I reckon another valid proposal would be to make the supremes subject to the same ethical standards as other judges. Violate the standards and bye bye.
For the last 10 years in my career with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), I served in acquisition programs as a Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR). Since my recommendations influenced the spending of taxpayer dollars, I was subject to ethical review. I was required to submit a list of all my assets: real estate, savings, investments, IRAs, 401Ks, and Gov't Thrift Plan accounts. This had to be reviewed annually. I was forbidden from trading in any aviation related stock or mutual fund. This extended to firms like GE since they make airplane engines, even though I was in the Air Traffic Organization (ATO) and had no connection to aircraft certification or airline regulation. I'm sure the many Federal employees among the readers here can attest to the stringent rules about gifts from vendors and contractors. A five dollar coffee mug? OK, maybe. A fifteen dollar sandwich? No, pay for your own.
I say all this to emphasize the dismay I feel when I see the hypocrisy of public officials from all parties and in all branches enriching themselves from insider knowledge and the flow of "gifts" from interested parties.
Not even needful. They are supposed to be exemplars of good judgment. Their malfeasances don't have to violate actual law or codified rules to be unacceptable, because they are supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard than that. Impeach the bastards.
Unfortunately, that presupposes 'common sense' or 'good judgement'. Very nebulous terms, and too much to expect with partisan hacks being confirmed by partisan hacks.
Term limits that have limits. They have to be long enough and staggered enough that any one sitting president can't do a makeover. No sitting president should be able to place more 2 justices. If more than that would be needed, temporary appointments would be made randomly from the appeals and district court. Fix that BS where Garland was blocked 10 months before the end of the Obama presidency but Barrett was rushed through 3 1/2 months before the end of the Trump presidency. This is all back of the envelope and would need to be carefully parsed so the corrupt actors can't twist it.
"Fix that BS where Garland was blocked 10 months before the end of the Obama presidency but Barrett was rushed through 3 1/2 months before the end of the Trump presidency."
Name him. Mitch McConnell. Mitch McConnell was responsible for both of those. And when someone asked him if that wasn't hypocritical, he just smirked and I believe said yes. Didn't give a damn. And he later said that Trump was responsible for the attack on the Capitol, and what a disgrace it was, but when it came time to vote on impeachment, ol' Mitch voted to acquit. If he'd kept to his first position and urged some of his colleagues to vote Trump down, he could well have swayed the vote into a conviction, and Trump would have been ineligible for office again. Mitch has a lot to answer for.
Justices take an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” on that basis Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch should face impeachment. (Kavenaugh can just have his beer taken away.)
The Slaughter decision lends itself to a Constitutional Amendment to remedy it. Enable Congress to create independent agencies that follow the broad outlines that worked for 90-some years. R states, I expect, would be happy to ratify it in the belief that it would kneecap a D president. Then get back to making government work.
I continue to think that part of the solution is to return to the source, the Constitution. The Supreme Court was not endowed in the Constitution with all the power it now wields. The twig was bent in Marbury v. Madison, when John Marshal created the power to conduct judicial review of virtually any law - and made SCOTUS the sole and final interpreters of the Constitution. The Constitution, however, never explicitly granted this broad power to the Supreme Court. This unlimited ability to strike down laws passed by the Congress and signed by the president - is not the norm in most democratic governments. Article III gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution, but it was Marshall who inflated that to mean the Supreme Court could interpret the Constitution and they could defeat the will of the two elected branches of government.
This is something that Congress should examine. Certainly right now we have justices who feel no compunction at undermining the unambiguous language of the Constitution. The Marshall doctrine also undermines the power of Congress, the body that the framers clearly intended to be the leading branch of government. This was apparent, among other things, in that it was the first branch to be defined in the Constitution. The Constitution gives much greater attention to defining the duties of Congress than to the judiciary. In fact, it is Congress not the Supreme Court who was tasked with establishing all the federal courts with the exception of the Supreme Court, which is the only court mentioned in Article 3. In short, SCOTUS has being the last word on the law has diminished the role of Congress and of the electorate. The court usurpation has often let Congressional members off the hook as they can vote for something they know is not constitutional, and let SCOTUS take the blame or credit for striking a law down, or for upholding it.
In the UK, the Parliament is the supreme legal authority and courts cannot overrule it. And when the Parliament gets it wrong, it is held accountable by the voters. While the US might not go so far as to strip the court of all judicial review, it is clearly time to rein in the power of the Supreme Court. The Court that is now choosing presidents, granting corporations rights reserved for citizens, and making decisions that would never be approved by the American people at the polls. This is the largest problem in my view, more so than the number of people on the court or term limits. The Supreme Court's power - not its number of justices - needs to be "right-sized."
