SaysWho? Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 Biden to form commission to study Supreme Court changes WWW.NBCNEWS.COM The bipartisan commission will examine the length of service and turnover of justices on the court as well as its membership and size, the White House said. Quote "The commission’s purpose is to provide an analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform," the White House said. The commission will be comprised of bipartisan group of scholars with expertise in constitutional law, history and political science, as well as former federal judges and court reform advocates. The committee will hold public meetings to hear from outside voices and will be directed to complete a report within 180 days of its first public meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzzzle Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 I'm all for going in guns blazing with stuff like ending the filibuster in the Senate, but expanding the Supreme Court is one of those things where I'm actually scared that if the Dems expand it to 11, the Republicans will expand it to 13, then before you know it the Supreme Court is basically just a second Senate only with lifelong appointees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 Just now, Fizzzzle said: I'm all for going in guns blazing with stuff like ending the filibuster in the Senate, but expanding the Supreme Court is one of those things where I'm actually scared that if the Dems expand it to 11, the Republicans will expand it to 13, then before you know it the Supreme Court is basically just a second Senate only with lifelong appointees. Maybe then we might actually get a change to that law as well? Seems like a win-win scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marioandsonic Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 40 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said: I'm all for going in guns blazing with stuff like ending the filibuster in the Senate, but expanding the Supreme Court is one of those things where I'm actually scared that if the Dems expand it to 11, the Republicans will expand it to 13, then before you know it the Supreme Court is basically just a second Senate only with lifelong appointees. Well, when you consider that a large number of senators and representatives have been in DC for 20+ years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 Who cares if the court keeps expanding? That means you have both branches and the presidency which historically happens about once a decade or so. And if you hold power through fair elections for many cycles you shouldn't have to fight the partisan judiciary. It also means that as you pass your agenda it gets to stay largely in place until the other side* takes the two houses and presidency. Elections should have consequences! *At this point though the other side needs to be completely crushed so nearly all bets are off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzzzle Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 It's more about the Supreme Court becoming basically another Senate if it gets to a point where there's like 50 justices or whatever. Having one Senate is bad enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 56 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said: I'm all for going in guns blazing with stuff like ending the filibuster in the Senate, but expanding the Supreme Court is one of those things where I'm actually scared that if the Dems expand it to 11, the Republicans will expand it to 13, then before you know it the Supreme Court is basically just a second Senate only with lifelong appointees. 6 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said: It's more about the Supreme Court becoming basically another Senate if it gets to a point where there's like 50 justices or whatever. Having one Senate is bad enough. The political arsonist/accelerationist in me isn't opposed to this notion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 No, sorry, I don't believe conservatives really have the nuts for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 Also, I know we love to not read the article, but term length is part of the study as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted April 9, 2021 Author Share Posted April 9, 2021 15 minutes ago, Joe said: Also, I know we love to not read the article, but term length is part of the study as well. Fuck, folks could just look at the summary description that comes with the link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzzzle Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 I read it and understood it, it just wasn't very relevant to the point I was making. I would much rather they implement term limits than expand the courts. In my mind the former doesn't really matter all that much if they do the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted April 9, 2021 Author Share Posted April 9, 2021 10 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said: I read it and understood it, it just wasn't very relevant to the point I was making. I would much rather they implement term limits than expand the courts. In my mind the former doesn't really matter all that much if they do the latter. I’ll be the judge of what point you were making Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzzzle Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 judge me daddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwinIon Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 The President should be appointing someone to the court every two years. Implement term limits so the rotation works out. Put in some provisions to appoint temp justices if someone leaves office early. That way every Presidential election has a very consistent effect on the court, and we change justices much more often than we do now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzzzle Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 18 minutes ago, TwinIon said: The President should be appointing someone to the court every two years. Implement term limits so the rotation works out. Put in some provisions to appoint temp justices if someone leaves office early. That way every Presidential election has a very consistent effect on the court, and we change justices much more often than we do now. Let's see, that would make it so each justice would serve in rotation every... 