Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Liberal groups back plan to expand Supreme Court [View all]FreeState
(10,702 posts)43. We need to follow Buttigieg's plan on it
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/inside-pete-buttigieg-s-plan-overhaul-supreme-court-n1012491
Under the plan, most justices would continue serving life terms. Five would be affiliated with the Republican Party and five with the Democratic Party. Those 10 would then join together to choose five additional justices from U.S. appeals courts, or possibly the district-level trial courts. Theyd have to settle on the nonpolitical justices unanimously or at least with a strong supermajority.
They final five would serve one-year, nonrenewable terms. Theyd be chosen two years in advance, to prevent nominations based on anticipated court cases, and if the 10 partisan justices couldnt agree on the final five, the Supreme Court would be deemed to lack a quorum and couldnt hear cases that term.
The idea is similar to whats used in commercial arbitration, a system to resolve business disputes, in which each side gets to pick one arbitrator they trust, and those two arbitrators then jointly pick a third neutral arbitrator who acts as the swing vote.
Under the plan, most justices would continue serving life terms. Five would be affiliated with the Republican Party and five with the Democratic Party. Those 10 would then join together to choose five additional justices from U.S. appeals courts, or possibly the district-level trial courts. Theyd have to settle on the nonpolitical justices unanimously or at least with a strong supermajority.
They final five would serve one-year, nonrenewable terms. Theyd be chosen two years in advance, to prevent nominations based on anticipated court cases, and if the 10 partisan justices couldnt agree on the final five, the Supreme Court would be deemed to lack a quorum and couldnt hear cases that term.
The idea is similar to whats used in commercial arbitration, a system to resolve business disputes, in which each side gets to pick one arbitrator they trust, and those two arbitrators then jointly pick a third neutral arbitrator who acts as the swing vote.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
93 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
IMO SCOTUS is far too powerful, far too political and so easily slanted for decades. n/t
RKP5637
Jun 2020
#1
We need to win the November election. Then as vacancies occur we can appoint progressive judges.
totodeinhere
Jun 2020
#28
FDR did not make a mistake. His threat of adding justices was enough to swing votes for the New Deal
dalton99a
Jun 2020
#61
I suggest they crack open a history book before they waste time and money on this....
George II
Jun 2020
#3
Getting into the guts of the article, it turns out to be just another "progressive" shot at Biden...
George II
Jun 2020
#14
Who was talking about Bernie Sanders? We're talking about the possibility of our next President...
George II
Jun 2020
#85
"Progressive" is a moving target/definition. MANY Democrats consider Biden to be a "progressive"....
George II
Jun 2020
#89
Sanders is rated as the most liberal Senator out of Senators that served 10 years
JonLP24
Jun 2020
#90
Sorry, no he isn't. You obviously didn't check my link. Have a great evening.............
George II
Jun 2020
#91
Yep. " Being Politico, I think this is just more pot stirring and water carrying for trump."
mahina
Jun 2020
#92
I agree with you - the constitution says congress regulates that court, anyway.
ArizonaLib
Jun 2020
#22
The Tara Reade "incident" didn't work, "defunding the police" isn't working, this is just another...
George II
Jun 2020
#26
Correct, Harry Reid's actions, which were widely supported at DU at the time, gave the Republicans
totodeinhere
Jun 2020
#32
For sure they would. Next thing you know we'll have 100 Supreme Court judges.
jimfields33
Jun 2020
#33
Each restacking has less potency. 5-4, 6-5, are way different than 15-14.
Lucky Luciano
Jun 2020
#38
Best would be if we had legal grounds to invalidate every seat that was blocked by McConnell.
JudyM
Jun 2020
#23
The Senate Dems will have to remove the filibuster entirely to pass legislation expanding the USSC.
Calista241
Jun 2020
#48
something has to be done. Not sure if expanding will work but if it does, i'm in.
onetexan
Jun 2020
#29
At the beginning of his second term Roosevelt proposed "packing" the Supreme Court...
George II
Jun 2020
#36
Bad idea. Let's focus on winning elections in November before we start talking about changing
jalan48
Jun 2020
#40
Given the actions of the Republicans in packing the court I think its warranted this time.
cstanleytech
Jun 2020
#75
Again the actions of the Republicans have already brought shame this would bring balance but
cstanleytech
Jun 2020
#80
The reality of the past three years is evidence enough that America is on its last legs
Fiendish Thingy
Jun 2020
#70
Reducing is a better strategy. Reduce the Court to 7. Last hired, first fired. n/t
TygrBright
Jun 2020
#46
Pack ? Dems packing the court did that fuck of a report just say pack the court
Fullduplexxx
Jun 2020
#55
This is the only way we will be able to end gerrymandering and have true democracy.
SunSeeker
Jun 2020
#66