Although the news of the day is Biden's high court reform proposals, Harris's quick backing of them as a presidential candidate could be the long-term development that matters.
This topic (as well abortion) will most likely be the two most pivotal stands taken by President Biden and VP Harris to gain traction with the voting public from now through Election Day. Very nice to see presidential-candidate Harris echo her agreement with the president's stance on this. This stance will only get bigger. Good.
I do think it should be one justice per circuit court, but what could happen is that retired SCOTUS justices go into a pool and it's a random selection from that to cover for the other circuits and in case of recusals so that there's always 9 for each opinion.
Recusals and empty seats. McConnell did a fair bit of damage in 2016 just by holding the seat open for a year, even aside from the change in who did the appointment.
Yes, court reform should be on the table as the Democratic Party's brand as much as reproductive liberty. And the two are connected.
He references the report of the presidential commission for SCOTUS, a process often ridiculed, but it provides some useful information. It also could have been a way for House Democrats and others to have hearings and so on about the courts. I think a lost opportunity was present there.
Anyway, these proposals are a good start. There should be more proposed but once you start with the understanding that reform is a good idea, you have a camel's nose potential anyhow.
Increasing the size of the Court is far more attainable than any one of a number of Constitutional amendments. Doing that requires only an act of Congress--although it may have to wait, given the makeup of this current bunch.
Last set at 9 in 1869, we are a much-different country now than we were back then. There are 13 District Courts of Appeals (if you count the DC circuit), so there should be 13 on SCOTUS.
And now they need to expand the court and effectuate Kagan’s proposal of judicial review of the court’s decisions. It might still be the « Supreme » Court, but it would no longer be the ultimate court.
It would take a drastic overhaul of Congress membership for any of Biden's proposals to have a fighting chance of success...ethics enforcement may squeeze through, depending how Nov. elections shake out, but couldn't get it approved by both Houses currently.
All the Dems need to do is get control of both houses, kill the Filibuster for this issue by a simple majority, and pass the statutes. The Amendment is a much different issue.
The filibuster, championed by Manchin and Sinema as a "guardrail," allows minority rule and is completely undemocratic. Schumer could have changed the rule, He didn't.
Schumer has been a VERY disappointing weenie as a Majority leader. We need a strong Majority leader going forward (note the assumption that we retain control of the Senate).
Big ask...need to await 2026 voting cycle in the Senate for a chance at a decent majority for dumping the filibuster ...not even sure if Schumer would be on board, though. It would depend largely on greater public support for the legislation.
It shouldn't be a big ask. The Rs already have an advantage in the senate, with two senators for states with tiny populations. "...the senators from the twenty-six smallest states hold the most Senate seats even though they represent only 17 percent of the U.S. population."
The Gang of Six will necessarily view this as an existential threat. Court expansion is lurking as the implicit next step. This will motivate them powerfully to keep Harris out of the WH. We’re heading for quite a showdown.
Erm, we ALREADY HAVE "senior status" including for SCOTUS judges, which neither Chris nor the Brennan Center tell you liberals, as this non-duopoly leftist will now state. Quoting from Wiki's page on "senior status":
>>In 1937, the option was extended to Supreme Court justices, although justices so electing are generally referred to as "retired" justices rather than having senior status. A senior justice is essentially an at-large senior judge, able to be assigned to any inferior federal court by the chief justice, but receiving the salary of a retired justice. However, a retired justice no longer participates in the work of the Supreme Court itself. That same year, Willis Van Devanter became the first Supreme Court justice to exercise the option. Since this option became available to Supreme Court justices, only ten have died while still in active service, the most recent being Ruth Bader Ginsburg on September 18, 2020.<<
Sounds pretty clear.
In addition, at all federal court levels, senior status is OPTIONAL and generally "opt-in."
Biden's proposals are not, and ergo, remain unconstitutional without amendment.
This is a nonsense comment. No one is hiding senior status from anyone. Just adding the word “ergo” into your comment does not make it a legal argument.
Thanks for the link to the 18 month plan. It could work. The only issue is having to pay the salary of all the "senior justices" until they decide to retire. Isn't that going to be expensive?
Trump campaigned on appointing SC judges to overturn Roe, and look what happened.
I like Biden and, now Harris for raising SC reforms as an election issue. It’s about time!!
This topic (as well abortion) will most likely be the two most pivotal stands taken by President Biden and VP Harris to gain traction with the voting public from now through Election Day. Very nice to see presidential-candidate Harris echo her agreement with the president's stance on this. This stance will only get bigger. Good.
