politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I used to think that we had to add another 4 seats to the SCOTUS, but I no longer believe that. Now I think we need to add 20 seats to the Supreme Court.
We have allowed SCOTUS to remain so small so that one bad-faith president can negatively alter the course of the nation for half a century. We should increase it to 29 or 31, with rolling term limits, so every president gets to appoint a handful, but never enough to throw off the balance to any great degree.
Don't assign a set number of seats. Whenever a justice dies, their seat dies with them.
Add one justice every two years, at the end of the first and third year of the presidential term. Every president gets to add exactly two justices per term. This timing pushes the decision as far away from an election as possible.
To further depoliticize the process, I would formally establish a "line of succession" for the court. This line would start with the chief judges of each of the 13 circuit appeals courts, then continue with every other judge in the appeals courts, in order of seniority.
Everyone in the line of succession has been previously confirmed by the Senate to their appellate court seats. To limit the games the Senate can play, I would not require an additional Senate confirmation if the candidate is one of the first 26 in the line of succession. The president can unilaterally elevate any of those 26 to SCOTUS (but, these are the oldest candidates available. They are at the pinnacle of their careers; they can be expected to serve terms measured in months, not decades. The president is not going to want to name one of these geriatrics.)
If a new justice hasn't been added by the 18th/30th month of the president's term, the next in the line of succession is permanently elevated to SCOTUS. This deadline keeps the appointment process at least 6 months away from an election.
The "line of succession" also suggests a way for the court to be apolitically reconstituted in case of a disaster. If the court falls below 5 members, the next in the line is automatically elevated.
Further, it provides a means for a case to be heard even if all sitting justices are conflicted and compelled to recuse themselves. If fewer than 5 members of the court are eligible to hear a particular case, the next in the line of succession is temporarily elevated for that case. In a case where SCOTUS ethics rules are under scrutiny, the case may be heard entirely by temporary members.
I like the way you think.
I think that expanding the court should work a certain way, but to preface: I am assuming that the US is broken into four major cooperative territories, each with a president, with their own regional courts and executives. However, there would also be a figurehead president elected by the regional presidents, whose vote is confirmed by their regional voters. The figurehead represents national policy and acts as a face for it.
00000
The national court draws 4 justices from each region's court system, and has an additional justice appointed by each president. These only lasting while that executive holds office. This means 16 national justices that are chosen by their judiciaries, and 5 appointed by executives. 21 in all.
Toss in term and age limits. We want age limits to prevent mental degradation or the social stratification that comes from age. Term limits help ensure that justices can't remain too long, inviting corruption. I would say 10 years is reasonable for the judiciary justices. The executive justices picked by a president can't have more than two terms for this position, so they can last up to 8 years if picked twice by presidents. This should allow for a reasonable amount of 'churn' in viewpoints, while still allowing the supreme court to have coherence.
The checks and balances comes from different factions - regions and administrations - sending representatives to assert their interests. Hopefully, this prevents the courts from being overly stacked for too long.
Make it a seat for each state in the union.
nah, that’s what messed up the senate.
The Senate was always designed as a wealthy check on the will of the people. We would be better off without the Senate and increasing the size of Congress dramatically.
Comrade Pickles is right about rolling term limits. I propose 20 year terms, first two years are as a clerk to get them up to speed on SCOTUS procedure and ethics. then 18 as a justice. i haven't decided how we choose the chief justice, maybe russian roulette. none of this "you rule the country the rest of your life" bullshit. Taft would be appalled and he was both President and chief justice. The court is currently far too small. 27 seems about right so like a new justice every year or something someone else do the math. That could make for much of the court clerkship to be future justices. WHAT FUN. If someone dies or retires during their term, there should be enough other justices to fill the court. No replacement is allowed unless the court falls below quorum, or let's say... 14? At which point an emergency session of government is called, the party in power submits 7 new justices and the party out of power submits 6. assuming good faith from both parties (don't start), because forgive the tautology but that's how functional government functions (i'll let someone else figure out mechanisms to prevent bad faith actors i'm only halfway through coffee today) all of the proposed justices will be qualified and impartial, just ideologically different.
This is pretty close to my thinking as well: just keep adding members on a set schedule; don't fill vacated seats. (I'd add one seat at the end of the first and third year of the presidential term, to keep this process as far away from the presidential and midterm elections as possible.)
The only major difference is that I would not use emergency sessions to reconstitute the court! I would strongly isolate the court from politicization.
The foundation of my plan would be to establish a formal "line of succession" to SCOTUS. We have 13 circuit courts of appeal, each with a chief judge. Those chief judges, in order of seniority, are the first in the line of succession. Next, every other appeals court judge, in order of seniority.
Every one of these judges has been through a Senate confirmation. They are pre-approved. If every SCOTUS justice dies from a Hantavirus outbreak, the next court has already been selected, without needing to expose the court to the political process.
This line of succession offers some other possibilities as well. When it comes time to appoint a new justice, the president can name anyone they want, and the Senate can confirm. But, we can say that the first 26 (2 * number of circuit courts) in the line of succession are pre-confirmed and don't require an additional confirmation to be named to the bench. The Senate can fairly consider the president's preferred, younger nominee, or the president can ram one of these 26 senior candidates down the Senate's throat. The president has a veto-proof pool of candidates that the Senate can't play games with.
The line of succession also offers the possibility of temporary elevations for specific purposes. Suppose most/all of the justices are conflicted and forced to recuse themselves from a particular case. The line of succession allows us to elevate temporary replacement justices for this case. This would allow an ad hoc supreme court to hear cases involving, say, SCOTUS ethics.
So, not a lawyer, take this with a grain of salt, they already have a system for temporarily seating justices/federal confirmed judges on courts they normally don't sit on. Like sick days or something? For when a judge needs to recuse themselves from a case, more realistically I imagine. Not sure how it works for scotus but the lower courts use it a lot.
20 is to long. Fuck them. 5 year terms. Only 1 term each.
With 9 justices, that's a new justice appointed every ~7 months. Are you sure Trump should be putting 7 people on a 9-seat court right before that court will be hearing issues related to the next presidential election?