Sonia Sotomayor’s retirement is a political IQ test

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

Also, ‘Breaking: Substack Nate Silver Writes Something I Agree With’

 

I know this was touched on in an earlier thread, but I really don’t know why this isn’t issue #1 for Senate Democrats.  The election is far from a shoe-in, and losing one more seat means progressive legislation will be fought tooth-and-nail by the rationalizations of an Uber-conservative Supreme Court for decades.  
 

The only other road out of Purgatory short of the nuclear (and probably ultimately counterproductive) option of packing the court is to start talking about term limits for Supreme Court judges.  Which would probably be unconstitutional—but would probably have to be struck down by the court before its unconstitutional effects could be curtailed.  At which point the problematic judges would be gone, if the gambit works fast enough.  As an institutionalist I wouldn’t like that method, but unfortunately Pandora’s box is open and we all know that’s how the game is played now anyway.  And it might be (slightly) less end-of-days than a court-packing scheme.

[Paperclyp]

We still have people who think RGB was right in not stepping down. Nothing the democrats do surprises me at this point. They are short sighted and stubborn to the point where it harms all of us. At least the republicans mostly have the balls to just say naw we just hate people. 

[Jwheel86]

I think a more effective reform would be to reform the entire Federal Court system. 

• District Judges are randomly assigned to districts and reassigned to a district randomly every 5 years (1/5th of each district court moving each year). 
• Appeals Court Judges are also reassigned to a different Circuit Court every 5 years same as District Judges. 
• The Supreme Court will only have a permanent Chief Justice. 13 Associate Justices will be randomly selected from among Appeals Judges from each Circuit serving a 13 year term (one new and retiring Associate Justice every year). Chief Justice gets a double vote in the event of a tie. 

I don't think you need a Constitutional Amendment for any of this. 

[mclumber1]

17 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

I think a more effective reform would be to reform the entire Federal Court system. 

• District Judges are randomly assigned to districts and reassigned to a district randomly every 5 years (1/5th of each district court moving each year). 
• Appeals Court Judges are also reassigned to a different Circuit Court every 5 years same as District Judges. 
• The Supreme Court will only have a permanent Chief Justice. 13 Associate Justices will be randomly selected from among Appeals Judges from each Circuit serving a 13 year term (one new and retiring Associate Justice every year). Chief Justice gets a double vote in the event of a tie. 

I don't think you need a Constitutional Amendment for any of this. 

 

Nice. I could support that. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

On 4/9/2024 at 10:46 AM, Jwheel86 said:

I think a more effective reform would be to reform the entire Federal Court system. 

• District Judges are randomly assigned to districts and reassigned to a district randomly every 5 years (1/5th of each district court moving each year). 
• Appeals Court Judges are also reassigned to a different Circuit Court every 5 years same as District Judges. 
• The Supreme Court will only have a permanent Chief Justice. 13 Associate Justices will be randomly selected from among Appeals Judges from each Circuit serving a 13 year term (one new and retiring Associate Justice every year). Chief Justice gets a double vote in the event of a tie. 

I don't think you need a Constitutional Amendment for any of this. 

Rotating district and appellate judges is very, very dumb. The last point about scotus is fine overall, though the constitutional issues arising from elevating a district judge to scotus will still require a senate vote of confirmation make it messy and doesn’t really change much from the status quo
 

but again any changes to the judiciary will require complete buy in from the democrats which is a tall task.

 

And any reform has to contend with the fact that a solid ~third of the judiciary is in the bag for the biggest psychos in this country. Many reforms in a vacuum are good and fine, but there is a rot of un/under qualified judges at every level to serve a strictly partisan purpose. They serve the conservative project instead of an independent branch of government. One only need look at the embarrassing rulings from scotus lately to see that it is an exercise in pure power and ideology, not facts or the law. 

[Jwheel86]

37 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Rotating district and appellate judges is very, very dumb.

 

Why? Fixes the issue of judges with one bend being packed into one District or Circuit. You can't eliminate unqualified judges from the bench, not without a Constitutional Amendment, even then how would you define that? I'm just trying to figure out what's possible with just Congress. I don't think you'd need Senate Confirmation to elevate Appeals Court Judges to SCOTUS since you aren't elevating them, just changing the composition of the Court that it with consist of a Chief Justice and an Appeals Court Judge for each Circuit selected randomly, that's well within Congress's authority to define the courts. Same authority that gives each SCOTUS justice oversight over a specific Circuit. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

9 hours ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

Why? Fixes the issue of judges with one bend being packed into one District or Circuit. You can't eliminate unqualified judges from the bench, not without a Constitutional Amendment, even then how would you define that? I'm just trying to figure out what's possible with just Congress. I don't think you'd need Senate Confirmation to elevate Appeals Court Judges to SCOTUS since you aren't elevating them, just changing the composition of the Court that it with consist of a Chief Justice and an Appeals Court Judge for each Circuit selected randomly, that's well within Congress's authority to define the courts. Same authority that gives each SCOTUS justice oversight over a specific Circuit. 

It would take a special kind of person(read: ideologue) to be required to move across the country every five years, and even with a prestigious job of federal judge you’re going to see people not want to uproot their life every single five years. A regular stable of rotating judges term limited in a similar manner to what you described for scotus works just as well at the appellate and district level and again requires no amendment as you can force them into a senior status that already exists. 
 