There really is no immediate, all-purpose Court reform package that doesn’t sow the seeds of continuous partisan retaliation as administrations change. But, if you strip away vibes and look at durability and what near term is realistically passable, I would go with: a binding ethics code with real enforcement; shadow docket and transparency reforms, and modest, clearly justified jurisdiction/process tweaks using Congress's clear, but little used, authority over much of the Court's jurisdiction. In the medium term: 18‑year, staggered term limits via an amendment with regular appointments and post‑term judicial roles.
The unitary executive theory (as glaringly illustrated by the unconscionable "Slaughter" decision) is fundamentally about power, not control, and that distinction is exactly where the theory becomes both seductive and misleading --- apart from being another voodoo theory of governance, conjured pretty much out of thin air. The theory’s defenders talk as if it’s about managerial control (the president must be able to supervise officers). But its actual legal effect is about power consolidation --- giving the president the right to dominate the executive branch even if no president could realistically exercise that control. That gap between power in theory and control in reality is the heart of the problem. More importantly, of course, the theory contradicts the Founders’ core value and essentially topples the foundational pillar of the Constitution: checks and balances. After all, we declared our independence from an absolute unitary executive. Fact is, Ben Franklin proposed a plural executive itself --- a council sharing executive authority, because he feared monarchy and concentrated power. But even if, in a very weak moment, you say a strong president is paramount, you would presumably need, at a minimum, one who is: competent, attentive, informed, rational, and continuously engaged. So you can see how with that essential element in mind and under present circumstances, the theory would immediately fall apart except in the eyes of the Faithful and the Gang of Six.
I can't believe only 6% (as of mid-morning) are in favor of court-packing. It's proof that people don't recognize an emergency when they encounter one. The votes of the Four Whoresmen of the Apocalypse need to be negated ASAP.
I agree. It sounds great to say "we're the good guys and we'll only 'pack' with good guys" but the nature of politics and politicians says you can't believe that.
yes. If the power shifts enough in 2028 to allow the Dems to add four seats to the court, what's to stop Republicans from adding six when they regain power? The solution to SCOTUS malfunction almost certainly requires enlarging the court, but not as crudely as "court-packing" implies.
If the number of Justices were defined by and locked to the number of districts it would at least make the whole retaliation objection less powerful because it would make it harder for each new president to expand the court. I find the retaliation objection weak anyway since Rs rarely wait on D precedent to engage in any action they think gives them an advantage. When they claim they have just followed D precedent, it's just an excuse for whatever they were going to do anyway. I'd rather give them an excuse but make it difficult for them to use it than be expecting them to "beg forgiveness later."
So we get the good guys in office and they pack the court? And when the bad guys are back? Just think Obama, two terms, followed by the horrors that have now consumed every part of our government.
Yes! Let us clutch our pearls and worry more about "norms," liberals! As if it's 1979 and we haven't endured, in our uniquely superior way, the stealing of a SCOTUS seat, the storming of the Capitol, and a 45-year misinformation campaign that has rendered the truth limp!
Yes, "norms" are the only answer when the country is ka-fucked to the dustbin!
I doubt the republic makes it to a 2nd round of court packing. So, there's that.
💯agreement Michael! This is the reasoning that has been held for the filibuster issue for years. Look at where we are now… Time for being cautious is over.
The modern arguments against immigration and birthright citizenship only make sense if you forget what immigration used to look like. The U.S. historically had far more immigrants, far fewer restrictions, far lower naturalization rates, and far more people living here permanently as non‑citizens — and yet the country built its economy, its labor markets, and its civic institutions on that reality. Today’s debates treat immigration as an emergency. Historically, it was the norm. Immigration fueled industrialization, urbanization, and economic growth. The same pattern holds today. Then: Irish were called “unassimilable,” Germans were accused of refusing to learn English and Italians and Jews were said to be criminal or anarchist. Now: Similar cultural anxieties, different targets. Historical reality: Every wave was once considered “impossible to assimilate.” Every wave eventually assimilated. Modern immigration debates treat immigration as a crisis. Historically, immigration was the foundation of American growth and if anything, it means even more today because of especially critical socioeconomic issues. Modern arguments against birthright citizenship recycle the same allegiance‑based theories the 14th Amendment was written to abolish.
