Repairing the Supreme Court

[Lyric]

This Fall we have a VERY good chance of getting a Dem President and a solid Dem Senate majority. If that happens, the first order of business should be to repair and update the Supreme Court of the United States. It's been one hundred and forty years since the number of justices was increased, and since the last increase, the volume of litigation that is appealed to the SCOTUS has ballooned dramatically. It is perfectly reasonable for Congress to increase the number of justices from time to time, in order to ensure that the SCOTUS's ability to adjudicate cases is kept proportional with the ever-increasing population and number of cases that have made it through the circuit appeals process.

Citizens who belong to the party that is not currently "in power" will inevitably decry any attempt to increase the number of justices as "court-packing". Unfortunately, there is never a time when such a move can be made in a politically neutral manner; one party or another is always "in power", so the SCOTUS has remained locked down at nine justices since shortly after the Civil War ended. But there is no doubt that we *need* at least two additional justices, if not more; the nation's population has become so large and diverse that the current number of justices is too small to competently shepherd the best interests of the citizenry that they serve. The sheer volume of important cases that are rejected for review by the SCOTUS is staggering, and is the inevitable result of an overworked, overburdened court. When Roosevelt attempting to "pack" the Court, he was doing it with the goal of passing specific legislation without interference from the Court. This is not what any of us are proposing. The goal is to increase the number of cases that can be heard per year, in order to more effectively tend to the interests of the growing American population. Increasing the number of House Representatives for the sole purpose of maximizing government effectiveness is not "House-packing". Increasing the number of justices for the sake of maximizing judicial effectiveness is not "court-packing".

Adding 2-4 justices to the SCOTUS would not only permit review of more cases per year; it would also broaden the collective viewpoint of the court that stands between governmental tyranny and We The People. With a Democratic president to appoint competent justices and a Dem Senate to investigate and confirm them, it would be the perfect opportunity to modernize the SCOTUS. It is imperative that this happen; we can no longer sit and watch while important cases are denied review simply because the court is direly overburdened and does not have the time to hear as many cases as it should.

It *has* to be done soon. Better that we bite the bullet, endure the right-wing shrieks of "court-packing", and get it done. If we don't, we take the risk of having another Republican president in office when the inevitable increase occurs. Keep this in mind if we win in November, and write to your Dem Congresspeople to let them know that the SCOTUS is overworked, understaffed, and needs additional justices in order to be able to competently fulfill its Constitutional duties. The current number of justices is set at nine by federal statute, but this can be changed. If we have the opportunity in the near future to change it during the tenure of a Dem President/Dem Senate, we should take advantage of it. It's not about ideology; it's about fixing a problem at the most opportune moment, before a conservative President "fixes" it in a way that will endanger our civil liberties for at least a generation.

[FSogol]

1. Make it so.

:-)

[bemildred]

2. We need to impeach some of those SOBs too, for corruption in office. nt

[Lyric]

3. I agree. Nothing would make me happier than

some diligent reporter digging up some of the nasty skeletons in the closets of Scalia and Thomas. Any men who are THAT evil MUST have bodies in the basement or something, lol.

[bemildred]

19. Selection 2000 is all I need, that was an egregious crime. nt

[Jim__]

4. When the SC hears a case, is it always the full court?

If it is, does this proposal mean that the court could consider hearing more cases? Is the full court schedule such that they could hear more cases? If the court can't hear enough cases, could the procedure be changed so that the court initially hears a case in teams of, say 3, justices; and then can the full-court could possibly re-hear some 2-1 decisions? That would allow the court to actually process more cases.

The current SC scares me. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and the other new guy are complete ideologues. They don't give a shit about the law, the constitution, or justice. Just about their ideology.

[Lyric]

5. I'm not 100% sure, but I *think* that

the decision to review a case or not is determined by smaller groups of justices. However, all cases that have been accepted by the court for review are heard by the entire court (unless a justice recuses him/herself). I'm a Poli Sci major, though, not a pre-law major, so I can't swear that I'm right about that.

