Court packing poll

[ConservativeElector2]

In the light of this announcement, do you support packing the court with justices (of your preferred party/ideology)?

What to make out of this news? Is it just a ploy to appease progressives or is Biden serious here? If it's just a ploy, why is the issue deemed more meaningful with the progressives but not with the moderates in the Biden camp? Biden could also say ''Sorry folks, we can't do that because it sets a dangerous precedent.'' I don't think the majority of progressives would leave him over this and the higher number of moderates would surely be appeased.

 

[vcczar]

I'm in favor of expanding or reforming the court for two reasons, none on ideological grounds: 

1 - Justices are living longer. I doubt life-terms would have been established if the Founders were seeing justices routinely serving for multiple decades. 

2 - The judicial appointments are so politicized now, mostly because there are so many few spots and appointments are kind of a "luck of the draw" situation. 

I think the fairest way to expand the court is this: 

• Every president gets 1 judicial nominee every two years. One before midterms and one after. They cannot have more, even if there are more vacancies. 
• The nominee must be Chief Justice of a lower Federal Court. This makes it clear that they have the experience, authority, etc to hold the job almost unquestionably. 
• The nominee must pass three panels:
  • The nominee meets with the Supreme Court justices who will pass/fail the nominee as either fit or unfit mentally, physically for the job. Mentally will also include having a full knowledge of the Constitution, SC history, ways of the court, etc. 
  • The nominee will have all living justices that served with him or her in their lower court submit reasons recommending or not recommending the nominee. 
  • The nominee goes to the Senate judicial panel for questioning and a vote. 
• For Confirmation, the nuclear option is available only if the nominee passes all three panels above. Otherwise, they must get 60% of the vote. 

Therefore, if Breyer doesn't resign, we would have 11 justices by the end of Biden's first term. If he wins a second term, we could have 13 justices, but it is likely by January 2029, that two or three justices probably won't be there, so we'll be at 11 or 10. 

Alternatively, we have term limits for justices. 

[Pringles]

Maybe term limits for Justices is a good idea but I just don't know about this. Sure, court nominees are now more partisan but the way to "balance" the court is by pursuing an extremely partisan play by expanding the number of justices which is going to piss off the Trump cultists, Conservatives, a lot of moderates, and even mainstream Democrats? It's just a double whammy to me. The country has endured periods of liberal courts, and conservative courts, yeah, there have been hiccups, but I think we should stay the course. This is purely a Progressive push on Biden and no good will come of it in my opinion.

[vcczar]

3 minutes ago, Pringles said:

Maybe term limits for Justices is a good idea but I just don't know about this. Sure, court nominees are now more partisan but the way to "balance" the court is by pursuing an extremely partisan play by expanding the number of justices which is going to piss off the Trump cultists, Conservatives, a lot of moderates, and even mainstream Democrats? It's just a double whammy to me. The country has endured periods of liberal courts, and conservative courts, yeah, there have been hiccups, but I think we should stay the course. This is purely a Progressive push on Biden and no good will come of it in my opinion.

Justices are living a lot longer. In the past, they'd retire because of "old age" at 65. 

[Pringles]

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

In Canada, 75 is a mandatory, hard-cap, non-negotiable maximum retirement age for Federal Justices, just as a note (as well as for our useless, politically neutered, unelected-but-appointed lumps of sinecure Senators...).

I like the idea of a mandatory retirement age. That's something I could get behind. 75 or 80 could work. 

[WVProgressive]

Despite my vote, I'm really undecided on the matter, but I'm definitely open to Supreme Court reform. Overall, I think the court needs to be les politicized, and I'd support measures to ensure there's always a balance of justices to the left, and to the right, of center and of course a fair number of swing justices.

[Hestia]

I say no with a caveat: I'm very doubtful anyone can run at 100% effectiveness at 85 or older, much less 75 or older. Right now expanding the courts is partisan. But if we can get some common sense reforms like age limits on when they get put on the court and age limits when theyre taken off, I think it could be a step in the right direction. 

