Marvin Thompson
Sherrilyn IfillMany 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.
K. Koth@ifilljustice Can we have both?
AggieInUtah
MathiasTCK@kkoth @ifilljustice yes both, please #UnpackTheCourt but also more #Transparency. The court has failed to hold itself to ethical guidelines, and that is what I want in new justices.
SocialistStan@mathiastck @kkoth @ifilljustice But why would those new justices hold themselves to ethical guidelines when they have lifetime appointments, can't be impeached, and for all intents and purposes decide what they believe the law should be? It's a principle agent problem.
@SocialistStan @kkoth @ifilljustice we need to get the public rallied around the idea of expanding the court. The Federalist society really thrust organized party politics into the supreme court selection, nomination and confirmation process. It will require an organized response. I would love to keep pontential supreme court candidates talking about the needed reforms. It is true the system as designed makes it hard to hold them accountable in office, making the selection process crucial.
@mathiastck @kkoth @ifilljustice The incentives just don't align post selection, they'll say one thing and do another because they can. Barret is a perfect example.
Not to mention the system as designed renders the whole institution illegitimate, it's unelected, unaccountable, and concentrated in the hands of a few elites. It's replacing the institution that people should rally around imo, not expanding something that's inherently undemocratic.
@SocialistStan @kkoth @ifilljustice that seems like a bigger ask. Are you proposing a constitutional amendment or even a constitutional convention?
@SocialistStan @kkoth @ifilljustice Barret was selected to say one thing pre confirmation and vote another way after, showing the power of the #selectionProcess. A better process used to help rally an #ExpandTheCourt movement could help restore a supreme court that protects voting rights, prevents gerrymandering, etc. Once that achieved thats a much safer and eaier environment to try constitutional change.
Dannyboyguyman@mathiastck @SocialistStan @kkoth @ifilljustice
#UnPackTheCourts : codify that justices ride only one circuit each, and add a couple circuits.
Unpack is the correct frame and intent, and also the federal caseload is too great for the current (reactionary) judiciary
@mathiastck @kkoth @ifilljustice It doesn't need to be as complex as a constitutional amendment, I'd propose people pressure their state legislatures to simply ignore them and pass laws in line with that the population wants regardless of what the court says. Abortion and marijuana are two good examples.
@mathiastck @kkoth @ifilljustice The people have more leverage to pressure local elected officials to ignore the court than they do to have the federal government change the selection process.
@mathiastck @SocialistStan @ifilljustice Great discussion. While I agree with some of what you’re saying, putting our faith in local governments to do better leaves many vulnerable people unprotected. That’s what the Civil Rights movement was about.
Grinning Cat 
@kkoth @mathiastck @SocialistStan @ifilljustice Exactly. We rightfully rejected “We don’t serve your kind”; we rejected a patchwork of rights and wrongs depending on where you live or where you’re traveling. (Cross a state line and your wife or husband becomes a legal stranger? NOPE!)
@grinningcat @kkoth @mathiastck @ifilljustice
Protecting rights with a bottom up patchwork is better than losing them nationally and more democratic. Yes, going top down we could also gain rights nationally, but with what leverage? Even if we had leverage over them what the supremes give they could later take away.
Also influencing people in a local area to make the right choices is something we can all do every day, there's no mechanism for doing the same with a supreme.
@SocialistStan @kkoth @mathiastck @ifilljustice
Why not both! (Bottom-up, local protections, AND top-down, national protections.)
I agree with Stephen Feldman that if a rebalanced Supreme Court protects voting rights, then the Republican Party as we know it [with its unpopular, cruel, and deadly policies] simply won’t return to power.
https://www.wamc.org/2021-09-05/the-case-for-court-packing-as-a-way-to-promote-democracy
Bill Myers@SocialistStan @mathiastck @kkoth @ifilljustice
"... inherently undemocratic." That bottom line is a great point!
Michèle SharikExactly what I was going to say.
Xine@kkoth @ifilljustice We’ve had 9 Supreme Court Justices since 1869, when we had 37 states & close to 40 million people. Since then, we’ve added about 290 million people & 23 states.
In addition to cases heard by the whole Court, Justices preside over 13 circuit court districts, with several Justices assigned to multiple districts.
Expanding the Court shouldn’t be political. It’s practical. The problem is finding a equitable way to expand it.
In addition to cases heard by the whole Court, Justices preside over 13 circuit court districts, with several Justices assigned to multiple districts.
Expanding the Court shouldn’t be political. It’s practical. The problem is finding a equitable way to expand it.
Mona Sigal MD@ifilljustice we need both. Not one OR a the other. As long as there are no term limits, we are stuck with a SCOTUS in which 3 judges aren’t even legitimate. Democrats need to expand SCOTUS, all judges must have term limits, and an enforceable code of ethics must be put in place.
GLW@mona @ifilljustice Eapecially important is code of ethics. Even a “nasty” president can EVENTUALLY be removed by vote…but a BAD Supreme Court Judge is virtually untouchable.
