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

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

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.

Yeah, that didn’t strike me well, either, for the same reasons. 

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

Yeah, that didn’t strike me well, either, for the same reasons. 

For me it’s the fact that the framers intended there to be some public influence on court appointments, however removed. I think trying to choose purely based on ideology and achieve a 50/50 split vs reflecting the will of the people goes against the framers’ intent. What’s so troubling about the current state of affairs is that the will and perspective of the people is being completely thwarted and will not, in fact, be reflected in the court.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

43 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

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. ) 

Historical norms are no longer operative. Invoking them now is a fools errand.

[Sneezyone]

12 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.

The danger is already here and those proposing alternatives didn’t bring it. Governor Whitmer’s very life was at risk from those armed groups who stormed the Capitol in an effort to thwart the will of the majority. The stakes are very, very high right now. Either we recommit to representative democracy or suffer at the hands of armed, violent, minority groups.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Pen]

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Historical norms are no longer operative. Invoking them now is a fools errand.

 

My understanding is that @Quillasked about the past history.

I was answering.

Your phrase “fools errand” with my post quoted feels like an unfair attack on me.

 

[Sneezyone]

12 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

My understanding is that @Quillasked about the past history.

I was answering.

Your phrase “fools errand” with my post quoted feels like an unfair attack on me.

 

I apologize that it feels unfair. My intent was to convey the futility of the effort. Historical norms are no longer operative. That is what we have seen and can observe for ourselves. Referring back to an era that no longer controls or predicts the behavior of those in power seems like chasing your tail. Better?

Edited October 8, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Carol in Cal.]

23 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

The danger is already here and those proposing alternatives didn’t bring it. Governor Whitmer’s very life was at risk from those armed groups who stormed the Capitol in an effort to thwart the will of the majority. The stakes are very, very high right now. Either we recommit to representative democracy or suffer at the hands of armed, violent, minority groups.

So you want to make it worse?  Burn it down?  Because that’s what this would do.

And, those proposing alternatives absolutely contributed to it.

Antifa violence, via an ‘armed violent minority group’ is very real out here on the Left Coast, and they are emboldened and stirred up and essentially but explicitly given immunity from prosecution by ‘those proposing alternatives’ absolutely.  And don’t bother to trot out that tired lie that Antifa is an idea not a group.  Whether it is a registered political group or not, it is absolutely an embodied source of live on the street violence in places like Berkeley and Oakland, to my direct observation.  

Edited October 8, 2020 by Carol in Cal.

[Sneezyone]

Just now, kdsuomi said:

Since when is the Supreme Court supposed to "represent the country"? Its job is to rule on if a law is constitutional or not, so it honestly shouldn't matter what the population thinks. 

People are just annoyed that a president they don't like is getting to select three justices and are trying to change it so that a different party can completely take over the court. Avoiding that is why there are not term limits and all these other ideas being bandied about.

If there were no intent for the SCOTUS to represent, as I said “removed” the justices wouldn’t be appointed by a political, elected leader. Yes, it interprets the law but that is not and has never been a non-political exercise.

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

So you want to make it worse?  Burn it down?  Because that’s what this would do.

And, those proposing alternatives absolutely contributed to it.

Antifa violence is very real out here on the Left Coast, and they are emboldened and stirred up and essentially but explicitly given immunity from prosecution by ‘those proposing alternatives’ absolutely.  And don’t bother to trot out that tired lie that Antifa is an idea not a group.  Whether it is a registered political group or not, it is absolutely an embodied source of live on the street violence in places like Berkeley and Oakland, to my direct observation.  

Say what now? I said nothing like what you wrote so don’t know how to respond, so I won’t. I very clearly said that my desire is to see a national discussion and years long committee to make recommendations on how to restore/enshrine representative democracy. You May want to consult the FBI for a more accurate view of the risks and domestic terror threats we face.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

The only job of the Supreme Court is to rule as to whether a law is constitutional or not. It is not there to represent what the populace thinks should be a law. I get that you dislike so much about this country and want to change it into something else, but it is the way it is. The Supreme Court is set up the way it is for a reason. Packing the Court by making it larger when your party gains power is wrong and against what the Court is there for. 