[Pringles]

2 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

Despite my vote, I'm really undecided on the matter, but I'm definitely open to Supreme Court reform. Overall, I think the court needs to be les politicized, and I'd support measures to ensure there's always a balance of justices to the left, and to the right, of center and of course a fair number of swing justices.

In the ideal world of mine, I wish the entire court would be packed with swing judges only. 😛 Imagine 9 Anthony Kennedy's on the bench. It'd be great! Or John Roberts!

Edited April 11, 2021 by Pringles

[Rezi]

Yes, but not for ideological reasons. I'd prefer it to be done in a way that would help to depoliticize the courts. It's the easiest supreme court reform I can think of, but could easily go wrong.

[pilight]

I have no objection to creating a panel to study expanding the court.

SC justices have always had long tenures.  Two of John Adams's three appointees served over 30 years.  None of our current justices have served that long.  Only Breyer and Thomas are over 20.

[Dobs]

Unlike most of my fine colleagues in the room, I actually reject the notion that the Supreme Court is at all politicized. Is the nomination and confirmation process political - sure, it's conducted by politicians and it should be political (to a degree) because that means its responsive to democracy and the check and balance is working as it was intended.

But the actual institution itself does not even sniff of partisanship in my view. These are 8 of the finest legal minds in the country and Samuel Alito who sit down and do their work and often return a 50% unanimity rate (Could you imagine Congress agreeing on half of all it does unanimously?). These judges are judicious people by nature and they know how to weigh the law and the law alone. They've done it their entire career. I think the whole concept of Court reform is overblown, we need politician reform and to stop electing clowns to positions of high power. Trying to fix the least broken institution in the country seems a bit misguided.

[Pringles]

4 minutes ago, Dobs said:

Unlike most of my fine colleagues in the room, I actually reject the notion that the Supreme Court is at all politicized. Is the nomination and confirmation process political - sure, it's conducted by politicians and it should be political (to a degree) because that means its responsive to democracy and the check and balance is working as it was intended.

But the actual institution itself does not even sniff of partisanship in my view. These are 8 of the finest legal minds in the country and Samuel Alito who sit down and do their work and often return a 50% unanimity rate (Could you imagine Congress agreeing on half of all it does unanimously?). These judges are judicious people by nature and they know how to weigh the law and the law alone. They've done it their entire career. I think the whole concept of Court reform is overblown, we need politician reform and to stop electing clowns to positions of high power. Trying to fix the least broken institution in the country seems a bit misguided.

For the most part, I agree. Although Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence make me sense a lil partisanship at times. 😛 But the judges between themselves probably never think of themselves as partisan, nor each other. It's not like Abe Fortas is on the court again, (respect to the man personally) but he was "Johnson's man on the Court" for a reason 😕 

[WVProgressive]

7 minutes ago, Dobs said:

These are 8 of the finest legal minds in the country and Samuel Alito

I don't always know how to properly express myself, and this is one of those times. I just wanted to tell you that I found this part very funny, and that I thank you for creating it. 

[DakotaHale]

On 4/11/2021 at 11:03 PM, Dobs said:

Unlike most of my fine colleagues in the room, I actually reject the notion that the Supreme Court is at all politicized. Is the nomination and confirmation process political - sure, it's conducted by politicians and it should be political (to a degree) because that means its responsive to democracy and the check and balance is working as it was intended.

But the actual institution itself does not even sniff of partisanship in my view. These are 8 of the finest legal minds in the country and Samuel Alito who sit down and do their work and often return a 50% unanimity rate (Could you imagine Congress agreeing on half of all it does unanimously?). These judges are judicious people by nature and they know how to weigh the law and the law alone. They've done it their entire career. I think the whole concept of Court reform is overblown, we need politician reform and to stop electing clowns to positions of high power. Trying to fix the least broken institution in the country seems a bit misguided.

Fantastic response. I’ve always criticized the Supreme Court as being too partisan but I’ve never looked at it this way. 

[vcczar]

1 hour ago, DakotaHale said:

Fantastic response. I’ve always criticized the Supreme Court as being too partisan but I’ve never looked at it this way. 