Even so, I don't think that what you're suggesting would have much of an impact. It might even increase the time required for each case, as many cases would need to be heard more than once. Also, I don't see how it would be fair; even if the "three justice teams" were chosen randomly, there's a chance that a case like Roe v. Wade would come up and be heard by Scalia, Thomas and Alito. That's definitely not a scenario any of us would want. The country would go insane over it.

[northernsoul]

6. unless a justice chooses to recuse him/herself, yes.

n/t

[Vincardog]

7. When President ** is sworn in s/he needs to send a note to the BusHitler puppets on the SCOTUS

Resign for "health reasons" or we will appoint 4 new members; they will all be under 40 years old and Progressive Populists who believe in a woman's right to choose.

[sergeiAK]

8. Are you really advocating blackmailing the SC?

Because if so, that's the most retarded, ridiculously illegal thing I've seen in quite some time, including Shrubbie's actions while in office.

Want Roe V. Wade upheld indefinitely? Get Congress and the states to pass a Constitutional amendment protecting the right to choose. That would be a much surer way of doing it without resorting to extortion.

[Lyric]

9. Nevermind

I thought you were replying to my OP, lol. Sorry.

[Vincardog]

10. Blackmail involves threating to do something unless they pay you not to. I am suggesting

the new revitalized Democratic party let them know what time it is. AS far as I am concerned the shrub was never elected. None of his actions were ever legal and that includes his appointments to the court that illegally installed him.

[sergeiAK]

11. Sorry, extorting the SC into retiring

Still a criminal act, still dangerously unethical. At that point, why not just start an armed insurrection and rewrite the Constitution to suit your ideals better? You've already discarded rule of law, ethics, and decency, might as well get the whole package and kill a few people too.

I must've missed the meeting where the "new revitalized Democratic party" added 3rd world dictator tactics to its toolbox.

[Vincardog]

12. Welcome to the world of politics. You are surprised the USA employs

"3rd world dictator tactics"? Check out the Death squads in Central America. Remember Arms for drugs for illegal wars? How about the CIA lunching coups in Venezuela? I am fighting to restore the constitution that is being shredded by the fascists including the * appointees on the SCOTUS.

But hey after you have been around for a while maybe you too can learn to think for yourself.

[sergeiAK]

14. No, I'm surprised you advocate them in a forum of those

Who wish reform and justice. And you keep a straight face while doing it. It amazes me that a self-identified (I'm assuming since you're here, you are one) progressive would advocate governance through intimidation and extortion. Sounds more like Bush and his group than the Democratic ideal.

And how, pray tell, are you fighting for the Constitution, by advocating the extortion and intimidation of Supreme Court justices? Doesn't that strike you as the least bit hypocritical?

Nice personal attack at the end, BTW. Really helps your argument.

[Vincardog]

16. I do not accept your definitions. Have fun in your world.

[Xithras]

13. Agreed. That's ground for impeachment.

Much more so than lying about a blowjob. Blackmailing the court isn't an acceptable practice for either party to engage in.

[AZ Criminal JD]

18. As you set up your dictatorship what other parts of the Constitution are you going to trash?

[MaryCeleste]

15. Your central thesis is flawed since you can not show that adding justices will add capacity

Is there any indiciation from any sitting SCOTUS member that more members of the court would help? The new president will have the opportunity to nomintate several in their term. The ideological protection you seek will be found there.

[ThomWV]

17. Why would more Justices allow more cases to be heard and why would that matter anyway?

Do the Justices not hear every case they believe to meet their criteria for selection, do they have to set some aside because they don't have time? Worse than that, are you suggesting they break up into teams, split the Court into two Courts? Isn't that problematic? It seems to me that having more Justices would slow things down, not speed them up. I never saw a committee that operated faster as it grew larger.