The Supreme Court is not part of the representative democracy and it's that way for a reason.

That is your, originalist, view. The US is made up of many. They should all be heard. I directly said, upthread that I did not support a more direct approach/more political influence but I absolutely believe process reform is required. One cannot, on one hand, say “court packing“ is bad while also suggesting the constitution is infallible. Well, you can but that’s inconsistent to put it mildly. The constitution allows for the Congress to set up the courts and fund them as it sees fit including adding or subtracting members at all levels.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Moonhawk]

25 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

Since when is the Supreme Court supposed to "represent the country"? Its job is to rule on if a law is constitutional or not, so it honestly shouldn't matter what the population thinks. 

People are just annoyed that a president they don't like is getting to select three justices and are trying to change it so that a different party can completely take over the court. Avoiding that is why there are not term limits and all these other ideas being bandied about.

 

21 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

The only job of the Supreme Court is to rule as to whether a law is constitutional or not. It is not there to represent what the populace thinks should be a law. I get that you dislike so much about this country and want to change it into something else, but it is the way it is. The Supreme Court is set up the way it is for a reason. Packing the Court by making it larger when your party gains power is wrong and against what the Court is there for. 

The Supreme Court is not part of the representative democracy and it's that way for a reason.

We were keeping this to a civic perspective only, I believe. Mostly, civil, too.

However, I think I can say without getting into current politics that the first two statements I bolded are incorrect, at least as a blanket statement. Certainly for me. And it is both unfair and ungracious to paint anyone that disagrees with oneself as being something similar to poor losers. 

Also, I would say ANY packing of the court, regardless by size or by bias, is wrong and against what the Court is there for. I'm sure we both agree on that, yes?

edit to distinguish bolds I'm responding to

Edited October 8, 2020 by Moonhawk

[Frances]

2 hours 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.

I guess I don’t understand this reasoning at all. It seems hard to fathom if we had term limits that any former Supreme Court Justice who still wanted to work would not have multiple job offers from academia, law firms, think tanks, consulting firms, academia, etc., regardless of the work they did while on the court.

[Sneezyone]

I hate this country so much that I let my husband keep defending it, as my dad and grandad did. 🤣 It’s MY country too and if *I* want to work to change it, the constitution provides the means to do so.

[hopeallgoeswell]

4 hours 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 am wondering why the current president's party (past, present, future "current") should have much sway in the outcome of the court.  If the justices are supposed to be impartial/apolitical and make decisions based on the Constitution, it shouldn't matter how many justices are nominated by a president.  It seems like politics would come into play through the Senate because they confirm the justice and, more pointedly, the Senate Judiciary Committee because they seem like gate-keepers for the confirmation process. 

[Momto6inIN]

7 minutes ago, Frances said:

I guess I don’t understand this reasoning at all. It seems hard to fathom if we had term limits that any former Supreme Court Justice who still wanted to work would not have multiple job offers from academia, law firms, think tanks, consulting firms, academia, etc., regardless of the work they did while on the court.

Yeah. That's my point. "Which of these juicy opportunities do I most want? So which one should I be prepping for now from the bench?"

You don't see a possibility that a former Justice would posture ... write opinions ... take stances ... etc during their term that would put themselves in a more positive light and set themselves up for a run for public office or some other high level position? Opinions and stances that they might be very different from what they would espouse if they knew their job was secure til death and that public opinion couldn't touch them?

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

I am wondering why the current president's party (past, present, future "current") should have much sway in the outcome of the court.  If the justices are supposed to be impartial/apolitical and make decisions based on the Constitution, it shouldn't matter how many justices are nominated by a president.  It seems like politics would come into play through the Senate because they confirm the justice and, more pointedly, the Senate Judiciary Committee because they seem like gate-keepers for the confirmation process. 

ITA...which is why I think we should have a discussion about how to create more predictability and less hostage-taking going forward.

ETA: it really isn’t a case of sour grapes for me b/c I firmly believe the arc of history is long and the expansion of rights and inclusion is inevitable. I think this discussion protects the current minority. I think it needs to happen for them. 

