesting idea! 

I have long thought there really needs to be term limits. If for no other reason, I personally would not want my *life* to be what stands in the way of someone’s nefarious plans...I might suffer an unfortunate accident. Or, if anything is surprising about the timing and manner of my death, it creates suspicions. 

It also creates a bit more predictability and reduces the importance of any one person. I appreciate the continuity that lifetime appointments provide but then you also end up with someone like Taney bastardizing the law from beyond the grave.

[Pawz4me]

20 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I have heard some interesting proposals to remove the intensity of SCOTUS confirmation fights by increasing the size of the court such that it functions more like an appellate court, reserving en banc hearings for the most contentious issues. If the panel of 9 hearing a case was randomly selected from a larger group of justices (maybe 17-21), it could reduce the temptation to ensure only ideological purists are nominated. There are also proposals to add term limits (for ex. 20-30 years) in an effort to ensure the court better reflects the needs, concerns, and preferences of the citizenry.

I think I agree with all of this. I definitely agree with term limits. No one in such a powerful position should be allowed to serve until they're (perhaps) incapable of doing the job. It's often too hard for people, even (supposedly) very smart and discerning people, to comprehend and accept/acknowledge their decline.

But I guess it could slow our justice system down to an even slower crawl, because just as with the appellate courts there would have to be a right to appeal to the full court. And by their very nature almost all cases that make it to SCOTUS would have to be deemed exceptionally important.

[Carrie12345]

I’m not well-informed on the history of the process, so I don’t claim to have feasible ideas, but why can’t there be a scheduled rotation? Like, every 4 years, one in, one out? (I haven’t had enough coffee to do the math on terms, it’s just a simple example.). I mean, barring death or illness, which is too often the route.

Even as an extreme liberal, I’m reluctant to embrace the term “ideological balance”, despite recognizing the weight there.  But some mechanism for keeping interpretations in sync with a continuously and rapidly evolving society seems... logical.

[Momto6inIN]

Because the only  reason it's even being talked about is political. If Democrats had had the opportunity to pick 3 justices (and yes, I agree Obama should have had 1 more pick than he got!) then no one currently talking about packing the court would have been worried about it. Political maneuvering is a bad reason to change the process and form of an entire branch of our government. 

I also think term limits for justices are a bad idea. The entire reason the court has the power it does is because they are beholden to no one after they get appointed and approved. No one. It's not inconsequential that many justices issue surprising opinions after they are on the Court.

[Pawz4me]

3 minutes ago, Momto6inIN said:

 

I also think term limits for justices are a bad idea. The entire reason the court has the power it does is because they are beholden to no one after they get appointed and approved. No one. It's not inconsequential that many justices issue surprising opinions after they are on the Court.

I'm probably being dense or am lacking a sufficient amount of caffeine (or both!), but I don't understand. How would having a term/age limit mean that a justice was beholden to anyone?

[HeartString]

I’m in favor of term limits, very long ones. I think Ive heard 18 as a good number because it ensures that a president gets a certain number. It seems absurd that such a random factor as death decides which president gets to pick how many justices.  A one term president(so far) is about to appoint 3, some 2 term presidents get to appointed none.  Term limits could make it much more orderly and lead to more balance over time. I do think current justices should be grand fathered in some how.  
 

I’m a big fan of the plan put forth by Pete Buttigeg(I probably spelled that wrong).   It sets up 5 conservative and 5 liberal members, then 5 that  rotate in off randomly off of the appeals court. It seems more balanced. I doubt it would ever pass though.   

[sassenach]

It would be a huge can of worms. <edited out possibly too political bits> Once we start adding justices every time the power switches, I think we’re headed down a very dangerous path in the court, and one that I think will have no end. 

Edited October 8, 2020 by sassenach

[Joker]

I think something has to be done because one President, who didn’t even get the majority of votes, placing three judges in his first term shouldn’t be something that is allowed. The court, after she is confirmed, won’t in any way represent all the people of this country well. 

[Pawz4me]

8 minutes ago, Joker said:

I think something has to be done because one President, who didn’t even get the majority of votes, placing three judges in his first term shouldn’t be something that is allowed. The court, after she is confirmed, won’t in any way represent all the people of this country well. 

That's a huge concern for me. We've got way, WAY too much minority rule in this country. And that's never turned out well historically.

[Sneezyone]

I think I would like to see a constitutional amendment that codifies a regular process with defined terms for justices, maybe 25 years, as well as a slightly larger group overall, maybe 11, with a rotating group of nine chosen at random to hear each case. I would prefer to have the Senate’s role proscribed with greater detail too; e.g. a hearing and vote must take place within a prescribed time frame, say 3 months. I don’t think any party should EVER be in a position to do what’s been done before. It seems to me that when norms break down, we either codify a new norm or live without norms at all.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Sneezyone

[RootAnn]

Ask oneself, "If the current person in office is re-elected, would I still feel the same about this idea?" (Expanding the court, term limits, etc.)

