A Change For SCOTUS?

The referee of this republic is the Supreme Court…..they interpret and set laws for the nation. As it is today it is where ideologues go to push a certain set of principles….no longer are these 9 judges an independent and impartial umpire for the laws of this country.

There has been a movement for the expansion of the court from 9 judges to 13. The Dems are offering up this bill…but will it ever see the light of day?

President Biden signed an executive order to set up a commission dedicated to studying possible reforms to the Supreme Court, including an increase in the number of justices on the bench. Congressional Democrats, however, aren’t waiting for the results of the panel’s report due out in six months, instead moving to introduce legislation Thursday on expansion of the court. The bill, led by Sen. Ed Markey and Rep. Jerry Nadler, proposes upping the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to 13—a move that can only be carried out via an act of Congress. The legislation is a reaction to what NBC News calls “an undercurrent of progressive fury” after then-President Obama nominated Merrick Garland in March 2016 to fill Antonin Scalia’s spot after the latter had died, and Mitch McConnell, then the GOP Senate majority leader, denied a vote on Garland.

McConnell’s reasoning: It was an election year, and he felt the incoming president should be the one to fill Scalia’s slot, which Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch eventually took. Democrats’ anger was further stoked when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September and the GOP swept Amy Coney Barrett onto the bench just days before the 2020 election. “This bill marks a new era where Democrats finally stop conceding the Supreme Court to Republicans,” political activist Brian Fallon says, per NBC News. The Intercept notes that the number of seats on the court bounced around earlier on in US history, going up to 10 before falling back to nine in 1869, where it’s stayed since. NBC and Vox note the bill is unlikely to become law in the near future, with the GOP pushing back hard against it as a radical move. Biden himself has wavered on fully supporting such an expansion, though he hopes to receive some clarity from his newly formed commission.

Personally I do not see how the rise to 13 would change anything at all on the court.  And yes I have an idea on this as well and I let my thoughts be known here on IST……https://lobotero.com/2020/09/25/i-have-lots-to-say-about-scotus/

But none of these changes will occur,,,,the Senate will make sure that nothing is done to change the make-up of the Supreme Court.

While change needs to happen with SCOTUS but this bill will not change anything but the number of judges…..the partisan BS will continue.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

25 thoughts on “A Change For SCOTUS?

  1. A few suggestions. 1) No POTUS can nominate more than one SCOTUS justice per term. If a SCOTUS justice dies or retires, that seat remains vacant if a nominee has already been seated under the presiding POTUS.
    2) SCOTUS nominees can only be approved with Senate AND a nationwide vote.
    3) Establish term limits for SCOYUS justices that would not allow for more than one to be replaced during any POTUS term

  2. I agree.. the bill will die. But.. I will be anxious to read the final report of the commission. I re-read your original post from last year, chuq.. and I understand what you are saying regarding term limits, et al. But many of these elements, traditional or rules, started off for specific reasons and wasn’t just some passing political whim of the times. The commission might shed some light as to the origins of some of the alleged “requirements”. To your idea of term limits… there is some merit for that if the goal is to not let justices get too settled in their political ideologies for life. On the other hand… a person has to make a hard choice to stay a judge for life. It’s not truly some get-rich-and-powerful career move by any sort. It’s more a legacy decision. If you give it a term life.. then people might accept the nomination figuring it will add to their resume down the line, therefore it’s good to keep political as a justice for a post-justice career as an author, talk shows, and on the speaking circuit. Depends on how you look at it I suppose. I also am on the firm belief that when a judge is new they might have some political “leftovers” from their previous life that might form their decisions… but as time progresses it’s very human to start thinking of the longer legacy you will leave behind as a learned voice of impartial wisdom. As we age we generally tend to mellow. Over time it’s not about how I am going to form a new union with my biased decisions, but more like “what were the Founding Fathers intending”.
    I’ll wait for the commission and see what they say and how they arrived at it.

      1. Hey, chuq.. if you’ve not already seen the film.. Netflix’s &The Chicago 7″. Been wanting to see it for a while and tonight just sat down to indulge in ancient history. I lived in Chi Town at the time of all this.. a junior in HS… and I never knew.. “understood” (or more like being a teenager all consumed with self) all of this detail. Give it a check.

      2. It is on my list already…as soon as I have some spare time….I followed the trial while in Vietnam…..so yes I am interested in seeing how the film comes off. chuq

      3. Oh dear.. if you were in Nam at the time then perhaps you are at least a year older than me. Here I thought I was the old guy in the crowd. 🙂 I was a junior and senior in ’68 and ’69. My number got called in 1970 to get drafted in 1971 after a year in college. Went to Keesler after basic. 🙂

      4. Damn.. I never knew people got that old! 🙂 Only 70 here. I defer to your greater wise and sage knowledge. Yes.. I can see where you would have likely followed the trial more so than my young self given you were in the midst of all that garbage. I did follow the convention though and the head bashings by Daley’s goons.

      5. I knew two of the protesters that got beat and arrested….”If I had known I would live so long I would have taken better care of myself”….never a truer statement chuq

      6. Yes we are…..and I am trying to document it as it happens….maybe someone will read later and see what was going on within this country and the destruction that is brewing. chuq

      7. Up until the pandemic and Trump I thought 1968-1970 was the worst period.. given all the riots.. anti-war and civil rights.. and the assassinations, etc. In spite of the current rioting in the urban hot spots being nothing like the 60’s… the totally paralyzing political divide right now is pretty nasty, on top of all the economic whoas, mass shootings everywhere, the pandemic debacles, and flat out in the open racism. It’s a mess.

      8. That’s kind of you to say, buddy. I have been teetering on resuming my meanderings soon. My absence is not so much for lack of interest but simply a respite following the turmoil that was everything Trump. Interestingly.. I have been “permitted” to supply replies on a couple Conservative blogs to counter the posts of their Conservative authors… so they don’t appear to simply be echo chambers where everyone agrees. In other words, they tolerate my replies to their posts given I am not constantly bemoaning the ills of the Right. For sure i get the name-calling from some of the Conservative knuckle draggers.. but by and large I enjoy a certain amount of the challenge to maintain my own composure.. taking more the higher road in my replies to their posts. Having a personal blog, a political one at that, tends to attract followers with same or similar opinions and while it’s nice to meet new folks with similar views.. as I have with you, and Mr. Pete from Beetley and others… it’s been a bit of an interest to dive directly into the snake pit of alternate views and in my own way try to present my opinions and be allowed to do so… and not be banned. Still, in the end it’s a dance of futility… but I suppose it keeps me from turning into a mental veg. You have a cool theme, as you said, getting it all down as accurately as possible for future generations. Pete’s schtick is a nice meld of literary and sometimes controversial and he has a broad assortment of followers…. not simply to agree or not with opinion but to also be entertained with prose. Themes matter. Honestly, I wish I had you on my side as I replied to some of these idiot Conservatives. Being their only blog naysayer can be quite a battle. 🙂
        Anyway.. this was a long winded reply to your interest in my posts… but explains a little of where my head has been. 🙂 Thanks.

      9. Most of the conservs that came here went away as quickly…..since I am one of those commies on the Left….LOL chuq

      10. Hehe… been called that myself many times. Funny how times change. I was an old school Republican and you are Dem.. in another time we’d be aligning our sights on each other. Glad to be working together against these “new” clowns on the Right.

  3. Your whole political system seems unnecessaily complex, and able to be stalled at so many turns. It needs a complete overhaul, but nobody in power really wants that to happen.
    Best wishes, Pete.

    1. I know Mr. Churchill had his own observations on democracy… but to me the problem with democracy is that it requires humans to function.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.