09-04-2022, 03:55 PM
So, I was listening to a lecture on SCOTUS history, specifically the history of judicial review and court reform. It was interesting hearing how much our understanding of the court is misinformed. Even the idea that the SCOTUS is the final word on the Constitution is not that old. Well, it is older, but it didn't become the way of things until the Warren court. That was when liberals decided to agree with conservatives on the idea of judicial supremacy and thus begin their backslide into neoliberal asshattery.
Anyway, one potential reform effort was brought up which I thought was interesting. Many of you know that I have stood against term limits for Justices. I see the court as a political tool and enacting term limits would just further politicize the court to the detriment of the country. The SCOTUS is supposed to be a technocratic institution. However, this idea is politically neutral.
Every two years, a new Justice would be appointed. Doesn't matter the party in power, just every two years. Also, super majority for confirmation because it is a constitutional office and it deserves it. Now, you would also set the number at nine and say that the nine most recent appointees would be the active Justices. This makes a de facto 18 year term. Once they rotate off, they can remain a Justice, they would just act in an advisory role, fill in as needed in case of injury, illness, or recusal, etc. This means that there is a constant rotation of fresh eyes on the cases coming before them.
Anyway, just curious what some of y'all think.
Anyway, one potential reform effort was brought up which I thought was interesting. Many of you know that I have stood against term limits for Justices. I see the court as a political tool and enacting term limits would just further politicize the court to the detriment of the country. The SCOTUS is supposed to be a technocratic institution. However, this idea is politically neutral.
Every two years, a new Justice would be appointed. Doesn't matter the party in power, just every two years. Also, super majority for confirmation because it is a constitutional office and it deserves it. Now, you would also set the number at nine and say that the nine most recent appointees would be the active Justices. This makes a de facto 18 year term. Once they rotate off, they can remain a Justice, they would just act in an advisory role, fill in as needed in case of injury, illness, or recusal, etc. This means that there is a constant rotation of fresh eyes on the cases coming before them.
Anyway, just curious what some of y'all think.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
