Shebanator
Robert ReichThe Supreme Court is off the rails. Some ideas for reform:
1) Enact term limits
2) Enforce ethics standards
3) Require financial disclosures
4) Expand the court
5) Rotate justices
Enough is enough.
Magick Man@rbreich How about getting some attention traction for this story.
Atanae@rbreich Not that you’re wrong, but how? Constitutionally, the only thing you can do is expand the Court. The rest would require Amendments, and those will never pass. Give me a viable path forward, and I’m all ears.
Avi@atanae @rbreich True, except constitutionally, senate has the power to remove justices who are not behaving well. And the constitution does not specify the process or even requires a super majority. There is a simple remedy for liars and crooks on the Supreme Court, and it is up to the senate to decide who those are and how to go about it.
@ashmueli @rbreich I think the only Justice we can impeach right now is Thomas, because I don’t know if it’s possible to impeach someone for what they did before they took office - I mean they impeached Clinton for perjury while President, not for Whitewater. But I would be thrilled to get rid of Kavanaugh and what’s-her-face. And frankly I’m all for term limits and objective standards for qualification.
@atanae @rbreich We should start there. But also, I hate using the word “Impeachement” because it makes people believe the same rules should apply for justices as for other officers of the Federal government, and that’s just not in the constitution. The standard is different and there is no indication the super majority is required.
Steven Molnar
darkpoole@MolnarSteven @atanae @rbreich
Article III makes federal judges constitutionally ineligible to stay in their jobs if they aren't on good behavior.
Congress has the power to define misconduct that is inconsistent with good behavior. Congress can also define a judicial process to determine whether a judge has committed misconduct.
Once the process is in place, the Constitution itself would remove the judge from office on proof of misconduct. No impeachment required.
@darkpoole @atanae @rbreich It's true that the Constitution does not use the word "impeach" for SC judges, but I believe this is universally considered to be the process, with the same supermajority required to convict and remove from office. I'm old enough to remember the "Impeach Earl Warren" movement.
@MolnarSteven @atanae @rbreich
Congress can ALSO remove judges by impeachment, but that's an Article I power. It's not the only way to do it.
The Article III method of removal is a judicial process independent of Congress's impeachment power. It's been available since the Constitution was ratified. But Congress needs to define standards and set up the judicial procedure. Congress simply hasn't done so yet.
@MolnarSteven @atanae @rbreich
Shorter summary: Article I impeachment is the political way to fire judges, performed by the political branch.
Article III removal for misconduct is the judicial way to fire judges, performed by the judicial branch.
But Congress needs to pass legislation, signed by the president, to enable judicial removal.
BlueDotAZ@atanae @rbreich Constitutionally, Congress has almost complete control over the organization of the Supreme Court. The list of things Congress CAN'T do is quite short. Hard term limits are out, but "soft" term limits are doable. Congress can't change SCOTUS's original jurisdiction, or cut judicial salaries. They can't cut the President out of the appointment process.
Otherwise, they have a LOT of power to regulate SCOTUS and the federal judicial process as a whole.
transcendentape@darkpoole @atanae @rbreich What Congress are you referring to in carrying out this fantasy? The Republican majority House or the Democratic majority by one that was just tossed by an attention seeker from Arizona.
If your proposal for a solution to a problem includes absolutely ignoring the situation involved, then I’d argue your proposal needs a reworking.
@transcendentape @atanae @rbreich
It's neither a "fantasy" or a "proposal." It's simply a statement of constitutional law: Congress has broad power to extensively overhaul the Supreme Court if a majority of both Houses concur and the President signs off on it. Whether Congress does so or not is up to them.
I don't expect the current Congress to do anything useful on any front. But there's an election in 19 months. We'll see what happens after that.
leork
n0body@rbreich the lack of accountability and the unlimited power of the Supreme court to overturn law are incompatible with democracy. Thomas has indicated he plans to die on the court, like RBG (who bequeathed us a conservative supermajority) https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/04/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-supreme-court-ethics.html
DAN@rbreich Is Thomas paying taxes on these gifts? If someone gave me 500K I think the government would expect me to report it as a taxable gift.
Noel KellyIn Australia, judges have a compulsory retirement age of 70.
ted byfield@rbreich @marklemley Disclosure requirements need to be retroactive for, say, 10 years.
mpmaddog@rbreich Biden has to kick start this NOW DAMMIT.
Stargeezer Smith@rbreich
I've commented on this before with a proposal, but have never received comment .