Edited October 8, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Pen]

24 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I apologize that it feels unfair. My intent was to convey the futility of the effort. Historical norms are no longer operative. That is what we have seen and can observe for ourselves. Referring back to an era that no longer controls or predicts the behavior of those in power seems like chasing your tail. Better?

 

Chasing my tail? No. Not better.

 

I came to WTM by way of SWB’s SOTW (history) Books initially and I think history is very important.  I do not want discussion of history to be disallowed here.   

I think we can refer back to Ancient Greece or Rome, or the History of the United States .

And, moreover, I think history has importance. 

Unfortunately, the importance of history and whether it should be learned from or whether it should be expunged has, I guess, become extremely political.  

 

 

[Hyacinth]

The Supreme Court’s purpose is not to hear everyone, represent everyone, satisfy everyone. It’s not an elected office. 
 

I think what some of you are arguing for is a more active legislative branch. If they did their job, instead of pandering and campaigning all the livelong day, the Supreme Court wouldn’t be so freaking powerful and we wouldn’t be so divided as a country when the seats need to be filled. 

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

Chasing my tail? No. Not better.

 

I came to WTM by way of SWB’s SOTW (history) Books initially and I think history is very important.  I do not want discussion of history to be disallowed here.   

I think we can refer back to Ancient Greece or Rome, or the History of the United States .

And, moreover, I think history has importance. 

Unfortunately, the importance of history and whether it should be learned from or whether it should be expunged has, I guess, become extremely political.  

 

 

I have no problems discussing history where/when it’s relevant. Please don’t misconstrue my perspective. I simply think it’s been eschewed so there’s no point dredging it up. It hasn’t constrained or influenced ANY of the behaviors we’ve seen. Invoking it now, in the face of imminent loss, feels desperate and self-serving to me.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Joker]

If we truly did live in LaLa Land and the justices were completely apolitical, then the current administration wouldn’t be pushing through the current nominee while giddily discussing Roe v Wade and marriage equality.  But they are and that should tell us all we need to know.

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, Hyacinth said:

I think what some of you are arguing for is a more active legislative branch. If they did their job, instead of pandering and campaigning all the livelong day, the Supreme Court wouldn’t be so freaking powerful and we wouldn’t be so divided as a country when the seats need to be filled. 

For my part, it’s both. I don’t expect to agree with everything they decide. I do expect to have a fighting chance at fairness.

[hopeallgoeswell]

16 minutes ago, Hyacinth said:

The Supreme Court’s purpose is not to hear everyone, represent everyone, satisfy everyone. It’s not an elected office. 
 

I think what some of you are arguing for is a more active legislative branch. If they did their job, instead of pandering and campaigning all the livelong day, the Supreme Court wouldn’t be so freaking powerful and we wouldn’t be so divided as a country when the seats need to be filled. 

 

🙌 💯

[Sneezyone]

13 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Who decided that it was the job of the Courts to rule whether a law is unconstitutional or not? The Supreme Court claimed that power for itself in Marbury vs Madison. Were they right? That's a matter of interpretation. 

It's a practical way to govern. That's ultimately why it's prevailed. Nothing more, nothing less. 

 

GAH! This would be an excellent question if/when there are confirmation hearings for ACB. If precedent is up for grabs, how far back is she willing to go?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, kdsuomi said:

The only job of the Supreme Court is to rule as to whether a law is constitutional or not. It is not there to represent what the populace thinks should be a law. I get that you dislike so much about this country and want to change it into something else, but it is the way it is. The Supreme Court is set up the way it is for a reason. Packing the Court by making it larger when your party gains power is wrong and against what the Court is there for. 

The Supreme Court is not part of the representative democracy and it's that way for a reason.

How can it be “wrong” when it is not defined in the Constitution how many Justices must sit on the bench? 

I absolutely agree that the purpose of the SC is to rule on the laws. But if no Justice brought their own ideology into the question of how they ruled, nobody would give a hoot about the number of Justices, or their ideological disposition. There would be zero fight about it. Imagine if it were hard to even guess what ideology a Justice held to. But that’s not what we have. 

