Expand the court. "But republicans will do the same" you might say. To that I say "okay, let the court be a million judges to show just how shitty and ridiculous it is, let it collapse under its own stupidity. Besides, the conservatives already control the court, so there's really nothing to lose."
this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
596 points (96.9% liked)
News
23406 readers
4848 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Make every US citizen a justice upon turning the minimum age for a Supreme Court justice.
Upon learning this in High School I was baffelled... There are no requirements to being a Supreme Court justice in the constitution. Simply that you are appointed by the president, and Congress confirms you. You don't need a background in law at all. There is no age requirement at all. There aren't even citizenship requirements. By the Constitution, Biden could appoint Gretta Thornburg to the Supreme Court, and Congress could confirm her, and we would have Justice Thornburg for the next 70-odd years.
https://www.findingalawyer.org/supreme-court-justice-qualifications/
load more comments
(1 replies)
My favored tactic is to -- Bam! Expand the court to 11 in one year, than 13 in two. Nuke the filibuster if you have to.
Then Democrats can sit down with Republicans and say "You can let us appoint 4 justices to lifetime terms and wait until you get the Presidency and both houses of Congress to expand it more, or you can work with us to pass an amendment to set up term limits and other reforms so the SC is no longer a political football".
The main issue is confirmations. If enough Republicans hold the Senate, they can stall confirmation until their guy comes into office and then stuff the court further.
load more comments
(10 replies)
NO position should ever be for life. It's ridiculous that we have 70/80/90 year olds running things forever until they die. They should retire and let the next generation take the reins. Age and term limits. Courts should not be able to be packed like this. Nothing should.
They should also probably be held to some ethical standards, but that's too much for the nation's most powerful court/justices. Nevermind the US code of conduct says justices are to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
But who needs a functional government or justice system? It's just keeping big business from making even more money, and destroying the planet faster.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Also, the fact that the reasoning behind this is because they don't want the justices to be pressured by partisian issues is ironic considering....
I don't see how anyone ever thought that a president appointing them would be bipartisan. Ironic indeed.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Australian High Court justices have an age limit.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Not like she can do anything either. If she steps down now, Biden replaces her, demographics of the court stay the same.
All she can do is hang on until Thomas and Alito are replaced and hope that happens under a Democratic President
That will flip the court from 6-3 conservative to 5-4 liberal, but then the problem is the next 3 oldest justices are Sotomayor, Roberts and Kagen.
The truly frustrating thing about all of this is that the courts composition can be changed by acts of congress. The republicans pulled some massive bullshit to get this court. Biden could run with the campaign promise to unfuck the Supreme Court. This would be massively popular. Just add justices to rebalance the court. It can be done.
As much as I'd like that, the new justices would still need to get approved by congress. Unless we get 60 Dem senators, we're stuck at 9 for the foreseeable future.
I don’t believe the filibuster applies to judicial nominees anymore.
It doesn't, but an act to change the size of the court would have to go through the House and Senate and we don't have the votes in either body for that right now.
Fun fact, the last time we changed the court size was to SHRINK it from 10 to 7 in order to deny President Johnson (no, the other one) a Supreme court pick.
After he got bounced and replaced by Grant, they increased it back to 9 where it has been ever since.
I wouldn't be averse to something similar, shrink the court from 9 to 5, elimimate the 4 most recently added justices. Yeah, we'd lose Brown-Jackson, but that's a small price to pay to get rid of Trump's nominees.
The court would then split 2 conservative, 2 liberal with Roberts as the swing vote.
IIRC, most legal scholars believe that shrinking the court doesn't get rid of existing justices as they are appointed for life. It simply prevents the appointment of new ones.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Biden could run with the campaign promise to unfuck the Supreme Court. This would be massively popular.
It would be massively popular but I don't see it galvanizing new voters. Anyone civically engaged enough to understand the fuckedness of the supreme court was already planning to vote Biden.
He doesn’t need new voters, he needs to energize his base which he seems intent on demoralizing with his Gaza bullshit.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's sad how true this is.
load more comments
(5 replies)
She could take out one of her colleagues. She's right there in the room with them. They'd never see it coming.
-
Wait for the conservative justices to side with Trump and say that the president has absolute legal immunity
-
Hand Biden a gun
-
?????
-
Profit.
load more comments
(1 replies)
She would have to do it after the election or they’ll pull a repeat of Scalia/Garland.
load more comments
(1 replies)
She's a 69 year old type 1 diabetic...
You know what the average lifespan for a type 1 diabetic woman is?
68 years old...
She should have stepped down immediately and let Biden replace her. Instead if Biden keeps fucking up, trump could very likely get another.
She does have the very best healthcare in the country though...
True.
But stress is something that needs to be avoided to help increase lifespan with type 1 diabetes.
And she's not shy about how she's doing
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she’s “tired” and “working harder than I ever had” due to the Supreme Court’s big cases, growing emergency calendar, and briefs from outside groups.
“And to be almost 70 years old, this isn’t what I expected,” Sotomayor said Monday during an appearance at the University of California, Berkeley’s law school. “But it is still work that is all consuming and I understand the impact the court has on people and on the country, and sometimes the world. And so it is what keeps me going.”
Just like RBG, she's taking it personal and thinking only her can "fight the good fight".
She's great and all, but we can find someone 30 years younger with a much lower risk of dying while Republicans have power.
This is bigger than any one person.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
I was in DC recently, and I saw Ruth’s grave, and just wish she knew the legacy she created.
load more comments
(10 replies)
Eh, civil disobedience is making a comeback.
These fucks are going to learn real quick how the social contract is a two-way agreement.
They'll have to push REALLY, REALLY far before they actually motivate most people to resist.
You know... legally speaking, she is allowed to kill the other justices.
Boomers dying out will be the best thing for this country.
I don't think Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett are Boomers. (Kavanaugh IS within months though.)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yeah, welcome to the fucking club.
No mention that the supreme court is about to dismantle democratic control over agencies. There is a big power grab underway to deregulate everything and cripple government. Only know of it from here:
Damn, I feel like she opened up a lot more than SCOTUS judges typically do. That’s telling.
I can't imagine how frustrating it must be
view more: next ›