The Supreme Court

[The Argonaut]

RBG-Died
Kennedy-Retired
Scalia-Died
Souter-Retired
Stevens-Retired
O'Connor-Retired
Rehnquist-Died


4-3 in favor of retirement over the last thirty years

[verb_to_trust]

RBG-Died
Kennedy-Retired
Scalia-Died
Souter-Retired
Stevens-Retired
O'Connor-Retired
Rehnquist-Died


4-3 in favor of retirement over the last thirty years

Not a normal ratio for any job. But for SCOUTS it's a solid argument against term limits? Got it.

[The Argonaut]

Who said that? Who are you arguing with?

[verb_to_trust]

Who said that? Who are you arguing with?

Apparently anyone with the power to actually change it

[Strat]

Lifetime appointments doesn't leave much room for evolution i feel?

[The Argonaut]

I think it was maybe Green Habit who first introduced me to this idea, which I've seen in other places since: 18-year term limits, which means there will be a retirement and a nomination every two years. It can be in an odd year to insulate it from electoral politics even more. Every presidential term will get two nominations. (Also, Justices who die will be replaced by new justices only for the remainder of the original eighteen-year term.)

[Bi_3]

What would adding more do to help? Seems like it would increase the polarization.

[simple schoolboy]

The left marched through all the other institutions. They forgot about this one, and the Federalist Society runs through this one institution and you complain its unfair?

Try Federalism, it makes the Supreme Court far less important.

[Birds in Hell]

I can't wrap my head around the political importance of the US Supreme Court, and the bizarre deification (or demonisation) of individual judges.

I don't think most lawyers could reliably name the judges on the Australian High Court.

The hyperbolic tributes all over social media are deeply weird.

Like, what the hell is this?!

[verb_to_trust]

What a lunatic. And what indication at all was there that she was going to live a few more years? She has been very ill. Publicly.

[knee tunes]

I can't wrap my head around the political importance of the US Supreme Court, and the bizarre deification (or demonisation) of individual judges.

I don't think most lawyers could reliably name the judges on the Australian High Court.

The hyperbolic tributes all over social media are deeply weird.

Like, what the hell is this?!

Stevie Nicks. Meeting all the famous people since 1979 drunk drunk

[Green Habit]

This throws a potential wrench into McConnell's planning. If Murkowski, Romney and Collins--and only those three Republicans--hold firm, it narrows the window to a few weeks after the election to when he could lose the critical fourth vote.

[Green Habit]

RBG-Died
Kennedy-Retired
Scalia-Died
Souter-Retired
Stevens-Retired
O'Connor-Retired
Rehnquist-Died

4-3 in favor of retirement over the last thirty years

The weird thing is that before Rehnquist, you have to go all the way back to 1954 to find a justice that died while in office. And there like about 5 of them who died in a span of about 8 years after WWII ended.

[Green Habit]

I think it was maybe Green Habit who first introduced me to this idea, which I've seen in other places since: 18-year term limits, which means there will be a retirement and a nomination every two years. It can be in an odd year to insulate it from electoral politics even more. Every presidential term will get two nominations. (Also, Justices who die will be replaced by new justices only for the remainder of the original eighteen-year term.)

This is what I drafted up on that subject back in 2016 after Scalia died:

AMENDMENT XXVIII

Section 1.
The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of nine Justices, with a quorum of seven Justices required to do business. Each of the Supreme Court’s yearly terms shall begin on the 1st day of October, and conclude on the 1st day of July, unless extraordinary circumstances as determined by the Justices of the Supreme Court require the term to conclude later than the 1st day of July.

Section 2.
The terms of the current and former Justices of the Supreme Court shall conclude as follows:
• The seat previously occupied by the Hon. Antonin Scalia shall begin a new term on the 1st day of July of the year two thousand and seventeen (2017).
• The term of the Hon. Anthony M. Kennedy shall conclude on the 1st day of July of the year two thousand and nineteen (2019).
• The term of the Hon. Clarence Thomas shall conclude on the 1st day of July of the year two thousand and twenty one (2021).
• The term of the Hon. Ruth Bader Ginsburg shall conclude on the 1st day of July of the year two thousand and twenty three (2023).
• The term of the Hon. Steven G. Breyer shall conclude on the 1st day of July of the year two thousand and twenty five (2025).
• The term of the Hon. John G. Roberts shall conclude on the 1st day of July of the year two thousand and twenty seven (2027).
• The term of the Hon. Samuel A. Alito shall conclude on the 1st day of July of the year two thousand and twenty nine (2029).
• The term of the Hon. Sonia Sotomayor shall conclude on the 1st day of July of the year two thousand and thirty one (2031).
• The term of the Hon. Elena Kagan shall conclude on the 1st day of July of the year two thousand and thirty three (2033).
The terms of these Justices shall not be extended beyond these days, unless extraordinary circumstances to complete the business of the Supreme Court’s yearly term require tenure after the first day of July; however, such business shall extend no later than the beginning of the Supreme Court’s next yearly term on the 1st day of October.