Mostly true, but there were the blow-backs that tried (all too successfully) to keep “undesirables” away, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act and barriers to Jewish immigration prior to WW2.
I love this poem so much, I committed it to memory. And I read up on its origins. Emma Lazarus was part of one of the oldest Jewish families in NYC. In the early 1880s she took up the cause of Russian Jews who were victims of tsarist pogroms, and she championed immigration to America. She was tapped to write the poem as part of a fund-raising effort. The French donated the statue, but it was left to a committee in NYC to fund and build the giant pedestal that is roughly as tall as the statue itself. The poem was published in 1883 but not placed on a plaque inside the pedestal until a few years later, after Lazarus' untimely death.
I've spent much of my professional life creating persuasive communications. I know a branding message when I see one. Essentially, the poem rebranded America. The French had named the statue "Liberty Enlightening the World." In other words, it was a message to other nations: Copy our model in your own countries.
Lazarus' words changed the statue's identity to "Liberty INVITING the world." And that's what it became for immigrants ever since, and native-born Americans themselves took pride in that identity. I found illustrations from newspapers in the 1880s depicting immigrants on ships bound for Ellis Island, looking at the statue in reverence as they came into New York Harbor (Francis Ford Coppola depicted that same scene in Godfather II; it's one of the most powerful images in the film).
No one appreciates the meaning of that "golden door" more than immigrants to this country. That is why they perpetually renew America. They don't poison American blood, as Trump/Vance/Miller claim; they transfuse it.
Much as I deplore the rulings of members of the current court, I cannot believe that the only way to correct them (as if they were wayward children!) is to change the rules of the game to benefit us, the knower of all things moral and pure. That doesn't mean that the Constitution can never be amended, obviously. It means that it cannot be amended because your side is losing. No Calvinball with the Supreme Court. And if your side is losing, the chances of either legislation or a constitutional amendment to put things on a more even footing are really really slim. Pay attention! We're losing!
As I have seen noted elsewhere, though -- we're essentially in a situation where the Constitution IS being amended by the votes of five Supreme Court justices. The rules of the game are already being changed and unilateral disarmament is no strategy.
My objections are practical as well as philosophical. We don’t have the votes. Not for packing the court, not for term limits. If we’re going to play hardball, then PLAY hardball. This kind of ridiculous strategizing is what loses elections. Anyone can see that these proposals won’t win and are unfair. The current administration has proven that people will accept unfairness if it actually works. Just don’t be squeamish.
So okay, revolution. Lives, fortunes, sacred honor. The whole bit. You first.
Indeed. I'm always suspicious of solutions -- to ANY sort of problem -- that feel like a godsend when Our Side employs them to achieve its ends, but a catastrophe when Their Side takes similar advantage against us. Ah, that pesky Golden Rule again ...
And really, nine justices probably is the upper limit to how many you can hope ever can discuss cases and agree on anything
Court "packing" casts an unnecessarily negative shadow on the idea. Better would be, "expand the number of justices to 11." This is allowed under the Constitution, all it takes is an act of Congress, not an amendment.
Not that it lets Thomas off the hook, but in RV world, half a mill only gets you medium deluxe. Rock star rigs go for seven figures. Thomas isn't just an intellectual whore, he's a cheap whore.
John Oliver offered Clarence Thomas a $1M yearly stipend for life, plus a branch new $2.4M motor coach if Thomas would resign from the Supreme Court. Thomas did not take up Oliver on his offer. In that respect, Clarence Thomas personifies Simon Cameron's definition of an honest politician: "An honest politician is one who when he is bought will stay bought."
Expand the Court to either 11 justices for the 11 numbered federal circuits or 13 for the 13 courts of appeal Number of justices not enumerated in Constitution. Also, McConnell is engineered this supermajority by blackmailing Breyer to retire. Plenty of criminal conduct by most of the Republicans on Court.
I reckon another valid proposal would be to make the supremes subject to the same ethical standards as other judges. Violate the standards and bye bye.
For the last 10 years in my career with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), I served in acquisition programs as a Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR). Since my recommendations influenced the spending of taxpayer dollars, I was subject to ethical review. I was required to submit a list of all my assets: real estate, savings, investments, IRAs, 401Ks, and Gov't Thrift Plan accounts. This had to be reviewed annually. I was forbidden from trading in any aviation related stock or mutual fund. This extended to firms like GE since they make airplane engines, even though I was in the Air Traffic Organization (ATO) and had no connection to aircraft certification or airline regulation. I'm sure the many Federal employees among the readers here can attest to the stringent rules about gifts from vendors and contractors. A five dollar coffee mug? OK, maybe. A fifteen dollar sandwich? No, pay for your own.