18 years? Assuming the longest serving member got bumped off the bench when a new one gets appointed. Shit, if we're going that road and keeping the Supreme Court at 9, why not just make it every year? That makes the Supreme Court a 9-year appointment. The only issue I could see with that is the Senate constantly blocking appointments if they're in opposition to the President. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentWorld Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 Two years would make sense. If it was every year then a two term president could almost completely stack the court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 Term limits for scotus is packing the court by another name Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzzzle Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 38 minutes ago, SilentWorld said: Two years would make sense. If it was every year then a two term president could almost completely stack the court. That is true A quick non-researched Google search says the average length of a supreme court justice is about 17 years. A 2-year appointment plan would actually make that longer. Of course that doesn't account for the ones that serve for like 30 years and appointing people in their 40's specifically so they'll be there a long time. Not to mention the protocol that would have to be established in case of death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 Make the court have one spot per district. Each spot is filled by a Justice from that district. Each case draws a random makeup. Disallow review of contests of power between legislative and executive branches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 4 hours ago, Anathema- said: Make the court have one spot per district. Each spot is filled by a Justice from that district. Each case draws a random makeup. Disallow review of contests of power between legislative and executive branches. Just default the winner being the legislature Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uaarkson Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 Biden just needs to form a commission to stab Manchin in the eye 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 5 hours ago, Anathema- said: Make the court have one spot per district. Each spot is filled by a Justice from that district. Each case draws a random makeup. Disallow review of contests of power between legislative and executive branches. This is the only "expand the court" type system I would support. I would envision it starting out with the 9 current justices being supplemented by 4 random judges from 4 random circuits. Each time one of the current justices dies or retires, one more circuit judge is brought into the fold, and this continues until all of the justices are gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 fuck the supreme court Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricofoley Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 Jesus Christ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 8 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Just default the winner being the legislature A majority in both houses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 2 hours ago, Anathema- said: A majority in both houses? One house because abolish the senate 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 9 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: fuck the supreme court 7 hours ago, Ricofoley said: Jesus Christ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 6 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: One house because abolish the senate I'm just remembering the Boehner lawsuits Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 The power of the legislative branch should always be superior to the executive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzzzle Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 I was thinking today, the reason why drugs are still illegal is simply because of the controlled substances act, right? There's nothing in the constitution that says you can't get high. The supreme court upheld the law on the basis that the federal government can "regulate commerce." You can justify damn near anything based on "regulating commerce." Businesses can only sell donuts on Sundays? Regulating commerce. You can sell guns, but only to guys named jeb? Regulating commerce. I understand that's what the courts are for, but I think there needs to be an overhaul in how we approach precedence. Like maybe a mandatory review every so often of decisions? A chance to go " I don't know what those idiots were smoking." I'm aware of the can of worms that opens and I know it's really complicated, but policy being dictated because of shit that some racists thought was a good idea a hundred years ago might not be the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 Precedent in legal rulings is a dumb concept. If a court got something wrong, there is no reason to be tied in knots over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 20 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Precedent in legal rulings is a dumb concept. If a court got something wrong, there is no reason to be tied in knots over it. The entire concept of judicial review is a dumb concept, especially as implemented now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: The entire concept of judicial review is a dumb concept, especially as implemented now I like when you talk dirty to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzzzle Posted April 11, 2021 Share Posted April 11, 2021 On the other hand, the only thing helping trans people in arkansas is the fact that their new bigot doctor law will probably get overturned by the courts. Then again, maybe the only reason that law got passed in the first place was because everyone KNEW it would get overturned and it was all just political theater at the expense of marginalized people. Who knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricofoley Posted April 12, 2021 Share Posted April 12, 2021 This thread has the most detail I've seen about the complete lack of precedent for these shadow docket rulings they're doing. And uh, it'll make you mad. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.