6 ms·

I think we can all agree the current Supreme Court system is broken. It is completely based on 1) during what term a judge happens to die in. 2) wether the pa

by cochne 6y ago

I think we can all agree the current Supreme Court system is broken. It is completely based on 1) during what term a judge happens to die in. 2) wether the party controlling the senate will grant the president his constitutional right to appoint a judge. (So even if a judge dies before the term is over, they can just say nah let’s wait for the next guy) Adding more judges would help a little because the random affect of a judge dying is smaller, though it’s still not a good long term fix.

minikites 6y ago
A reasonable idea I've seen floated: Each presidential term gets exactly one new "seat" and the size of the court fluctuates between these additions and justices retiring. There's no reason it needs to be a fixed size.
- spiritplumber 6y ago
  It needs to be an odd number.
  - minikites 6y ago
    Why? Justices recuse themselves in some cases, so ties are already possible. I believe the lower court ruling is upheld in those cases.
    - waterheater 6y ago
      They recuse in some cases but not most. Given that all Justices are expected but not guaranteed to vote in cases, it makes the most sense to have an odd number to minimize the cases of ties.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - minikites 6y ago
        Assuming the case is close enough that a tie is plausible. There are plenty of 9-0 and 7-2 decisions: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/28/those-5-4-decisions-on-the-supreme-court-9-0-is-far-more-common/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/0... >The 5-to-4 decisions, by comparison, occurred in 19 percent of cases.
  - brandmeyer 6y ago
    IMO, it ought to be an even number. It would help make the court less active and more (operationally) conservative by requiring them to have more consensus in their rulings. The US Senate has a hard time passing new bills precisely because it reflects the growing ideological divide in this country. This should be a time for less activism and more consensus-building, not less.
helsinkiandrew 6y ago
Is the problem that the wording of the constitution is so old its interpretation is so dependent on the political and personal leanings of the judges?
- emodendroket 6y ago
  Judicial review was dreamt up by nervous federalists looking for a way to tie Jefferson’s hands. It is not so much a matter of it being unable to keep up as people not necessarily finding it desirable for it to work as designed anymore.
MikeUt 6y ago
> wether the party controlling the senate will grant the president his constitutional right to appoint a judge The president only has a right to nominate a judge. He needs the consent of the senate to appoint one. If the senate does not consent, no rights are being denied.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  Yes, but that's not what happened in the salient case - they didn't say they believed the nominated judge was unsuitable and turned them down. They said it was inappropriate to even look at a nomination "so close" to the end of the president's term (an entire year). >Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would consider any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president
  - MikeUt 6y ago
    So the senate didn't give their consent, as is their right. But you think the reasoning (or, lets face it, excuse) behind withholding that consent was somehow unconstitutional?
    - jfengel 6y ago
      It's not unconstitional. But neither is the proposal here. That's the problem: the rules allow a lot of things that are considered unfair and un-collegial. If that's successful, then eventually the tactics will be considered by the other side. It's a political judgment call of whether it will be a net benefit to them. (My guess is that they'll conclude that packing the court is not but term limits for future nominations are.) But it will undoubtedly be constitutional -- and pushed as far as they think it can be.
      - MikeUt 6y ago
        That's true, but the statement I was addressing was wether the party controlling the senate will grant the president his constitutional right to appoint a judge Not granting someone their constitutional right can only be interpreted as claiming that doing so is unconstitutional.

by cochne 6y ago

minikites 6y ago

A reasonable idea I've seen floated: Each presidential term gets exactly one new "seat" and the size of the court fluctuates between these additions and justices retiring. There's no reason it needs to be a fixed size.

spiritplumber 6y ago
It needs to be an odd number.
- minikites 6y ago
  Why? Justices recuse themselves in some cases, so ties are already possible. I believe the lower court ruling is upheld in those cases.
  - waterheater 6y ago
    They recuse in some cases but not most. Given that all Justices are expected but not guaranteed to vote in cases, it makes the most sense to have an odd number to minimize the cases of ties.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - minikites 6y ago
      Assuming the case is close enough that a tie is plausible. There are plenty of 9-0 and 7-2 decisions: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/28/those-5-4-decisions-on-the-supreme-court-9-0-is-far-more-common/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/0... >The 5-to-4 decisions, by comparison, occurred in 19 percent of cases.
- brandmeyer 6y ago
  IMO, it ought to be an even number. It would help make the court less active and more (operationally) conservative by requiring them to have more consensus in their rulings. The US Senate has a hard time passing new bills precisely because it reflects the growing ideological divide in this country. This should be a time for less activism and more consensus-building, not less.

helsinkiandrew 6y ago

Is the problem that the wording of the constitution is so old its interpretation is so dependent on the political and personal leanings of the judges?

emodendroket 6y ago
Judicial review was dreamt up by nervous federalists looking for a way to tie Jefferson’s hands. It is not so much a matter of it being unable to keep up as people not necessarily finding it desirable for it to work as designed anymore.

MikeUt 6y ago

> wether the party controlling the senate will grant the president his constitutional right to appoint a judge The president only has a right to nominate a judge. He needs the consent of the senate to appoint one. If the senate does not consent, no rights are being denied.

happytoexplain 6y ago
Yes, but that's not what happened in the salient case - they didn't say they believed the nominated judge was unsuitable and turned them down. They said it was inappropriate to even look at a nomination "so close" to the end of the president's term (an entire year). >Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would consider any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president
- MikeUt 6y ago
  So the senate didn't give their consent, as is their right. But you think the reasoning (or, lets face it, excuse) behind withholding that consent was somehow unconstitutional?
  - jfengel 6y ago
    It's not unconstitional. But neither is the proposal here. That's the problem: the rules allow a lot of things that are considered unfair and un-collegial. If that's successful, then eventually the tactics will be considered by the other side. It's a political judgment call of whether it will be a net benefit to them. (My guess is that they'll conclude that packing the court is not but term limits for future nominations are.) But it will undoubtedly be constitutional -- and pushed as far as they think it can be.
    - MikeUt 6y ago
      That's true, but the statement I was addressing was wether the party controlling the senate will grant the president his constitutional right to appoint a judge Not granting someone their constitutional right can only be interpreted as claiming that doing so is unconstitutional.