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, Joker said:

If we truly did live in LaLa Land and the justices were completely apolitical, then the current administration wouldn’t be pushing through the current nominee while giddily discussing Roe v Wade and marriage equality.  But they are and that should tell us all we need to know.

Yes, exactly. And not just in this instance, but going back for...a while. 

[Pen]

12 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. 

 

@Sneezyone  I was giving a partial answer to the bolded part above.

You are presuming to read my mind and know why I am writing what I  writing, or accusing me of “invoking” history for reasons that you have in your own mind.

Please stop.

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

@Sneezyone  I was giving a partial answer to the bolded part above.

You are presuming to read my mind and know why I am writing what I  writing, or accusing me of “invoking” history for reasons that you have in your own mind.

Please stop.

Actually, I wasn't presuming at all. I was responding to the words on the page. I was commenting on how *I* feel about using those arguments in a discussion about what we should do now. I won't quote you further, I'll respond separately to accommodate your concerns.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Pen]

48 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I have no problems discussing history where/when it’s relevant. Please don’t misconstrue my perspective. I simply think it’s been eschewed so there’s no point dredging it up. It hasn’t constrained or influenced ANY of the behaviors we’ve seen. Invoking it now, in the face of imminent loss, feels desperate and self-serving to me.

 

I could not combine two quotes in one post.

I quoted the post with the historical question I was responding to above this one.

Please stop imputing views or motives to me. 

 

[Sneezyone]

6 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

I could not combine two quotes in one post.

I quoted the post with the historical question I was responding to above this one.

Please stop imputing views or motives to me. 

 

Uh, you literally quoted me in that post so I thought I could safely respond. My apologies. You may want to block/ignore me if I'm triggering in some way.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Frances]

38 minutes ago, Momto6inIN said:

Yeah. That's my point. "Which of these juicy opportunities do I most want? So which one should I be prepping for now from the bench?"

You don't see a possibility that a former Justice would posture ... write opinions ... take stances ... etc during their term that would put themselves in a more positive light and set themselves up for a run for public office or some other high level position? Opinions and stances that they might be very different from what they would espouse if they knew their job was secure til death and that public opinion couldn't touch them?

I’m sorry, I’m just not seeing it. Unless they are completely misjudging the American people and ignoring history, I suppose then they could very mistakenly think that what they did would matter. I just don’t see anything short of serious criminal behavior disqualifying them from anything they want post Supreme Court. I truly don’t think it would make any difference what they did while on the Supreme Court. Tons of high level opportunities would be available to them regardless, whether they want money, power, prestige, or all three. Rarity increases value exponentially and seemingly just about anything goes in the US, as long as people are getting what they want from someone.

[rebcoola]

Since their is no set number of Justices it seems like saying their can only be one nominated per Presidential term would stop any court packing. 

[RootAnn]

52 minutes ago, Quill said:

Imagine if it were hard to even guess what ideology a Justice held to. But that’s not what we have. 

I think it would be difficult to do this AND have a justice with significant judicial experience. Someone early in the thread wanted a minimum number of years as a federal judge before that person could be nominated. If a judge has a large number of rulings on the books, it would be easy to see their ideological leanings, IMO. Unless they are very inconsistent in their rulings?

Edited October 8, 2020 by RootAnn
Autocorrect strikes again

[Moonhawk]

16 minutes ago, RootAnn said:

I think it would be difficult to do this AND have a justice with significant judicial experience. Someone early in the thread wanted a minimum number of years as a federal judge before that person could be nominated. If a judge has a large number of rulings on the books, it would be easy to see their ideological leanings, IMO. Unless they are very inconsistent in their rulings?

I think we should be able to see their legal understanding/ideology, ie how they read the law (strict, constitutional word, more the spirit, etc) but it shouldn't necessarily reflect their political side. The law is the law, and the Constitution is the Constitution. Some laws are politically motivated, sure, but that does not mean that a judgement about a law should reflect political motivation. 

eta: when I imagine a "balanced" court, I imagine a Court made up of different LEGAL ideologies, such as the strict reader, the history-context reader, the letters-literal reader, etc. That I think should be the "standard" by which a balanced court would be created. (This isn't saying that a Court made of letters-literal readers would necessarily be bad, just that I think variety would help for more nuanced legal opinions and rulings.)