I say all this to emphasize the dismay I feel when I see the hypocrisy of public officials from all parties and in all branches enriching themselves from insider knowledge and the flow of "gifts" from interested parties.
In addition, all Members of Congress and Senators must create a blind trust to handle their investments during their terms of office.
Not even needful. They are supposed to be exemplars of good judgment. Their malfeasances don't have to violate actual law or codified rules to be unacceptable, because they are supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard than that. Impeach the bastards.
We need enforcement tools though. In several places.
They are “supposed to be”. But are they showing good judgment?
Oh, definitely not. That's the grounds for impeaching them. They should not need a code of conduct to spell out the floor of acceptable behavior.
Unfortunately, that presupposes 'common sense' or 'good judgement'. Very nebulous terms, and too much to expect with partisan hacks being confirmed by partisan hacks.
Term limits that have limits. They have to be long enough and staggered enough that any one sitting president can't do a makeover. No sitting president should be able to place more 2 justices. If more than that would be needed, temporary appointments would be made randomly from the appeals and district court. Fix that BS where Garland was blocked 10 months before the end of the Obama presidency but Barrett was rushed through 3 1/2 months before the end of the Trump presidency. This is all back of the envelope and would need to be carefully parsed so the corrupt actors can't twist it.
"Fix that BS where Garland was blocked 10 months before the end of the Obama presidency but Barrett was rushed through 3 1/2 months before the end of the Trump presidency."
Name him. Mitch McConnell. Mitch McConnell was responsible for both of those. And when someone asked him if that wasn't hypocritical, he just smirked and I believe said yes. Didn't give a damn. And he later said that Trump was responsible for the attack on the Capitol, and what a disgrace it was, but when it came time to vote on impeachment, ol' Mitch voted to acquit. If he'd kept to his first position and urged some of his colleagues to vote Trump down, he could well have swayed the vote into a conviction, and Trump would have been ineligible for office again. Mitch has a lot to answer for.
Justices take an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” on that basis Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch should face impeachment. (Kavenaugh can just have his beer taken away.)
🎯🎯🎯🎯
All true, but Slaughter is the case everyone should be screaming about. It's right up there with Citizens United on the horribleness scale.
The Slaughter decision lends itself to a Constitutional Amendment to remedy it. Enable Congress to create independent agencies that follow the broad outlines that worked for 90-some years. R states, I expect, would be happy to ratify it in the belief that it would kneecap a D president. Then get back to making government work.
I continue to think that part of the solution is to return to the source, the Constitution. The Supreme Court was not endowed in the Constitution with all the power it now wields. The twig was bent in Marbury v. Madison, when John Marshal created the power to conduct judicial review of virtually any law - and made SCOTUS the sole and final interpreters of the Constitution. The Constitution, however, never explicitly granted this broad power to the Supreme Court. This unlimited ability to strike down laws passed by the Congress and signed by the president - is not the norm in most democratic governments. Article III gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution, but it was Marshall who inflated that to mean the Supreme Court could interpret the Constitution and they could defeat the will of the two elected branches of government.
This is something that Congress should examine. Certainly right now we have justices who feel no compunction at undermining the unambiguous language of the Constitution. The Marshall doctrine also undermines the power of Congress, the body that the framers clearly intended to be the leading branch of government. This was apparent, among other things, in that it was the first branch to be defined in the Constitution. The Constitution gives much greater attention to defining the duties of Congress than to the judiciary. In fact, it is Congress not the Supreme Court who was tasked with establishing all the federal courts with the exception of the Supreme Court, which is the only court mentioned in Article 3. In short, SCOTUS has being the last word on the law has diminished the role of Congress and of the electorate. The court usurpation has often let Congressional members off the hook as they can vote for something they know is not constitutional, and let SCOTUS take the blame or credit for striking a law down, or for upholding it.
In the UK, the Parliament is the supreme legal authority and courts cannot overrule it. And when the Parliament gets it wrong, it is held accountable by the voters. While the US might not go so far as to strip the court of all judicial review, it is clearly time to rein in the power of the Supreme Court. The Court that is now choosing presidents, granting corporations rights reserved for citizens, and making decisions that would never be approved by the American people at the polls. This is the largest problem in my view, more so than the number of people on the court or term limits. The Supreme Court's power - not its number of justices - needs to be "right-sized."
