One can hope….but do not hold your breath.
Most of us see that the Supreme Court has become just an extension of far Right politics…..they are political hacks….and now the Dems step up and want to do something to correct the deficiency in the Court.
Democrats aren’t just venting about the Supreme Court’s conservative majority—they’re putting a menu of structural changes on the table. As Julian Mark reports in the Washington Post, recent bills from congressional Democrats would expand the court from nine to 13 justices, cap terms at 18 years, impose a binding ethics code, and rein in the court’s fast-moving “shadow docket.” The push—the story describes it as being at a “fever pitch”—comes after a string of major conservative rulings on voting rights, campaign finance, abortion, and presidential power, and amid polling that shows historically low public approval of the court.
Republicans and conservative legal advocates say the campaign is really about punishing a court that’s handing down decisions the left dislikes, and they argue the proposals are aimed at pressuring justices, not fixing legal flaws. Even Democrats acknowledge that most of these bills are going nowhere unless their party secures firm control of Congress and then scraps the filibuster, a combo seen as highly unlikely. The Post also spotlights legal scholars who warn that some reforms could further politicize the court—and float alternative ideas like a “balanced bench,” with an equal number of justices chosen by Democrats and Republicans.
Read the full story.
Seriously?
What are the chances of any of this actually happening?
This is a typical move by the Dems….an election approaches and they hit on an issue they think will sway voters….I think they are farting in the wind.
There has been lots of ‘ideas’ on how the Court can be fixed all depending on the Dems gaining control of the Congress….and when and if they do what do you suppose will happen?
Being the opinionated SOB that I am I have written about reforms….
Yes the Court needs a major overhaul…..yes term limits are needed….age restrictions needed….more justices are needed….etc…..but will these ‘reforms’ actually make the Court a more ethical organization?
I think it is a wonderful idea…..but also think that it is a waste of time at this point in our history.
Why am I crapping on the Dems?
I posted this on my other blog, Daily Agitator, and it is very much right on point with what I think about the Dems and their ideas….
I do not see a future for this issue.
Anything you would like to add?
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
One of those policies that sound good, but tend to disappear completely once the election has been won. We have had plenty of those in the UK.
Best wishes, Pete.
LIke I said ‘great ideas, sucky execution’…..chuq
There’s no doubt that SCOTUS needs to be reformed. Starting with no longer allowing the justices to police themselves but placing an ethical code of behavior for them in the hands of an external agency that has the ability to actually enforce the rules of conduct. Right now we have one justice that has gotten millions in “gifts”, another that routinely hears cases involving companies that he has business interests in, phony “speaking fees”, etc.
Will anything actually happen, though? As Beetleypete said in a comment all of these ideas sound good but once the election cycle is over and the latest crop of politicians is securely in office all of the incentive to actually change things vanishes.
Even if the Dems win Congress I do not think they have the guts to go after SCOTUS…..chuq
Dems have been talking about SCOTUS reform for years. What did they actually do when they were in power? NOTHING! Remember Joe Manchin?
That was my basic point Robert….like most issues talk big and then wimp out. chuq
IMO, the “lifetime” clause of SCOTUS judges is one of the first things that should be canned! Absolutely there needs to be “term limits,” that same as with other political offices.
I do not agree that adding to the number is a solution; however, I do think the balance should be modified (by law? judgement?) so that there is 4 of one party and 5 of the other. Of course there’s always the concern that the “5” will rule, but past decisions indicate this is not always the case. AND I think it should be “written” that NO judge is allowed to accept donations (in whatever form) from outside sources.
OK! OK! So I can dream, can’t I?
Nan no matter how many judges there are it will still be a battle of political hacks and will do little to change the mindset of the judges….I agree that there should be no ‘donations’ and spouses should not be involved either especially if they are acting as a lobbyist. chuq