Edited October 8, 2020 by Moonhawk

[Sneezyone]

34 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

I think we should be able to see their legal understanding/ideology, ie how they read the law (strict, constitutional word, more the spirit, etc) but it shouldn't necessarily reflect their political side. The law is the law, and the Constitution is the Constitution. Some laws are politically motivated, sure, but that does not mean that a judgement about a law should reflect political motivation. 

eta: when I imagine a "balanced" court, I imagine a Court made up of different LEGAL ideologies, such as the strict reader, the history-context reader, the letters-literal reader, etc. That I think should be the "standard" by which a balanced court would be created. (This isn't saying that a Court made of letters-literal readers would necessarily be bad, just that I think variety would help for more nuanced legal opinions and rulings.)

For me, it would include people who think beyond the academy/higher ed. SCOTUS is dominated by a few law schools and academic experiences/backgrounds. RBG's point about the men on the court not understanding why strip-searching a teen was traumatizing, or why a woman wouldn't know she'd been systematically underpaid for years, was instructive and, notably, bang on true. The court benefits from the experiences of people who come from different backgrounds.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

3 hours ago, RootAnn said:

I think it would be difficult to do this AND have a justice with significant judicial experience. Someone early in the thread wanted a minimum number of years as a federal judge before that person could be nominated. If a judge has a large number of rulings on the books, it would be easy to see their ideological leanings, IMO. Unless they are very inconsistent in their rulings?

True. Years on the bench also guarantees some exposure to a larger variety of tricky cases tho. Some of the popular SCOTUS appellate circuits, like DC, are known to handle more constitutional concerns. Does that render them less experienced with criminal law, specifically the thorny prosecutorial misconduct/habeas corpus issues that make their way to SCOTUS? On the other hand, does our current process (and a judicial experience requirement) discourage the nomination of trial lawyers like RBG and Thurgood Marshall, even Sandra Day O'Connor? They are/were some of our most influential jurists because of their everyday life, practical experiences. NONE of the recent justices have this experience. These older jurists were able to temper interpretation with common sense and practicality. Where is the next Ted Olsen (too old), for example?

Edited October 8, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

6 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Then there is also the fact that people, appointed to lifetime posts, change their minds. How could you ensure an ideological balance on the Court with lifetime appointments? 

Even if they don't 'officially' change their ideological persuasion, they will be influenced by circumstances because they're human beings. There's a famous example of Justice Rehnquist, a conservative "states' rights" justice appointed by Reagan, writing a "feminist" opinion after his daughter got divorced and became a single mother. 

 

 

Ah, Rehnquist. Souter. The list goes on. Experience is a wonderful teacher. The Rehnquist court is the one that first attracted my interest.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Moonhawk]

2 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I think you're operating under the flawed assumption that these different ways of interpreting the Constitution are static. Rather they've evolved over time. Originalism is a fairly recent idea. Here's a link to a law review article about the history of originalism. If you look at the history of the Supreme Court, you will see that ideas about how to interpret the Constitution go in and out of 'fashion.' 

Then there is also the fact that people, appointed to lifetime posts, change their minds. How could you ensure an ideological balance on the Court with lifetime appointments? 

Even if they don't 'officially' change their ideological persuasion, they will be influenced by circumstances because they're human beings. There's a famous example of Justice Rehnquist, a conservative "states' rights" justice appointed by Reagan, writing a "feminist" opinion after his daughter got divorced and became a single mother. 

 

I take your point, agreed. 

I was saying 'balanced court' in the way that it, if you NEED to balance a court, this is really what should be taken into account, politics shouldn't matter. But I wouldn't "force" a balance in this way or expect a static court where if a originalist retires, that ONLY an originalist can replace them.

And I wouldn't expect someone, even with 40 years experience, to not evolve over time in their field and perhaps change their perspective with time, and also the influence of their peers. I'm totally fine with that.