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, Momto6inIN said:

Because the only  reason it's even being talked about is political. If Democrats had had the opportunity to pick 3 justices (and yes, I agree Obama should have had 1 more pick than he got!) then no one currently talking about packing the court would have been worried about it. Political maneuvering is a bad reason to change the process and form of an entire branch of our government. 

I also think term limits for justices are a bad idea. The entire reason the court has the power it does is because they are beholden to no one after they get appointed and approved. No one. It's not inconsequential that many justices issue surprising opinions after they are on the Court.

The problem is that the suggestions being batted about AREN’T, in fact, changing the process. They make use of the same constitutional processes and Congressional prerogatives that got us to where we are.

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, RootAnn said:

Ask oneself, "If the current person in office is re-elected, would I still feel the same about this idea?" (Expanding the court, term limits, etc.)

Yes. Because I’d know there was a definite expiration date. The only way the majority could be screwed any harder is for there to be no way to undo his handiwork.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Sneezyone

[RootAnn]

I didn't know how many justices other presidents had nominated & gotten confirmed in the past. I encourage people to look this up. It is interesting. Andrew Jackson nominated 7. Lincoln had 5 confirmed -- 4 during the term when he'd only received 38% of the popular vote. FDR had 9 confirmed during his extra long tenure. 

[HeartString]

34 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I think I would like to see a constitutional amendment that codifies a regular process with defined terms for justices, maybe 25 years, as well as a slightly larger group overall, maybe 11, with a rotating group of nine chosen at random to hear each case. I would prefer to have the Senate’s role proscribed with greater detail too; e.g. a hearing and vote must take place within a prescribed time frame, say 3 months. I don’t think any party should EVER be in a position to do what’s been done before. It seems to me that when norms break down, we either codify a new norm or live without norms at all.

At a very minimum I would support this 100%.  Let’s work it out ahead of time and set it in law so there’s no political wrangling. Require a vote within a certain number of days of the nomination, write down what happens if a vacancy happen in an election year, how many days before the election is too close.  What is a lame duck congress allowed to do, if anything. Just figure it out and write it all down. I think we have found the weak spots in our “norms” based system and need to codify somethings. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, RootAnn said:

Ask oneself, "If the current person in office is re-elected, would I still feel the same about this idea?" (Expanding the court, term limits, etc.)

I do think it is healthy to check one’s own bias in such a manner, but, for me, the answer is yes. I never thought about expanding the court before until it recently entered into the public discussion; I didn’t know the Constitution did not require 9 until the current discussion. But I have been in favor of term limits and/or some alterations in the process for a long time. I think I started thinking that when Bush the younger was running (and I was on “his team” at the time). It simply does not make a great deal of sense to me that someone could be in the seat for decades and decades of time, nor that so much periodically hinges on a Justice’s health. 

I sure am glad we had the sense (as a country, I mean) to pass Amendment XXII limiting the President’s ability to stay in for, say, 12 years. Or 24. Thank the gods of justice. 

[Pawz4me]

22 minutes ago, RootAnn said:

Ask oneself, "If the current person in office is re-elected, would I still feel the same about this idea?" (Expanding the court, term limits, etc.)

From a short term/immediate future perspective I wouldn't be happy with it. But it would be a good thing for the long term political health of our country.

Any changes made (for anything) have to start at some point. We can't always choose the optimal timing to fit our own wants or perspectives. But if the change is good for the long term health of the country then I'd be willing to deal with it.

ETA: I say the above because one of my main concerns is that my young adult sons have a stable country to continue to live in. And for that to happen something--and probably quite a few somethings--need to be done to get us to a point that we aren't so polarized.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Pawz4me

[Ausmumof3]

Question.  Is it only the president that nominated the Supreme Court justices? Why?  I’m sure this is obvious to Americans familiar with the constitution but I don’t know.

[HeartString]

5 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Question.  Is it only the president that nominated the Supreme Court justices? Why?  I’m sure this is obvious to Americans familiar with the constitution but I don’t know.

Yes. The president picks and the senate confirms.  It’s laid out that way in the constitution.  

[Ausmumof3]

1 minute ago, Cnew02 said:

Yes. The president picks and the senate confirms.  It’s laid out that way in the constitution.  

I’m curious as to why.  It seems like if you had term limits and the president picking then you would just end up with a court that reflected the view of the party in power at the time.  I mean if the term limits were 12 years maybe not?  So it seems like you would have to change the way selection is done if you were having term limits or something.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I’m curious as to why.  It seems like if you had term limits and the president picking then you would just end up with a court that reflected the view of the party in power at the time.  I mean if the term limits were 12 years maybe not?  So it seems like you would have to change the way selection is done if you were having term limits or something.

