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.
The key points here:
--It would take a while to ratify this, so it satisfies Republican desire to ensure that Obama doesn't get to fill Scalia's seat. SCOTUS can manage with 8 justices for the rest of this term, and also push off possible contentious cases until the later part of the next term.
--If in 2017 we still have a Dem president & GOP Senate deadlocked over a nominee, the interim nominee can get in there to break some ties for the time being.
--If things are still deadlocked upon Kennedy's new mandated retirement in 2019, the interim Justice can be disposed with to get to an odd number. And the requirement of 7 for a quorum (currently SCOTUS sets it at 6) prevents the deadlock from lasting beyond two vacancies.
--Pushing Justices off the Court by tenure is serendipitous here, since you'd have Kennedy first, the swing vote, followed by three presidential cycles in which one Justice each from each wing would leave (Thomas/Ginsburg, Breyer/Roberts, Alito/Sotomayor).
I was thinking, and it struck me as odd how much the Republican candidates supported waiting for this appointment. In fact, that advocate a lot for limiting Obama's power and ranting about what powers Congress should have over Obama.
Do none of them consider the possibility that they might win the election, and then find themselves in a similar situations?
Re: RIP Antonin Scalia
Posted: Sun February 21, 2016 10:37 pm
by stip
better to roll the dice then take the sure defeat
Re: RIP Antonin Scalia
Posted: Sun February 21, 2016 10:38 pm
by stip
plus not filling the seat makes the court an issue, and the right understands/turns out for judicial issues a bit more than the left
Re: RIP Antonin Scalia
Posted: Mon February 22, 2016 12:31 am
by Green Habit
stip wrote:plus not filling the seat makes the court an issue, and the right understands/turns out for judicial issues a bit more than the left
I'm curious to see if the left will be more motivated this time around. The Roberts Court has handed them plenty of red meat issues that are easy to get people angry about (abortion, guns, to name a few), and there's added enthusiasm of getting someone on their side to replace someone as easily antagonizing as Scalia.
Re: RIP Antonin Scalia
Posted: Mon February 22, 2016 12:39 am
by stip
itll help but there is so much more first class infrastructure related to the courts on the right
Re: RIP Antonin Scalia
Posted: Mon February 22, 2016 12:44 am
by 4/5
I mean Ted Cruz got right to it almost immediately with his "We're one Justice away from the 2nd Amendment being written out of the Constitution" nonsense. That's a paraphrase, but it gets the idea across.
Re: RIP Antonin Scalia
Posted: Mon February 22, 2016 12:46 am
by Green Habit
4/5 wrote:I mean Ted Cruz got right to it almost immediately with his "We're one Justice away from the 2nd Amendment being written out of the Constitution" nonsense. That's a paraphrase, but it gets the idea across.
Cruz has been by far the most refreshingly honest candidate on this issue. He knows how high the stakes are and he's not afraid to just flat out say it.
Re: RIP Antonin Scalia
Posted: Mon February 22, 2016 3:00 am
by Simple Torture
Green Habit wrote:
4/5 wrote:I mean Ted Cruz got right to it almost immediately with his "We're one Justice away from the 2nd Amendment being written out of the Constitution" nonsense. That's a paraphrase, but it gets the idea across.
Cruz has been by far the most refreshingly honest candidate on this issue. He knows how high the stakes are and he's not afraid to just flat out say it.
True, and it's hilarious how appealing the America he describes sounds to me: "People baking cakes for gay weddings....abortions for everyone who needs them...dogs and cats living together..."
Re: RIP Antonin Scalia
Posted: Mon February 22, 2016 9:43 pm
by Green Habit
I told you guys the roles would be reversed if the power was reversed.
Re: RIP Antonin Scalia
Posted: Mon February 22, 2016 10:00 pm
by B
Damn it, Biden! We always knew your mouth would sink Obama's Presidency!!
Re: RIP Antonin Scalia
Posted: Mon February 22, 2016 10:01 pm
by BurtReynolds
Diamond Joe is always right.
Re: RIP Antonin Scalia
Posted: Mon February 22, 2016 10:25 pm
by Norah
BurtReynolds wrote:Diamond Joe is always right.
Joe Biden's portrayal in The Onion is an all time high water mark in American political satire. It is a treasure to behold.