There really is no immediate, all-purpose Court reform package that doesn’t sow the seeds of continuous partisan retaliation as administrations change. But, if you strip away vibes and look at durability and what near term is realistically passable, I would go with: a binding ethics code with real enforcement; shadow docket and transparency reforms, and modest, clearly justified jurisdiction/process tweaks using Congress's clear, but little used, authority over much of the Court's jurisdiction. In the medium term: 18‑year, staggered term limits via an amendment with regular appointments and post‑term judicial roles.
The unitary executive theory (as glaringly illustrated by the unconscionable "Slaughter" decision) is fundamentally about power, not control, and that distinction is exactly where the theory becomes both seductive and misleading --- apart from being another voodoo theory of governance, conjured pretty much out of thin air. The theory’s defenders talk as if it’s about managerial control (the president must be able to supervise officers). But its actual legal effect is about power consolidation --- giving the president the right to dominate the executive branch even if no president could realistically exercise that control. That gap between power in theory and control in reality is the heart of the problem. More importantly, of course, the theory contradicts the Founders’ core value and essentially topples the foundational pillar of the Constitution: checks and balances. After all, we declared our independence from an absolute unitary executive. Fact is, Ben Franklin proposed a plural executive itself --- a council sharing executive authority, because he feared monarchy and concentrated power. But even if, in a very weak moment, you say a strong president is paramount, you would presumably need, at a minimum, one who is: competent, attentive, informed, rational, and continuously engaged. So you can see how with that essential element in mind and under present circumstances, the theory would immediately fall apart except in the eyes of the Faithful and the Gang of Six.
I can't believe only 6% (as of mid-morning) are in favor of court-packing. It's proof that people don't recognize an emergency when they encounter one. The votes of the Four Whoresmen of the Apocalypse need to be negated ASAP.
My concern is that court packing could fall to either side.
I agree. It sounds great to say "we're the good guys and we'll only 'pack' with good guys" but the nature of politics and politicians says you can't believe that.
yes. If the power shifts enough in 2028 to allow the Dems to add four seats to the court, what's to stop Republicans from adding six when they regain power? The solution to SCOTUS malfunction almost certainly requires enlarging the court, but not as crudely as "court-packing" implies.
Tie the number of seats to the number of judicial districts.
Offhand, that sounds like a better alternative.
Absolutely. That would result in a 13-Justice Court.
If the number of Justices were defined by and locked to the number of districts it would at least make the whole retaliation objection less powerful because it would make it harder for each new president to expand the court. I find the retaliation objection weak anyway since Rs rarely wait on D precedent to engage in any action they think gives them an advantage. When they claim they have just followed D precedent, it's just an excuse for whatever they were going to do anyway. I'd rather give them an excuse but make it difficult for them to use it than be expecting them to "beg forgiveness later."
I think you mean circuits, not districts. There are 94 federal districts in the United States.
Exactly, and for the next 2-1/2 years the only party that could possibly pack the court will be the Republicans.
Court packing to get back to a semblance of balance and then term limits to keep it that way.
We don't have time for your "concern." The nation is deep in its death throes right now.
So we get the good guys in office and they pack the court? And when the bad guys are back? Just think Obama, two terms, followed by the horrors that have now consumed every part of our government.
Yes! Let us clutch our pearls and worry more about "norms," liberals! As if it's 1979 and we haven't endured, in our uniquely superior way, the stealing of a SCOTUS seat, the storming of the Capitol, and a 45-year misinformation campaign that has rendered the truth limp!
Yes, "norms" are the only answer when the country is ka-fucked to the dustbin!
I doubt the republic makes it to a 2nd round of court packing. So, there's that.
Descending to the basest of impulses is a never ending cycle.
💯agreement Michael! This is the reasoning that has been held for the filibuster issue for years. Look at where we are now… Time for being cautious is over.
The modern arguments against immigration and birthright citizenship only make sense if you forget what immigration used to look like. The U.S. historically had far more immigrants, far fewer restrictions, far lower naturalization rates, and far more people living here permanently as non‑citizens — and yet the country built its economy, its labor markets, and its civic institutions on that reality. Today’s debates treat immigration as an emergency. Historically, it was the norm. Immigration fueled industrialization, urbanization, and economic growth. The same pattern holds today. Then: Irish were called “unassimilable,” Germans were accused of refusing to learn English and Italians and Jews were said to be criminal or anarchist. Now: Similar cultural anxieties, different targets. Historical reality: Every wave was once considered “impossible to assimilate.” Every wave eventually assimilated. Modern immigration debates treat immigration as a crisis. Historically, immigration was the foundation of American growth and if anything, it means even more today because of especially critical socioeconomic issues. Modern arguments against birthright citizenship recycle the same allegiance‑based theories the 14th Amendment was written to abolish.