I think there should be a turnover limit as well as a term limit, so not more than ——% of the court can change under one president. 

I would not want it to be term limits such that they ALL expire simultaneously and the then-President fills the court with new Justices. Even just from a perspective of an a available pool, I wouldn’t want that. 

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I’m curious as to why.  It seems like if you had term limits and the president picking then you would just end up with a court that reflected the view of the party in power at the time.  I mean if the term limits were 12 years maybe not?  So it seems like you would have to change the way selection is done if you were having term limits or something.

That is the way it was intended. That the court reflect the prerogatives of the elected president. Those norms haven’t held of late. Term limits would still provide for POTUS to nominate but the terms, I would hope, would be fixed such that a death on the court would create a vacancy for the duration of that term and not necessarily the full 25-30 years. Kinda like the junior senator from Arizona was selected to fulfill the term of her predecessor. The term goes with the office, not the person.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Guest]

In my homeschool co-op, of which I was once a board member (haha, hardly am I comparing the co-op board with the Supreme Court), there was a turnover limit, but there never was a term limit, and there also was never a designation that one had to have at least one homeschooled student still in the co-op to serve on the board. It was always my opinion that those limits should have been put in place because I don’t think it is best for the leadership of the group to be comprised of 1) people who may not be in touch with current homeschoolers needs and 2) people who have no dog in the fight because their kids are grown or in a school. 

Sorry to compare two very unalike institutions, but I thought my ideas would have made a stronger co-op board. 

[Sneezyone]

8 minutes ago, Quill said:

In my homeschool co-op, of which I was once a board member (haha, hardly am I comparing the co-op board with the Supreme Court), there was a turnover limit, but there never was a term limit, and there also was never a designation that one had to have at least one homeschooled student still in the co-op to serve on the board. It was always my opinion that those limits should have been put in place because I don’t think it is best for the leadership of the group to be comprised of 1) people who may not be in touch with current homeschoolers needs and 2) people who have no dog in the fight because their kids are grown or in a school. 

Sorry to compare two very unalike institutions, but I thought my ideas would have made a stronger co-op board. 

I think, as a nation, we need to do some deep soul searching about the norms that have been abandoned of late and work, intentionally, to close up some of these gaping holes. It behooves minority groups to participate in that process while they still have some clout. That may not always be the case.

I’m hopeful that there could be a series of commissions that study these issues and solicit public input on how best to ensure the orderly operations of our courts and Congress and administrative branch.

Everything from remote/proxy voting and deconfliction (personal finances and debt) to strengthening the emoluments clause should be on the table.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Joker]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I think, as a nation, we need to do some deep soul searching about the norms that have been abandoned of late and work, intentionally, to close up some of these gaping holes. It behooves minority groups to participate in that process while they still have some clout. That may not always be the case.

I’m hopeful that there could be a series of commissions that study these issues and solicit public input on how best to ensure the orderly operations of our courts and Congress and administrative branch.

Everything from remote/proxy voting and deconfliction (personal finances and debt) to strengthening the emoluments clause should be on the table.

I feel like this administration has shined a light on the many, many gaping holes we do have. I wasn’t happy about the last election night but I remember thinking it would be ok because we have checks and balances. I was such a f***ing sucker! Never again, though. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Joker said:

I feel like this administration has shined a light on the many, many gaping holes we do have. I wasn’t happy about the last election night but I remember thinking it would be ok because we have checks and balances. I was such a f***ing sucker! Never again, though. 

Yeah. You’re heard on that. 

[Sneezyone]

I agree with Momto6 in the sense that I really was complacent in thinking that Congress-critters had more self-respect and stronger spines than they ultimately showed. I wouldn’t have given these issues much thought in the absence of this complete collapse of norms. Once your eyes are opened tho? No going back.  It’s a kindness to propose an open, transparent process by which new rules (with teeth this time) are hashed out.

[livetoread]

I’m not sure what the solution is, but what we are doing now isn’t going to work anymore, IMO. If one party holds the Senate and the other the Presidency, will there ever even be hearings? Seems to me the norm now is simply naked power. If you can block it, you do. If there is a vacancy 1 1/2 years out from an election under those circumstances, does anyone think the Senate would agree to hearings? Certainly not one year, since that has been set. Two years? Ever? Let’s face it, the Rs have already set the tone, and the Ds are so mad I think the rank and file would draw and quarter a D Senate that agreed to hearings from an R President. It’s broken.

[Momto6inIN]

4 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

I'm probably being dense or am lacking a sufficient amount of caffeine (or both!), but I don't understand. How would having a term/age limit mean that a justice was beholden to anyone?