Thank you for pointing this out, though, I see how my original post could be seen as restrictive on this, and it wasn't my intention. And thanks for the link, looking forward to reading it. 

[Paige]

16 hours ago, Joker said:

The court, after she is confirmed, won’t in any way represent all the people of this country well. 

I think this is the real problem with what our system has turned into. Ideally, judges wouldn't be representing the interests of one party or the other. They should be fair interpreters of the law for everyone without regard to party. I need consistency not in their political purity but in how they decide cases. Presidents should have no personal or political benefit from appointing judges and I don't think the founders intended anyone to think of a justice as being "my justice" or "his justice." 

I don't know how to change it other than maybe the professional ethics of judges requiring them to not give personal opinions. I don't think Senate hearings should be asking judges questions about their personal opinions. I know it's supposed to already be this way, but we all know it's not. Perhaps a solution could be that potential justices are submitted as candidates to the President by a bipartisan or nonpartisan group of their peers, and the President would choose who he or she wants from that neutral list out of respect to the country and to avoid any hint of partisanship. I don't think potential justices' race, sex, national origin, religion, sexual preference or political party affiliation, should influence their decisions. 

 

Edited October 9, 2020 by Paige

[Joker]

8 hours ago, Paige said:

I think this is the real problem with what our system has turned into. Ideally, judges wouldn't be representing the interests of one party or the other. They should be fair interpreters of the law for everyone without regard to party. I need consistency not in their political purity but in how they decide cases. Presidents should have no personal or political benefit from appointing judges and I don't think the founders intended anyone to think of a justice as being "my justice" or "his justice." 

I don't know how to change it other than maybe the professional ethics of judges requiring them to not give personal opinions. I don't think Senate hearings should be asking judges questions about their personal opinions. I know it's supposed to already be this way, but we all know it's not. Perhaps a solution could be that potential justices are submitted as candidates to the President by a bipartisan or nonpartisan group of their peers, and the President would choose who he or she wants from that neutral list out of respect to the country and to avoid any hint of partisanship. I don't think potential justices' race, sex, national origin, religion, sexual preference or political party affiliation, should influence their decisions. 

 

Yes. All of my comments in here speak to the unfortunate reality of our situation. Justices should be apolitical but they are definitely not. 
 

I really like the idea of a bipartisan committee that has to come to an agreement for nominees to go forward. 

[Pen]

22 hours ago, rebcoola said:

Since their is no set number of Justices it seems like saying their can only be one nominated per Presidential term would stop any court packing. 

 

There is no specific number of Supreme Court Justices set by the US Constitution.  

However, Other Laws exist besides the Constitution.  (Common Law and Statutory Law and Treaties and so forth are forms of law that are accepted under the Constitution and are easier to enact and change than the Constitution itself.) 

Without looking up details right now, so feel free to correct me if I recall something incorrectly:

Under Federal  Law the number of Supreme Court Justices is currently set at 9 — and has been so since back close to (after) the US Civil War. 

The minimum quorum for deciding cases in the Supreme Court is set by law at 6 Justices.  

The 6 Justice quorum means that the Court can continue to hear and decide cases if up to 3 Justices are not present. (And the original number of Justices was 6,iirc, a Chief Justice and 5 Associate Justices.)   Allowing only 1 Nomination (do you mean appointment?) per term could mean that the Court could go below the number of Justices needed to decide cases so long as there is a quorum requirement. Abolishing the Quorum requirement is possible, but has its own issues. 

 

“Court Packing” refers to adding extra positions on the Supreme Court beyond 9.

It would require a change of law to do that.

The term “Court Packing” or “Pack the Court” in this context was coined afaik during the Presidency of FDR when he wanted more Justices favorable to New Deal legislation and wanted to achieve that by increasing the number of Justices.  A majority of the legislators voting on whether or not to expand the number of Justices  (including Democrats) did Not support adding new Supreme Court positions beyond 9.  

The law remained and still is as of now, 9 Justices on the Supreme Court. 

 

 

 

Edited October 9, 2020 by Pen