Mostly true, but there were the blow-backs that tried (all too successfully) to keep “undesirables” away, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act and barriers to Jewish immigration prior to WW2.
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Emma Lazarus
November 2, 1883
I love this poem so much, I committed it to memory. And I read up on its origins. Emma Lazarus was part of one of the oldest Jewish families in NYC. In the early 1880s she took up the cause of Russian Jews who were victims of tsarist pogroms, and she championed immigration to America. She was tapped to write the poem as part of a fund-raising effort. The French donated the statue, but it was left to a committee in NYC to fund and build the giant pedestal that is roughly as tall as the statue itself. The poem was published in 1883 but not placed on a plaque inside the pedestal until a few years later, after Lazarus' untimely death.
I've spent much of my professional life creating persuasive communications. I know a branding message when I see one. Essentially, the poem rebranded America. The French had named the statue "Liberty Enlightening the World." In other words, it was a message to other nations: Copy our model in your own countries.
Lazarus' words changed the statue's identity to "Liberty INVITING the world." And that's what it became for immigrants ever since, and native-born Americans themselves took pride in that identity. I found illustrations from newspapers in the 1880s depicting immigrants on ships bound for Ellis Island, looking at the statue in reverence as they came into New York Harbor (Francis Ford Coppola depicted that same scene in Godfather II; it's one of the most powerful images in the film).
No one appreciates the meaning of that "golden door" more than immigrants to this country. That is why they perpetually renew America. They don't poison American blood, as Trump/Vance/Miller claim; they transfuse it.
Much as I deplore the rulings of members of the current court, I cannot believe that the only way to correct them (as if they were wayward children!) is to change the rules of the game to benefit us, the knower of all things moral and pure. That doesn't mean that the Constitution can never be amended, obviously. It means that it cannot be amended because your side is losing. No Calvinball with the Supreme Court. And if your side is losing, the chances of either legislation or a constitutional amendment to put things on a more even footing are really really slim. Pay attention! We're losing!
As I have seen noted elsewhere, though -- we're essentially in a situation where the Constitution IS being amended by the votes of five Supreme Court justices. The rules of the game are already being changed and unilateral disarmament is no strategy.
So you’re suggesting revolution?
My objections are practical as well as philosophical. We don’t have the votes. Not for packing the court, not for term limits. If we’re going to play hardball, then PLAY hardball. This kind of ridiculous strategizing is what loses elections. Anyone can see that these proposals won’t win and are unfair. The current administration has proven that people will accept unfairness if it actually works. Just don’t be squeamish.
So okay, revolution. Lives, fortunes, sacred honor. The whole bit. You first.
Indeed. I'm always suspicious of solutions -- to ANY sort of problem -- that feel like a godsend when Our Side employs them to achieve its ends, but a catastrophe when Their Side takes similar advantage against us. Ah, that pesky Golden Rule again ...
And really, nine justices probably is the upper limit to how many you can hope ever can discuss cases and agree on anything
Court "packing" casts an unnecessarily negative shadow on the idea. Better would be, "expand the number of justices to 11." This is allowed under the Constitution, all it takes is an act of Congress, not an amendment.
💯💯💯
That must be one hell of an RV Thomas has.
Not that it lets Thomas off the hook, but in RV world, half a mill only gets you medium deluxe. Rock star rigs go for seven figures. Thomas isn't just an intellectual whore, he's a cheap whore.
We only know the disclosures.
Well, it cost half a million, not that he paid for it.
John Oliver offered Clarence Thomas a $1M yearly stipend for life, plus a branch new $2.4M motor coach if Thomas would resign from the Supreme Court. Thomas did not take up Oliver on his offer. In that respect, Clarence Thomas personifies Simon Cameron's definition of an honest politician: "An honest politician is one who when he is bought will stay bought."
He couldn’t have done it on the down low. Thomas is a man of pride and ego.
And bitterness.
Expand the Court to either 11 justices for the 11 numbered federal circuits or 13 for the 13 courts of appeal Number of justices not enumerated in Constitution. Also, McConnell is engineered this supermajority by blackmailing Breyer to retire. Plenty of criminal conduct by most of the Republicans on Court.
Many of these justices lied during their hearings (settled law, stare decisis…my eye!) They should be impeached for perjury.
To me, if you’re in favor of packing, which I am, you must be in favor of terms as well.