MovieChat Forums > Politics > What changes do you want made to the Sup...

What changes do you want made to the Supreme Court?

posted 4 years ago by joej2923 (3021)
16 replies | jump to latest

I want to see a fifteen judge supreme court with decisions decided by a super majority of seventy percent. Seventy percent would equal eleven justices. Firmly established laws shouldn't be overturned by a simple majority since that could be achieved by a change of one or two justices.

I'd also like to see more final decisions made instead of requests for more information. In the U.S. legal system, the judges frequently send the case back to a lower court for clarification. In Trump's tax return case, the supreme court basically said that Trump's position was outrageous and sent the case back to the lower courts to retry it. Anybody with a brain knew Trump's absolute immunity position was ridiculous and unfounded but it two two years for the supreme court to make that determination and Trump still hasn't had to turn over his tax returns.

I'd also like to see a twenty-year term limit on justices so one justice can't have to much influence on the U.S. legal system. If a dud makes it to the supreme court, they are there for life. Even if they are great, they will eventually become senile and will need to go.

[–] christomacin (4655) 4 years ago

A constitutional amendment is in order to make the Supreme Court more clearly defined and less prone to partisan games. Aside from a 20 year term, there's some work that needs to be done on the Congressional side as well. Obviously, the "nuclear option" needs to be reversed. The nuclear option is on the Democrats. What about Congress refusing to hold confirmation hearings? Could there be some sort of time window in which the Senate has to respond. The "Obama rule is on the Republicans. Of course, this notion of a Congressional veto on Supreme Court confirmations (only when it is politically convenient, apparently) during a Presidential election year needs to be done away with. That's also on the Republicans. Anyway, none of this is going to be of any use in the immediate future.

Not sure about expanding the Supreme Court to 15. I fear that may only cause Republicans to go ballistic and likely lead to further tit-for-tats down the road. We really need to break this partisan scorched earth cycle before we break the whole system. Not really sure how we get there in this climate, though. As to the supermajority, I'll have to think more about that.

[–] joej2923 (3021) 4 years ago

Based on my limited research, SC term limits will require a constitutional amendment so that's probably not happening. It looks like the Democrats can pack the court if they get both branches of congress and the president to approve of this.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/09/19/how-democrats-could-pack-the-supreme-court-in-2021-418453

I hear a lot of conservatives blaming Harry Reid for the nuclear option on supreme court justices but I disagree. Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option for federal judges since the republicans in the senate were obstructing the process. Jerks like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz love nothing more than to gum up the works of government. Part of the reason Trump is appointing so many judges is due to the senate delaying Obama's judicial nominees. Mitch McConnell decided to invoke the nuclear option for SC judges but Harry Reid never went that far.

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/harry-reid-nuclear-option-100199

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/03/senate-republicans-trigger-nuclear-option-to-speed-trump-nominees-1253118

[–] Gd5150 (11747) 4 years ago

9 year terms, one is replaced every year. Along with 4 year limit in congress and 6 year limit in senate.

[–] christomacin (4655) 4 years ago

Indeed, many reforms are needed in all branches of government. I've toyed with the idea of a single six-year term for President as well. Most presidents seems to get in the biggest trouble between years 6 to 8 if they are two-termers anyway. Also, they spend way to much time running for re-election and probably waste 2 years of their time doing something other than governing anyway.

[–] Rorikon (17855) 4 years ago

Does it really matter though? On the left it'd be replaced with ever more progressive people and on the right... well, no more Mitt Romney's that's for sure. Maybe more Grahams and McConnell's. Seeing how each side are going to the more extremes this is what we'd be getting.

[–] elcamino (15540) 4 years ago

After Donald's next term the dempgraphics of the US will be different.I can see Nikki Haley letting the 9 amount stay during her office. America will be more calm with new technology giving pleasure to the population to not want trouble.

[–] christomacin (4655) 4 years ago

"new technology giving pleasure to the population"

a Japanese sex android in every pot?

[–] elcamino (15540) 4 years ago

Flying cars is a start.Or electric ones that can go 200 mph.

[–] Rorikon (17855) 4 years ago

Fuck flying cars. I want my sex bot NAO!!!

[–] chilidoggg (14267) 4 years ago

Federal judges MUST serve for life... which really should be the rule for ALL judges everywhere... I'm in Los Angeles, and we elect judges here, I know some attorneys, and I stopped calling them for recommendations because even they don't know which ones are better or worse... yet every talk radio host seems to have an opinion...

Sometimes I think USSC justices should be at least 55 years old... one must be 35 to be President but there are no restrictions for USSC... you don't even need a law degree... but on the other hand, things haven't worked out too terribly - true psychopaths like Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, are rare...

[–] joej2923 (3021) 4 years ago

Requiring lifetime service is a bit extreme since most people want to retire at some point. I think people should have life experience before becoming a judge so a minimum age requirement would be a good idea.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14381) 4 years ago

I want to make it so that the judges can be elected by the people, impeached if they are not following the Constitution to the letter, and limits on how long they can stay in there. There should also be an incredibly complicated form of testing to see if the prospective candidates have what it takes to actually be a judge, regardless of whether someone thinks they should be on the bench. They also have to have gone to Law School for a minimum number of years.

[–] joej2923 (3021) 4 years ago

Tests for potential judges would be a good idea. I disagree that the constitution should be followed to the letter but many people are constitutional originalists. I would argue that the writers of the constitution had great ideas for the 18th century but they were not prepared for life in the 21st century. The founders only allowed property owners to vote, forbid women to vote, allowed child labor and owned slaves. We also have had so many technological advances like flight, smart phones and space travel that the founders could only dream about. Due to the limits of the founders and the constitution, I believe modern legal opinions should be built upon prior case law and various statutes/code sections.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14381) 4 years ago

It's true that the Constitution was not entirely designed for a time period over 200 years in the future, and making major changes to it (such as adding Amendments to the Bill of Rights, or taking them away) is a colossal effort, but it should be pointed out that a number of times, the SC justices would interpret some parts of this in ways that even a child who had been taught basic information about the Constitution would not be stupid enough to try.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

It's ridiculous that Supreme Court justices stay on until the day they die a slow death. A lot of them have mush for brains by the time they die. I think of Thurgood Marshall for one. After he died just two years after retiring it was known that the other justices just assumed what he would vote for and counted his vote that way. I think the FAA has forced retirement of airline pilots after 65 or so. It should be the same for justices and politicians, too.

[–] joej2923 (3021) 4 years ago

I don't mind people working past eighty but they should be able to pass cognitive tests and some sort of CPE. William O. Douglas suffered a stroke during 1975 and still wanted to argue cases at the court after being forced to retire the next year. Douglas apparently wanted judicial senior status and that allows retired federal judges to maintain an office and have a reduced caseload.

http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/07/28/when_justices_refuse_to_retire/