America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 2 years ago by drglnc. 13 replies replies.
Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court
Abrignac Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,216
They released draft notes and Progressives are butt-hurt.

"Proponents of Court expansion argue that by adding two or more seats to the Supreme Court, Democratic lawmakers could help restore balance to – and, thus, the legitimacy of – the Court. Those who take this perspective also emphasize that a failure to respond to the hardball tactics since 2016 might encourage future aggressive measures in the Senate confirmation process," the discussion materials say. 

"But the risks of Court expansion are considerable, including that it could undermine the very goal of some of its proponents of restoring the Court's legitimacy," the materials continue. "Recent polls suggest that a majority of the public does not support Court expansion. And even some supporters of Court expansion acknowledged during the Commission's public hearings, the reform… would be perceived by many as a partisan maneuver."


Adding seats to the Court has to be one of the dumbest ideas floated by partisans, regardless of party affiliation, in recent memory. So what happens when party control of the White House and Senate changes as it does every so often? Does the new majority party President or Senate add more seats in an attempt to regain control? At some point, the Court would resemble the Senate in Star Wars where one would need a hovercraft just to get around. The very thought undermines the concept of “separation of power”.
RayR Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,793
Imagine that...."a partisan maneuver"

And they told me the Supreme Court was about truth, justice, and the American way. They lied!ram27bat
It's all about majority partisan control of the SCOTUS like the other federal branches and how to make it work more reliably toward that end.
It's really just another partisan legislative branch that rubberstamps the power grabs of the other branches.
Smooth light Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 06-26-2020
Posts: 3,598
I think I will have a samwitch instead. 🥪, with some coke 😜.
rfenst Online
#4 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,096
While I do favor some changes to the court, expanding it is not necessary for it to carry out its function.
RayR Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,793
Robert, OK, you are against the court-packing scheme, but what changes do you favor to the court? Serious question.
rfenst Online
#6 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,096
Opinion: Supreme Court term limits wouldn’t solve anything

The writer is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.

Opinion by J. Harvie Wilkinson III/WAPO

Imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices is a terrible idea that threatens to become more popular by the day. The latest support for this misguided change comes from President Biden’s Commission on the Supreme Court, which on Thursday released a draft expressing sympathy for the idea of doing away with lifetime tenure, noting backing for that change across the ideological spectrum.

“In fact, in its survey of the existing literature on Supreme Court term limits, the Commission discovered few works arguing against term limits,” the draft said.

Let me help fill that void. Eighteen-year terms, however spaced and staggered, will cure none of the faults and only exacerbate the weaknesses that critics perceive in the modern court. They will make the institution appear more, not less, political in the eyes of the public. Confirmation battles will become more numerous but no less feverish, because 18 years is long enough to inflame partisan confirmation passions, especially if the court is closely divided.

The change would leave the court shorthanded too often, if confirmation delays set in. That risks leaving the court with an even number of eight members, hardly an ideal composition for any institution predicated on majority rule. And the certainty that a seat will become vacant when the clock chimes the magical hour will only make the court the subject of more continuing political parlor talk than it is already.

It is easy to imagine the strategic games the justices may be tempted to engage in, smuggling through such-and-such a precedent — or overruling it — before so-and-so leaves the bench. While the proponents of term limits envision a smooth and orderly opening of vacancies, what happens when a justice dies or strategically retires before the expiration of his or her term?

One of the arguments for term limits is that the current system encourages presidents to select unduly youthful nominees, to maximize the time they will have on the bench. What in the world is wrong with youth? Youthful nominees add intellectual vitality and generational diversity to the bench. The past seven justices were 48, 53, 49, 50, 54, 55 and 50 when nominated. These 50-something “youthful nominees” have had plenty of time to acquire professional distinction, and someone hopelessly callow would face confirmation difficulties on that very account. As for the danger of justices with declining mental powers remaining on the court, there exist a plethora of internal and external pressures that can readily be deployed in the service of a dignified exit.

The revolving door already breeds enormous public cynicism toward Washington. How unseemly it would be for term-limited justices to resume plying their trade — a prospect that I doubt a cooling-off period will wholly prevent. The dignity of individual justices is essential to the court’s ability to command institutional respect. The gainful pursuits so much a part of American commercial life will not be what the public welcomes in that tribunal most dedicated to detachment.