Section 3.
All persons appointed as Justices of the Supreme Court after the ratification of this amendment to succeed the terms of current Justices of the Supreme Court as described in the second section of this amendment shall have their appointment limited to one term of eighteen years. No Justice shall be eligible for additional service as a Justice of the Supreme Court after the expiration of this term, except as described in the fourth section of this amendment.

Section 4.
Should any early vacancy occur on the Supreme Court of the United States, either among the current Justices described in the second section of this amendment, or among Justices appointed as described in the third section of this amendment, the President shall have the power to nominate, with the advice and consent of the Senate, a person to complete the remainder of the vacated term. Such a Justice shall not be eligible for an additional term on the Supreme Court as described by the third section of this amendment, unless the completion of the vacated term consists of less than nine years.

Section 5.
Should there be exactly one vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States, the President shall have the power, without the advice or consent of the Senate, to appoint an interim Justice of the Supreme Court to fill this vacancy. The term of an interim Justice shall conclude upon either the appointment of a Justice of Supreme Court as described by the third and fourth sections of this amendment, or if a second vacancy is created. Should there be more than two vacancies, the Supreme Court shall fail to constitute a quorum necessary to do business.

Obviously you have to change some names here now. And in order to get Republicans to bite, you probably need to move Breyer ahead of Thomas so they have a fighting chance to keep the majority if they can defeat Biden in 2024.

But I'll say something I likely said before: if McConnell's serious about going scorched earth, the Dems should make it crystal clear that they'll pack the court if they get the power to do so, unless the GOP agrees to this amendment. Court packing is not good in the long term, because once you start it, it'll spawn a chain reaction of endless retaliation with more packing. This is why a laurel like this needs to be offered first, even if it's unlikely the likes of McConnell will take it.

[96583UP]

how about instead whoever has the most coca makes the rules

[Bi_3]

When does this all have to go down by? 30.November?

[digster]

What would adding more do to help? Seems like it would increase the polarization.

That battle's already lost. There's no way here where the polarization is lowered, whether Trump fills the seat and wins or whether Trump fills the seat and they add judges, so there's no reason not to do the latter.

[Mickey]

What would adding more do to help? Seems like it would increase the polarization.

That battle's already lost. There's no way here where the polarization is lowered, whether Trump fills the seat and wins or whether Trump fills the seat and they add judges, so there's no reason not to do the latter.

I think importantly the polarization we're witnessing is not tied to a loss of faith in juridical institutions themselves--people by and large accept both Trump's election and the Supreme Court's current composition as legitimate. In theory, this could change depending on how they handle things here, but then it broadly did not change with the Merrick Garland fiasco so I'm wary of that idea, and by extension similarly wary that adding two justices itself would sudden cause a crisis of political legitimacy. In basic terms I think our country is increasingly polarized because the political ideologies offered by both parties don't address the real economic contradictions we're living in and there's no easily accessible bubble of accumulation (as there was in the 1990s) to compensate for that. This could set the stage for a legitimacy crisis but I don't think anything that happens with the Supreme Court will, in itself, either tamp down on or increase polarization.

[liebzz]

The country is polarized because for decades we’ve had a slow march against compromise and honest debate and closed in on identity politics and culture wars. This was aided by the silent assent of Republicans to bring certain elements of the Trump coalition into their tent for the purpose of winning. Those same Republicans then didn’t respond to those divisive forces, which lead to the insurgence of the Tea Party. Given the threat that this siphoned enough votes to cause Republican to less silently offer their party to those same forces. Trump was merely the final face of it. The actor who saw the opportunity in front of his face and turned dog whistles into bull horns.

Us progressives aren’t always helping things by constantly blowing back with outrage at every single thing. It creates a cacophony that no one listens to.

It comes down to this: is our country a better place after the last 4 years. I am not sure anyone: conservative, liberal, or moderate can honestly answer yes.

[Bi_3]

What would adding more do to help? Seems like it would increase the polarization.

That battle's already lost. There's no way here where the polarization is lowered, whether Trump fills the seat and wins or whether Trump fills the seat and they add judges, so there's no reason not to do the latter.

Sorry, I meant polarization on the court. Having more judges reduces the power of each individual seat, which will probably lead to more extremes so those judges get RBG level fame