@ifilljustice @glweiss03 we have seen how “”effective” the removal of a blatantly criminal potus is. A judge can be impeached but it’s as tall an order as the impeachment of a potus. The problem is that judge appointments are political from beginning till end. We need a code of ethics and term limits. And expansion of the court. And with all of this we still cannot guarantee an impartial scotus if judgeships are being bought and paid for by dark money
@mona @ifilljustice @glweiss03 I'd be very weary of proposing term limits as a panacea for anything. Primary issue being that it decreases accountability (making radical decisions that you dont have to see through) and leads to a "revolving door" culture which has been shown to increase the strength of lobbyists.
Stronger accountability for those that do serve would be better. Let them keep their long tenures, but make it so that they can be more easily replaced.
Stronger accountability for those that do serve would be better. Let them keep their long tenures, but make it so that they can be more easily replaced.
monkeyes2@mona @ifilljustice I agree. We need both. Expansion of the court dilutes the power/influence of outside groups. It would make it harder to bribe ( wine and dine) enough of them to make a difference.
Kally@mona @ifilljustice Sing it.
Mxhrad@mona @ifilljustice Exactly, one term. No running for re-election.
@mona @ifilljustice Yes, we need both an expanded, UNpacked court, and guardrails like ethics rules with teeth!
And actually, FIVE justices aren’t legitimate, in that G. W. Bush and Trump were both second-place, popular-vote-losing presidents.
(Yes, Bush won reelection by a majority of the popular vote, but would that have happened if he weren’t the incumbent?)
1/2
While Democrats still have the House…
Congress should ALSO pass a law to STRIP SCOTUS’s APPELLATE JURISDICTION whenever a majority of justices were appointed by presidents who (ever) took office despite losing the popular vote.
That would restore some confidence in the Supreme Court reflecting the will of the people (as McConnell pretended to be concerned about).
2/2
Hadan8088@mona @ifilljustice hear here here hear
Shawn 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.
Alex is always organizing@_silversmith @ifilljustice but who is the arbiter of ideology?
@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.
@_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
@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.
@_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.
@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.
@_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
@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…
@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…
@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.
MOVED (Glenn Peters)@_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.
@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…
@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.
Thornbill9@ifilljustice how do you have rules without a mechanism to enforce them? We saw this amply demonstrated during trump’s term how many precedents could be easily brushed aside by a party and movement with little interest in anything other than power. Impeachment for one is of little threat given the bar for conviction
Jay S. Fleischman@thornbill9 @ifilljustice That presumes a person’s ideology remains consistent over time, doesn’t it? That presumption is inherently false; for example, I’ve become far more leftist over time while some others have gone in the opposite direction. How do we account for that?
NECMexPresuming that the implementation of ethics rules are a necessary 'given', what's your position on the establishment of (at least) term limits?
crashwrite@ifilljustice We do need to expand the House, though. The arbitrary 435 cap makes it work more like an upper chamber than the proportionally representative chamber that was intended. #uncapthehouse
Bill, organizer of stuff@ifilljustice
I'd rather see at least one impeached.
I'd rather see at least one impeached.
norskimposter@ifilljustice I missed the article. What was it saying?
Ali Van Zee@ifilljustice thank you. Reactionary calls for expansion without guardrails is not going to help us.
@ifilljustice 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
gotklss2 / annette@ifilljustice
Term limits, too
Term limits, too
Alex Bowles@ifilljustice In the abstract, sure. In reality we have a stacked, corrupt court with a generation-spanning chokehold on the judiciary.
These people are hell bent on ending American democracy. They must be stopped now, and their paths to recovery must be blocked forever.
The only way to do that is (a) destroying the FedSoc's majority with a larger majority and (b) passing election reform so the seditious minority will never win elections again.
@ifilljustice I agree that packing the court without election reform is lethal, as things will only escalate if the gerrymander + electoral college hand power to the viciously reactionary minority once again.
robert_said_what@ifilljustice subject them to term limits and put the Supreme Court nomination on the ballot
@ifilljustice We need a larger court not by appointing more justices but by expanding the administrative organization and giving it authority to enforce ethical behavior such as recusal for conflicts of interest
But it would also be good to unlock the size and make the rule that the President appoints a justice once per term regardless of how many justices there are
dfjkl@ifilljustice expanding the Court may not be the answer to everything, but it is in fact a good answer to the current ills of the Court and the most achievable fix.It’s a majority vote fix, unlike impeachment (which at least 3 deserve) or term limits (which requires a Constitutional change).
Jay W. Walker@ifilljustice but in the near-term, it is the only option we have. It's also long overdue. Right now the 6 atavist justices have oversight over 10 of the 13 circuits. There should be #13JusticesFor13Circuits.
VWinsloe
Ojo Taylor@ifilljustice if the fact that there are nine justices because there were nine appellate courts at the time is true, then there should be 13 today. We should both expand AND put the guardrails you mention (and perhaps others) in place.
@ifilljustice term limits would be nice