The Supreme Court Needs to Be Cut Down to Size

[LymphocyteLover]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/23/opinion/supreme-court-commission-court-packing.html

On Tuesday, the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States sat for its third public meeting. Formed in April by executive order, the 36-member commission exists to hear arguments for and against Supreme Court reform and to analyze and appraise the merits of specific proposals.

President Biden did not run on court reform and rejected “court packing” during the 2020 campaign. But after Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell pushed Amy Coney Barrett through the Senate in a hurried bid to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg before the presidential election, he could not resist calls from within the Democratic Party to do something.

The commission is Biden’s something, and it isn’t much to look at. Not only is it not meant to make recommendations or suggest a course of action, but its members come from the upper echelon of the legal elite — exactly the people most comfortable with the institutional status quo on the Supreme Court.

But this doesn’t mean the commission is worthless. It may not offer needed reforms, but in its three meetings so far it has already served as a valuable platform for scholars with a cleareyed view of the court and a powerful critique of its current role within the nation’s constitutional order. If nothing else, the commission has helped elevate important ideas and perspectives the broader public needs to hear. It is interesting, illuminating and worthy of your attention.

Really interesting column about how historically, SCOTUS is really anti-democratic and racist. He proposes a solution I hadn't heard before, which is that rather than altering the number of justices, Congress can pass laws circumscribing the power of SCOTUS.

[AllaN01Bear]

1. the scoutus needs to be reformed . no nominations or appointments but

elected officials with a 2 year term. no more lifetimes

[PJMcK]

2. How would that work?

Sounds like you'll have to amend the Constitution. Any idea how difficult that is?

[Lochloosa]

6. You want a SC like the House? There was a reason for the lifetime appointments.

The SC and Federal judges are lifetime so they are not influenced by politics as much as possible. Think of Justice Souter. He was appointed by GWB the first

[PJMcK]

3. Are you sure Congress can "pass laws circumscribing the power of SCOTUS?"

Article III of the U.S. Constitution establishes the Judiciary Branch of the government.

Do you think the Article I bodies (House & Senate) can just pass a law changing a co-equal branch? Wouldn't that need a Constitutional amendment? Those are notoriously difficult to pass and get ratified.

[The Magistrate]

5. It Can, Sir

The Constitution grants the Court 'original jurisdiction' over disputes between states, and a few other items. It then states the Court may exercise appellate jurisdiction as Congress directs. Congress cannot alter the 'original jurisdiction', but could certainly limit what appellate jurisdiction it grants.

[Lochloosa]

7. Yes. Its been done before.

[lagomorph777]

8. 100% sure. Look at the text:

Article III Section 2 paragraph 2:

"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

[lees1975]

22. Does not need an amendment. The constitution gives congress the power to establish a supreme court.

It can set up a court system however it wants to. It is actually the Judiciary Act of 1789 that gives Congress the ability to set the courts in place and determine how they relate to each other. The same act can be used to change the number of justices on the court. It would be difficult to pass with the filibuster in place, but otherwise just requires majority vote in both houses.

[CrispyQ]

4. Cut it back to the original six, ditch the last three, then watch right wing heads explode. -nt

[70sEraVet]

9. Yes, just say its 'originalism'! The Scalia worshippers ought to love it!

[SWBTATTReg]

10. Always interesting to read, these articles on expanding the size of the US Supreme Court, or

reducing the size of it, or something else. What do the law schools at Harvard, and other institutions say? I just like to hear what the scholars say within the halls of learning. Politics aside, but regardless of the size of the Court, politics will always have a role and also, why do we even need a Senate and/or House? With the way electronic voting can be tabulated rapidly (a more robust voting system is in place of course), the people can directly have a role in how things are passed instead of these constant roadblocks.

I guess eliminating the role of these senators and house members is to knock down these members who seem to get a big head after they are elected and they are acting like some kind of divinity or something.

I don't want to hear from the likes of the Heritage Foundation, or other stupid so called 'conservatives'...I've had my fill of these idiots and what they so call believe in and after supporting the likes of djt and his scumbag cronies, these entire 'conservative' movement (and you might well add the so called 'christian evangelical movement' too) have all dirtied the words 'conservative' and 'christian' to the point of no longer meaning conservative or christian in any shape, form, or fashion. Pathetic.

[LymphocyteLover]

15. the article is actually talking about Bidens' commisson on SCOTUS which has those experts

and they are recommending this approach

[SWBTATTReg]

19. and your point is? I just said that it was interesting to read this stuff, nothing else?

[lees1975]

20. Your last paragraph is right on target

https://signalpress.blogspot.com/2021/07/an-evangelical-christian-perspective-on.html

[Midnight Writer]

11. The best way to reform the Supreme Court is to never elect another Republican President.

It will take a while, but it is sure fired.

[lees1975]

21. Absolutely!

I'm in.

[in2herbs]

13. If we don't/can't address the filbuster and the reform of the USSC then why are we fighting

to make positive change? I don't know if it could be done but with a newly reformed court I would love to see a legal challenge to the filibuster with the decision being that it (filibuster) is unconstitutional and contrary to Congresses obligations to represent all citizens.

[LymphocyteLover]

16. the filibuster isn't based on law but is just a stupid tradition in the senate

it's a grotesque rule but too many Senators seem to like it

[lastlib]

14. I've had another idea bouncing around in the past year or so:

A National Court of Appeals. All appeals from federal courts go here and its decision is final. Strip SCOTUS of appeals jurisdiction and limit its cases to its original constitutional jurisdiction. Pack the national court with 25 or so good young progressives, and let Clarence play with his pubes and take all the naps he wants. BeerBoy can drink himself into well-deserved oblivion. Sammy can do whatever Sammy likes to do.

[LymphocyteLover]

17. Interesting-- I love big bold ideas no matter how unlikely they seem to be right now

[pjpossum]

18. Our current Chief Justice was hired by Reagan

to research this very idea. They wanted to use it to override Roe v Wade. Roberts said it definitely could be done. Reagan's administration decided not to go down that path.