I think the only relatively non-partisan Justice we have is Roberts. The rest are going to predictably lineup with the views of one of the major parties if the case is extremely partisan. We have some exceptions with Trump-related cases since they're more personal than ideological. 

 

[Dobs]

2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I think the only relatively non-partisan Justice we have is Roberts. The rest are going to predictably lineup with the views of one of the major parties if the case is extremely partisan. We have some exceptions with Trump-related cases since they're more personal than ideological. 

 

I think this confuses partisanship with jurisprudential ideology. Of course, we have people who have a more liberal or conservative and activist or restraintist (not to conflate the two dichotomies simply to recognize them). But that has precious little to do with the personal politics of each justice. Each party may desire one type or another, but again, this is a function of the confirmation process being response to democracy.

I maintain the actual court itself is heavily non-partisan, even its seasoned ideologues. There is a reason that the Trump cases were laughed out of court unanimously, because they were legal horse hockey and the partisan gain was not a factor: the law was.

[vcczar]

12 minutes ago, Dobs said:

I think this confuses partisanship with jurisprudential ideology. Of course, we have people who have a more liberal or conservative and activist or restraintist (not to conflate the two dichotomies simply to recognize them). But that has precious little to do with the personal politics of each justice. Each party may desire one type or another, but again, this is a function of the confirmation process being response to democracy.

I maintain the actual court itself is heavily non-partisan, even its seasoned ideologues. There is a reason that the Trump cases were laughed out of court unanimously, because they were legal horse hockey and the partisan gain was not a factor: the law was.

There's a lot of overlap on the court between partisanship and jurisprudential ideology, probably because jurisprudential ideology has become partisan. 

[Edouard]

I don't like at all how the Supreme Court is made, but if parties begin to pack the Court, where is the end?

In Poland also they are packing the Court but with another method, and the sole victim of it is liberal-democracy.

Edited April 14, 2021 by Edouard

[MrPotatoTed]

On 4/11/2021 at 4:08 PM, WVProgressive said:

Despite my vote, I'm really undecided on the matter, but I'm definitely open to Supreme Court reform. Overall, I think the court needs to be les politicized, and I'd support measures to ensure there's always a balance of justices to the left, and to the right, of center and of course a fair number of swing justices.

How would one achieve such a balance?  Who is in charge of judging their ideology?  Must a President Bernie Sanders appoint a Supreme Court Justice Ted Cruz (or vice versa) if it's their ideological turn to be appointed?  What happens if a justice's ideology changes over time?

[MrPotatoTed]

I'd love to see a lot more Biden appointees and a lot fewer Trump appointees on the bench, for the good of our country.

But...where does that end?  Biden won't be President forever, and one day we'll likely have a Trump 2.0.  What stops him from appointing twice as many bench-packing judges?  

And then the next Democrat appoints more to counterbalance the new Trumps, and the next Trump appoints more to counterbalance the new Democrats, and eventually every living person is an active member of the US Supreme Court.

So I think we need to keep the number of Supreme Court Justices firm where it is.  

Now, is the nomination process partisan?  Yes.  But maybe it should be.  It's a lifelong appointment with no realistic way to undo it -- we absolutely should be asking what their plans are for topics that directly impact so many lives -- abortion, marriage equality, civil rights -- and letting those answers impact whether they're an appropriate fit for the courts.  And when the President and Senate are both Democrat-dominated, then it's a good thing that we get a Democrat on the Supreme Court because that's reflective of what the country wants.  And the same when there is a Republican President and Republican Senate nominating a Republican to the court.  And when there's a split between the President being one party and the Senate being another, it is great that the country gets a moderate/independent/swing supreme court justice.  Because the country itself is in a swinging mood.

But where the process absolutely crumbles is when the Senate refuses to consider ANYONE that the President nominates.  If they decide to vote down every single nominee, so be it, that's their right.  But to refuse to even take a vote on a single nominee?  That should be disbarment from the Senate for the majority leader.  And we'll just keep ousting majority leaders until we end up with one who is willing to do their job.