Because if it's not a lifetime appointment, then in the back of their minds will always be the thought of, "What am I doing and where am I going after this?And who/what will put me in the best position for that?" It's not like they're going to decide to fade away into the woodwork and retire to putter in their gardens - people who can walk away from that kind of power are few and far between.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Momto6inIN said:

Because if it's not a lifetime appointment, then in the back of their minds will always be the thought of, "What am I doing and where am I going after this?And who/what will put me in the best position for that?" It's not like they're going to decide to fade away into the woodwork and retire to putter in their gardens - people who can walk away from that kind of power are few and far between.

But if term limits were twenty years, and the youngest appointment is, say, a 46yo, that puts them at pretty close to an age to putter in their gardens. Or be adjunct at a law school. Or publish a book. I mean, they do sometimes just retire and not die on the bench. 

I think the worst risk (if we can, indeed, rank risks in such a manner) is the potential for it to be in someone’s best interest for a Justice to meet with an “unfortunate accident.” 

When Scalia died, there was, for at least a few weeks, a rumor circulating that the circumstances of his death were questionable. I didn’t get the impression that that rumor really had legs, but some people’s mistrust of the then-administration was clearly such that they theorized he had an unfortunate accident so Obama could place a Justice before the election. 

Just imagine if RBG had been younger and healthy as a farm horse when she suddenly dropped dead in her bed of a heart attack two months before the election. I think there is enough mistrust that *someone* would cry foul play. 

[Pen]

 

Historically 

FDR: 8 Justices

and nonetheless wanted to “pack the Court” to more 

 

wikipedia:

During his twelve years in office, President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed eight new members of the Supreme Court of the United States: Associate Justices Hugo Black, Stanley F. Reed, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Frank Murphy, James F. Byrnes, Robert H. Jackson, and Wiley Blount Rutledge. Additionally, he elevated sitting Justice Harlan F. Stone to Chief Justice.

 

(Iirc toward the end of his Presidency 8 of 9 Justices sitting had been appointed by FDR.  Truman had several (4?) appointments in the following years, but Several of FDR’s appointed Justices such as Douglas remained on the bench and were very influential for many years. ) 

Edited October 8, 2020 by Pen

[Moonhawk]

4 hours ago, Cnew02 said:

I’’m a big fan of the plan put forth by Pete Buttigeg(I probably spelled that wrong).   It sets up 5 conservative and 5 liberal members, then 5 that  rotate in off randomly off of the appeals court. It seems more balanced. I doubt it would ever pass though.   

This...makes me uncomfortable. Maybe I am reading too much into it.

I understand the reality of the situation, that humans bring their bias to whatever they do, and even the most judicial and logical of minds are going to be influenced by their personal views. Plus, the views of strict constitution, literal, vs meaning, etc. But to be blatant about "conservative" and "liberal" judges makes me really uneasy. Judges are not here to be conservative or liberal, they are here to read the laws and make judgements based off this. Yes the problem is "interpretation" of the law when looking at judgements, but I feel like judges should be expected to be above that.

The problem is that we don't trust the people in power (generally, not specifically in this moment) to choose judges who hold to this expected standard.

I think full on giving into this idea of bias in the court "is just reality and if you can't fight it codify it" would make things worse, because then those 5 guys that circulate would have even more power during their tenure and cases would be pushed/delayed/messed around to try and game the "right" rotation (if the rotation is known beforehand).

We need a "come to Jesus" moment where actually neutral judges are put forth for the Supreme Court, not judges who are reflecting a political ideology. I can't expect it of any current politician or political party I know of, though. But it's what we need.

eta: TLDR: I want a court with LESS bias, not more. 

Edited October 8, 2020 by Moonhawk

[Momto6inIN]

39 minutes ago, Quill said:

But if term limits were twenty years, and the youngest appointment is, say, a 46yo, that puts them at pretty close to an age to putter in their gardens. Or be adjunct at a law school. Or publish a book. I mean, they do sometimes just retire and not die on the bench. 

I think the worst risk (if we can, indeed, rank risks in such a manner) is the potential for it to be in someone’s best interest for a Justice to meet with an “unfortunate accident.” 

When Scalia died, there was, for at least a few weeks, a rumor circulating that the circumstances of his death were questionable. I didn’t get the impression that that rumor really had legs, but some people’s mistrust of the then-administration was clearly such that they theorized he had an unfortunate accident so Obama could place a Justice before the election. 

Just imagine if RBG had been younger and healthy as a farm horse when she suddenly dropped dead in her bed of a heart attack two months before the election. I think there is enough mistrust that *someone* would cry foul play. 

Or run for President, since both current candidates are in their 70's ...