News

The problem is that doing any of these things in a matter which will stick will require amendments, because that is the only process that this compromised Supreme Court might respect. (And even that is not a given: I wouldn't put it past them to say that any amendment not passed by a Founding Father is invalid, or something).

So the first thing that needs to be done is to "pack" the court. (I prefer the term "unfuck", but that is less PC). This can only be done if Democrats take the Presidency and both houses of Congres, and nuke the filibuster. But it's that important. Dial the fucker up to 13, then go to Republicans and say "OK, now we need to work to fix the courts together. You can decline, but if you do you will watch Momala appoint 4 additional justices under the old rules, to lifetime terms, and bank on getting your own trifecta to re-fuck the Court".

While we have the amendment process open, we also need to set a limit to how long Congress can deliberate on any appointment, not just SC. Once a President makes an appointment, the Senate shouldn't be able to sit on it indefinitely. It should be guaranteed to get a vote in the full Senate within X legislative days. The Senate can vote it down, of course, but then the President can nominate someone else. Republican Senators challenged Obama to make a centrist pick for the SC, and he did. Mitch and Lindsey sat on it for months because they knew that it would pass if it went to the full Senate. This process basically gives the Senate Leader a veto over both the President and the will of the overall Senate, and cannot be what the Founders intended.

If these reforms actually get implemented, Biden’s legacy will be enshrined as one of the most positively influential presidents ever.

If only he didn’t have the blemish of the Israel situation on his record, which (to be fair) he’s inherited-but has not handled well at all. I’m sure it’s way more complicated than what we know, but no matter what, it’s a bad thing to have attached to his legacy.

I'm for the changes, but I'm skeptical about whether anything can be accomplished. If the SC changes aren't done as an amendment, they'll be subject to SC review. Getting anything past either of those bars seems nigh impossible.

Similarly, if the SC rules that presidential immunity is implied in the constitution, they could also block that without an amendment.

Maybe the plan isn't to succeed but just to establish a record that Republican lawmakers are good with a supreme executive and corrupt courts, but I sort of feel like they've all but said that aloud anyway.

ETA:

But while we're on the subject of changing things, I wonder about after an 18 year term is up, if there would be any use for a sort of Justice Emeritus who doesn't get a vote, but can write concurring/dissenting opinions and maybe serve in either an advisory or ethics review capacity. So keep the lifetime appointment with all the advantages of that, but allow for the actual sitting court to change more over time. I don't know; I haven't really fleshed out the idea because it's a pipe dream at this point.

if he really wants to hit republicans in every race, then run on the fact that republicans are talking out of both sides of their mouths when they claim presidents above 80 are too old to run but they seem ok with supreme court justices to essentially live their entire lives on the court.

18 years is a bit steep but glad it's even being pushed in the first place

Huh I've been saying this for years. Even commented it a while back on lemmy. hope they can get it through but don't have super high hopes unless the next couple of election cycles lean heavily towards the Democrats.

Term limits should be 6 years or less. 18 is just too much to allow for

Sounds like a good plan!

Hmm. Why not set also set a retirement age? Are there any rules for what happens if a judge gets early onset Alzheimer's or something?

18 years is too long, IMO. That's 4.5 presidential terms. 10 makes more sense to me. But I'll be happy if they can get anything done re: SCOTUS scum.

That number is way too high, it should be 8 years, the maximum amount even a president is allowed to serve.

18?! Try 8.

Anyone know where 18 years came from? 3 appointments per Senate term? 9 Congressional terms for 9 justices? 4.5 presidential terms?

One would think you'd want it to be an even number of presidential terms, so every president gets one appointment per term or whatever. Otherwise you open yourself up to Garland-esque shenanigans by the Senate.