I do think it should be one justice per circuit court, but what could happen is that retired SCOTUS justices go into a pool and it's a random selection from that to cover for the other circuits and in case of recusals so that there's always 9 for each opinion.
Recusals and empty seats. McConnell did a fair bit of damage in 2016 just by holding the seat open for a year, even aside from the change in who did the appointment.
Appreciate her courage on this reform
Yes, court reform should be on the table as the Democratic Party's brand as much as reproductive liberty. And the two are connected.
He references the report of the presidential commission for SCOTUS, a process often ridiculed, but it provides some useful information. It also could have been a way for House Democrats and others to have hearings and so on about the courts. I think a lost opportunity was present there.
Anyway, these proposals are a good start. There should be more proposed but once you start with the understanding that reform is a good idea, you have a camel's nose potential anyhow.
Increasing the size of the Court is far more attainable than any one of a number of Constitutional amendments. Doing that requires only an act of Congress--although it may have to wait, given the makeup of this current bunch.
Last set at 9 in 1869, we are a much-different country now than we were back then. There are 13 District Courts of Appeals (if you count the DC circuit), so there should be 13 on SCOTUS.
And now they need to expand the court and effectuate Kagan’s proposal of judicial review of the court’s decisions. It might still be the « Supreme » Court, but it would no longer be the ultimate court.
It would take a drastic overhaul of Congress membership for any of Biden's proposals to have a fighting chance of success...ethics enforcement may squeeze through, depending how Nov. elections shake out, but couldn't get it approved by both Houses currently.
A Constitution amendment? Good bloody luck!
All the Dems need to do is get control of both houses, kill the Filibuster for this issue by a simple majority, and pass the statutes. The Amendment is a much different issue.
The filibuster, championed by Manchin and Sinema as a "guardrail," allows minority rule and is completely undemocratic. Schumer could have changed the rule, He didn't.
Schumer has been a VERY disappointing weenie as a Majority leader. We need a strong Majority leader going forward (note the assumption that we retain control of the Senate).
Big ask...need to await 2026 voting cycle in the Senate for a chance at a decent majority for dumping the filibuster ...not even sure if Schumer would be on board, though. It would depend largely on greater public support for the legislation.
It shouldn't be a big ask. The Rs already have an advantage in the senate, with two senators for states with tiny populations. "...the senators from the twenty-six smallest states hold the most Senate seats even though they represent only 17 percent of the U.S. population."
https://slcc.pressbooks.pub/attenuateddemocracy/chapter/chapter-24/
How about Article 3, Section 2 of the US Constitution. Read it! Dick Darne, Missoula MT
Congress could change venue from Florida to DC!
The Gang of Six will necessarily view this as an existential threat. Court expansion is lurking as the implicit next step. This will motivate them powerfully to keep Harris out of the WH. We’re heading for quite a showdown.
Expect major pushback from long dong silver (aka clarence) and sam the sham - on behalf of those who bribed them for their votes.
Erm, we ALREADY HAVE "senior status" including for SCOTUS judges, which neither Chris nor the Brennan Center tell you liberals, as this non-duopoly leftist will now state. Quoting from Wiki's page on "senior status":
>>In 1937, the option was extended to Supreme Court justices, although justices so electing are generally referred to as "retired" justices rather than having senior status. A senior justice is essentially an at-large senior judge, able to be assigned to any inferior federal court by the chief justice, but receiving the salary of a retired justice. However, a retired justice no longer participates in the work of the Supreme Court itself. That same year, Willis Van Devanter became the first Supreme Court justice to exercise the option. Since this option became available to Supreme Court justices, only ten have died while still in active service, the most recent being Ruth Bader Ginsburg on September 18, 2020.<<
Sounds pretty clear.
In addition, at all federal court levels, senior status is OPTIONAL and generally "opt-in."
Biden's proposals are not, and ergo, remain unconstitutional without amendment.
This is a nonsense comment. No one is hiding senior status from anyone. Just adding the word “ergo” into your comment does not make it a legal argument.
Schumer brought up a bill
that has 24 senate sponsors
today for SCOTUS reform. It
does not include an
amendment, but does have
a Congressional workaround
for that drawn out process.
I also saw something about
making the 18 years
retroactive, which means
Alito and Thomas would be
gone.
We MUST hold the senate
and flip the house. We MUST!
Could we get a Constitutional amendment to ditch the electoral college?
Thanks for the link to the 18 month plan. It could work. The only issue is having to pay the salary of all the "senior justices" until they decide to retire. Isn't that going to be expensive?