The president’s commission noted that “the United States is the only major constitutional democracy in the world that has neither a retirement age nor a fixed term of years for its high court justices.” That is not a drawback. Judges subject to bribery and intimidation in foreign countries have often come to think of the Supreme Court as the ideal of judicial independence. While I cannot prove that life tenure is crucial to the court’s animating international power, it is what makes the court different and distinct from the finite terms and tenures of the Washington officials who come and go.

Neither the court nor its members are above rigorous scrutiny and criticism. Yet when we inch this institution toward ordinariness, law itself loses something of its stature. It is true the court has made its share of tragic mistakes. Balancing the shameful chapters of Dred Scott, Plessy and Korematsu against the glorious moments of Marbury and Brown is no easy task. It is always easy, however, to jump from dissatisfaction with outcomes to an insistence on institutional change, overlooking the fact that court majorities are inevitably, like all others, cyclical and transient. For all their unquestioned devotion to the rule of law, the justices are aware that they stray far beyond public consensus at their peril.

It seems inevitable that an elite institution in a democratic republic will suffer the slings and arrows of populist discontent. The wonder of it all may be that the institution of lifetime tenure has persisted for so long. Proponents of changing that rule may take satisfaction in humbling the justices ever so slightly, or believe that instituting term limits would forestall more radical change, such as expanding the size of the court.

But this seemingly small dent in judicial tenure is without precedent in this country’s history. It will invite further and more dangerous tinkering and alteration of the court’s structure in years to come.
Abrignac Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,216
At the end of the day I suspect little will come of the commission. By the time it’s work is complete 1/3 of the Senate members will be firmly entrenched in re-election bids. There are enough vulnerable democrats running from conservative leaning states that it’s safe to assume at least one would vote no to any changes to the Court lest they risk loosing any Republican leaning voters. Without that vote there is no tie to break. So I don’t see a way for Congress to make any changes hailed by Progressives.
drglnc Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 04-01-2019
Posts: 680
I don't believe the court should be expanded...

If it is expanded then a 4 year gap should be in between each new seat to allow the presidential election to happen in between each appointment. This ensures the peoples voice is heard when it comes to who they want making that pick.

what i would like to see is rules/laws be put in place to stop the BS about holding off on a pick or rushing a pick based on party control. if a justice retires or dies then a time limit should be implemented for a nomination followed by a time limit for congress to vote so no one party can force or stop a pick from being confirmed. I don't care what party you favor, that crap mitch pulled was BS and shouldn't be allowed to happen.
Smooth light Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 06-26-2020
Posts: 3,598
They both did alot of codswallop... Harry Reed was no saint either, 😇
Term limits for all should slow/speed up the process... make laws not money.




drglnc Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 04-01-2019
Posts: 680
Smooth light wrote:
They both did alot of codswallop... Harry Reed was no saint either, 😇
Term limits for all should slow/speed up the process... make laws not money.






Reed didn't change the rules for Supreme court confirmation he made a change for judicial nominees and presidential appointments, excluding the Supreme Court. Mitch extended the rule change to apply to nominees to the Supreme Court in 2017.

i agree with term limits though... (not for SC) for congress that is.
BuckyB93 Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,110
drglnc wrote:
Reed didn't change the rules for Supreme court confirmation he made a change for judicial nominees and presidential appointments, excluding the Supreme Court. Mitch extended the rule change to apply to nominees to the Supreme Court in 2017.

i agree with term limits though... (not for SC) for congress that is.


I cannot not disagree with this concept.

(grammar error intentionally on purpose to not not irritate grammar police authorities).
Abrignac Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,216
We have term limits. Every 6 years for Senators and every 2 years for Representatives. If people are unhappy they should vote them out. If they are happy they should be able to keep their representatives.
drglnc Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 04-01-2019
Posts: 680
That isn't a "Limit" since they can just run again ... president has a limit of 2 terms... additionally a dozen or more seats go unopposed every election so the voter has no choice in those elections.
Users browsing this topic
Guest