Sherrilyn IfillNov 19, 2022
Many commentators are tweeting & tooting that we need to expand the SCOTUS. That is not the answer to everything. Unless you just want a larger Court, not bound by ethics rules, engaging in the kind of behavior described in the NYT piece. What we need are guardrails - an understanding that the Court sits w/i our democracy. Our job us to strengthen it by creating the processes that promote impartiality & insulation from lobbying, not crossing our fingers & hoping for the best.
Show threadShawn Smith Peirce

@ifilljustice That’s one of the reasons I’ve advocated for #RuleOf18 for years.

18 justices, 6 each, Left, Center, Right ideologically, as proven by all their decisions & actions. Each serves 18 years. All cases heard by 9, three of each. En Banc available.

Makes the system blind, since one never knows who is hearing each case, so can’t wait for a “friendly” court.

Nov 19, 2022 at 8:07pmMastodon for iOS
Show threadAlex is always organizingNov 19, 2022
@_silversmith @ifilljustice but who is the arbiter of ideology?
Show threadShawn Smith PeirceNov 19, 2022

@AlxLndOMountain @ifilljustice That would be a factor someone like @ifilljustice would know how to qualify & who might judge better than I.

She is also correct that “bigger” is simply not a solution to the current SCOTUS. problem. Bigger & worse is clearly a possible, if not likely outcome, given current SCOTUS rules.

Show threadAlex is always organizingNov 19, 2022

@_silversmith @ifilljustice
This was a thought... https://union.place/@AlxLndOMountain/109372327060117731

Might be worse but I doubt it...at least not for a generation or two. why? Because it's important to remember that they type of democratic majority with the power (and willingness to use it) to embiggen the court would also be interested in the fundamental questions of justice at the heart of why we talk about this.

Alex is always organizing (@[email protected])

@[email protected] yet we already do have mechanisms for holding the court accountable, whether it's Congress circumscribing jurisdiction, impeachment, or even an executive who plays constitutional hardball. I think a big part of the problem is an asymmetric willingness to use the levers of power available whether it's a naive fealty to bygone norms or a desire to hold back the tide of social change that would be unleashed by a more just judiciary

The Union Place
Show threadShawn Smith PeirceNov 19, 2022

@AlxLndOMountain @ifilljustice Your idea states a willingness to solve must be key - which is a temporary solution to a structural problem, akin to assuming people will act correctly, in anti-racist ways, in situations of racial bias.

Don't get me wrong - I wish it were as easy as: Maybe good people will fix things! Sadly, history has already proven that method to be ineffective in real world situations.

Structural failures like those with SCOTUS require structural solutions.

Show threadAlex is always organizingNov 19, 2022
@_silversmith @ifilljustice well enlargement is a structural solution; necessary but insufficient to the task. but you're right that I'm skeptical of structural solutions that aim to replace politics and are expected to be auto-executing. The institutional structures we build reflect the political conditions that make them.
Show threadShawn Smith PeirceNov 19, 2022

@AlxLndOMountain @ifilljustice Enlargement, like shrinking SCOTUS, is a temporary solution, as history proves.

So not truly structural.

Feel free to be skeptical - but only after legitimately explaining how such a system as I advocate for could be corrupted by politics. Your explanation must fit within the scope I've constructed - so assume their is no problem sorting by ideology.

Show threadAlex is always organizingNov 20, 2022
@_silversmith @ifilljustice seems like the onus is on the proposer. The fundamental question of who is the arbiter of ideological purity and the process for judging those choices? It's not like we're going to have democrats putting forward actual leftists just like GOP wouldn't let anyone to the left of MTG or DeSantis get though
Show threadShawn Smith PeirceNov 20, 2022

@AlxLndOMountain @ifilljustice They wouldn't have a choice under #RuleOf18. That's one point of the Rule.

A Republican POTUS could put forward the least offensive, to them, Lefty - so think Elizabeth Warren or Sherrod Brown instead of Bernie Sanders or AOC. But they'd have to put forward a Lefty, just as a Democratic POTUS would have to fill Rightie & Centrist positions with similar persons…

Show threadShawn Smith PeirceNov 20, 2022

@AlxLndOMountain @ifilljustice There are so-called Centrists who are, to me and many others, nothing but self-centered posers willing to work for whatever interest group pays them.

Then there are those like, for example, Abigail Spanberger, who I have issues with, but she appears to truly have faith in her convictions, and has records to show on that.

If the Repub Party today weren't insane, she might be one of them…

Show threadShawn Smith PeirceNov 20, 2022

@AlxLndOMountain @ifilljustice The point of all of it would be to take out the ability to rig SCOTUS.

The fact that under #RuleOf18 Presidents and Congresses would be forced to judge nominees to the Supreme Court not as partisans but on their merits to fill the job isn't a bug in the system.

It's a feature.

Show threadMOVED (Glenn Peters)Nov 20, 2022
@_silversmith @ifilljustice How would that work without an objective measurement for "left", "right", or center? Not to mention how many justices were seen as a different alignment by the end of their tenure.
Show threadShawn Smith PeirceNov 20, 2022

@glennpeters @ifilljustice As noted elsewhere, someone who is more familiar with those inner workings than I could tell you how judges are measured that way within the legal profession.

Also, remember, Supreme Court justices do not have to be judges - and frankly, I think it might help to have one or two who were not.

As for movement along alignment? That's easier than you might think…

Show threadShawn Smith PeirceNov 20, 2022

@glennpeters @ifilljustice Under #RuleOf18, new justices are coming into their positions regularly, and others are leaving. Every time there's an opening, there can be a re-evaluation. So yes - a POTUS could still *slightly* shape the Court. But they could not rig the Court, as it has been now.

Think of it as the difference between putting "english" on a pinball and tilting the machine.