When framed in the way you describe I think you’re right with regard to SCOTUS and having a random (or even selected in some other way, I don’t like random) judge from a circuit be elevated to SCOTUS 

[Jwheel86]

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

It would take a special kind of person(read: ideologue) to be required to move across the country every five years, and even with a prestigious job of federal judge you’re going to see people not want to uproot their life every single five years.

 

1.3 million people in the military move all the time, can't find ~900 judges who'll have a job for life willing to move every 5 years? 

[Spork3245]

4 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

It would take a special kind of person(read: ideologue) to be required to move across the country every five years, and even with a prestigious job of federal judge you’re going to see people not want to uproot their life every single five years. A regular stable of rotating judges term limited in a similar manner to what you described for scotus works just as well at the appellate and district level and again requires no amendment as you can force them into a senior status that already exists. 
 

When framed in the way you describe I think you’re right with regard to SCOTUS and having a random (or even selected in some other way, I don’t like random) judge from a circuit be elevated to SCOTUS 

If the biggest issue you have with it is “some people don’t want to move!!!” then I’d hardly call the idea “dumb”, let alone “very, very dumb”.

[Dodger]

4 hours ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

1.3 million people in the military move all the time, can't find ~900 judges who'll have a job for life willing to move every 5 years? 

You’re expected to move amd or travel as a young recruit into the military. Judges require a law degree and a six figure salary, no they won’t want to move every 5 years 

[Spork3245]

1 hour ago, Dodger said:

You’re expected to move amd or travel as a young recruit into the military. Judges require a law degree and a six figure salary, no they won’t want to move every 5 years 

People do it to work in a Presidential administration for potentially 4 years 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

2 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

People do it to work in a Presidential administration for potentially 4 years 

These are not remotely comparable lol. People taking admin jobs can find other work in DC outside of the admin or understand this is a temporary gig, and don’t go in with the understanding that they will need to completely uproot their entire life every 5 years as a definition of their extremely difficult to achieve career. Especially if they can stay in private practice or on state circuits or some other job where they don’t need to take their kids out of schools, uproot their personal and social life, and have no connection to the area in which they live every five years for a lateral move professionally. 
 

this is a recipe for only the ideologically committed or ending up with massive turnover at best to the private sector. Like even a federal magistrate judge has an 8 year term (but that’s not as well a protected job)

 

like this isn’t a pity party for the poor federal judges, but it is a recipe for gutting the profession of, well, professionals

[Spork3245]

8 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

These are not remotely comparable lol. People taking admin jobs can find other work in DC outside of the admin or understand this is a temporary gig, and don’t go in with the understanding that they will need to completely uproot their entire life every 5 years as a definition of their extremely difficult to achieve career. Especially if they can stay in private practice or on state circuits or some other job where they don’t need to take their kids out of schools, uproot their personal and social life, and have no connection to the area in which they live every five years for a lateral move professionally. 
 

this is a recipe for only the ideologically committed or ending up with massive turnover at best to the private sector. Like even a federal magistrate judge has an 8 year term (but that’s not as well a protected job)

 

like this isn’t a pity party for the poor federal judges, but it is a recipe for gutting the profession of, well, professionals

I believe you’re under the assumption that a judge selected is required to take the job and is unable to decline if they don’t want it: that’s not how I took it.

Adding “Supreme Court Justice” to your resume is a hell of a “get” for some, and there are others who would actively want the job in an attempt to “make a difference”. If your concern is that many of those people would be self-serving ideologues… well, I don’t see how that’s any different than now, but at least the term isn’t for life lol

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

5 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

I believe you’re under the assumption that a judge selected is required to take the job and is unable to decline if they don’t want it: that’s not how I took it.

Adding “Supreme Court Justice” to your resume is a hell of a “get” for some, and there are others who would actively want the job in an attempt to “make a difference”. If your concern is that many of those people would be self-serving ideologues… well, I don’t see how that’s any different than now, but at least the term isn’t for life lol

The point is that many more will decline it leaving only the ideologues or the inexperienced at the district and appellate levels where the bulk of the work of the judiciary is done, this is outside of anything to do with SCOTUS. A federal judge should have tenure and be able to learn from more tenured judges. All this proposal would do is add more problems and solve none. 

[Spork3245]

49 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

or the inexperienced

 

Not if there are requirements to be offered/submit for the position, and why wouldn't there be?  

 

49 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

A federal judge should have tenure and be able to learn from more tenured judges.

 

Like, they're not going to offer this to a first year judge. 

 

49 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

All this proposal would do is add more problems and solve none. 

 

Eh, not really. I do, however, disagree with the term being so short, probably should be 8-12 years.

[MarSolo]

I don’t know, if I’m a judge enjoying the life in California and then get told “you’re going to spend the next five years in Idaho or North Dakota”, I’d hang myself with my robe.

[TwinIon]

I'm all for court reform, but in the meantime, with the system we have, I agree with Silver that the system needs to be gamed at every possible opportunity. I think it's perfectly plausible that it's quite a while before the Democrats control both the Presidency and the Senate again, and there is no reason to take any unnecessary risk. It's not like the Republicans are holding anything back when it comes to stacking the court.

 

As far as court reform goes, while I think a more radical approach is justified, the easiest thing to do IMO would be the Term Limits Bill that was (again?) proposed last year. Justices serve no more than 18 years, Presidents select someone to the court after their first 180 days of their first and third years. It's by no means perfect, but it's something I think could reasonably pass. It would make court seats a (slightly more) predictable and direct outcome of every presidential election, and includes some ethics reforms as well.