I propose dissolving the SC as it exists and replace it with a Supreme Panel. The Panel could be 9 judges pulled from the hundreds of federal judges. 1/3 of them replaced every 2 years, so each serves 6 years total.
The pull from federal judges is random.
So judges still have lifetime appointments, but not lifetime on the Panel.
Would be very hard to corrupt.
NerdiCorgi"Enforce ethics standards" Will backfire as soon as the enemy is allowed to write those standards.
Shoq 🌿@rbreich All true. Like everything you've
posted for the last 15 years. Now what?
posted for the last 15 years. Now what?
Scott Raymond 
@rbreich You forgot 6) Repeal Marbury vs. Madison. These people should not be legislating from the bench. Also, there need to be term limits for all branches of government and the judiciary at the federal level.
Lazarou Monkey Terror 🚀💙🌈@rbreich The American Justice System is becoming a joke around the World, we are still in horror at how some cranky old judges can take Abortions away from millions.
Lonewolf@rbreich
Also make it so that the Senate is required to take up a nomination.
Also make it so that the Senate is required to take up a nomination.
@rbreich limits for sure
It's crazy we have people so old they can't even comprehend simple technology of today
I'm sure it made sense when a lifetime was about 45
It's crazy we have people so old they can't even comprehend simple technology of today
I'm sure it made sense when a lifetime was about 45
Shade1959 (He/him) Ally@rbreich how about a judiciary that is independent of the state...
Raimondas Lapinskas@rbreich trade-free is a solution
shanenI think all five of your suggestions are old and mostly problematic. I think the root problem is the politics, so the solution must address that problem.
What is wrong with this idea:
A nonpartisan Justice may compel two junior partisan Justices to recuse themselves from any political matter brought before the court.
Joke time: RBG was the last surviving nonpartisan confirmed by majorities from both parties. Data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
@rbreich I, too, like to imagine what I’d do if I had a magic wand.
Bater Kari@rbreich Perhaps a mandatory retirement at age 65. If certain professions have mandatory retirement then the court should also have it.
Str8nger@rbreich agree with 1-3… Not so sure about 4 & 5. If Dems expand the court, RepubliCONS will do the same.
Lunatech@Str8nger @rbreich What makes you think they won't do that anyway? Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Thomas resigns, that Kavanaugh is found to be similarly corrupt and resigns (wishful thinking that either of those guys would do the honorable thing, I know, but go with me here) and that one other conservative justice gets long-term Covid and either resigns or dies. And let's say Biden attempts to fill all three vacancies.
First of all you can bet your bottom dollar that the Republicans will refuse to confirm anyone Biden nominates until after the 2024 election, in the same way they refused to confirm Merrick Garland. But let's pretend that some way, somehow, he gets all three confirmed, and then either Trump or DeSantis wins in 2024. Do you believe for a single second that either of those guys would have enough respect for the institution of the court to NOT try and pack it with some additional conservative justices? By now we know that those guys have no honor, no sense of shame, and no respect for any good traditions (bad ones, on the other hand, they're all for).
But you might say that Biden would be stooping to their level to add additional justices to the court now. Perhaps in normal times and circumstances, but I think that in the current circumstances that could be justified for two reasons: First would be the hypocrasy of the Republicans in denying Garland a seat on the court because a presidential election was less than a year away, yet rushing through the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett with only a few months until the 2020 presidential election. That alone shows how evil Republicans are. And now we find that Thomas and his wife are allegedly very unethical people, and if any type of quid pro quo took place (perhaps where Thomas voted a certain way in order to remain on good terms with those he received favors from) he should be expelled from the court, but their may not be any mechanism for doing that (at least not any that the Republicans would agree to) so adding a couple of seats to the court may be the only way to restore fairness and balance, and also to maybe make the court less subject to corruption.
I mean, it's not as though anyone is ever again going to hold the Supreme Court in high respect in the way they might have a century or so ago, or even a decade ago. The court has always been influenced by politics but that was never as obvious as it is today. Of course the Republicans would squeal like angry pigs if Biden appointed more justices, but if their quest for a fascist goverrnment they will turn around and do the exact same thing in a heartbeat if they think it will benefit them. Your logical fallacy is thinking that if the Democrats always take most the nobile and honorable path, the Republicans will be forced to do likewise, when recent history has amply demonstrated that nothing could be further from the truth!
@Lunatech @rbreich I do not think that if Democrats take the noble/honorable path, Republicans will do likewise. I think it only confirms the “both sides are the same” false equivalency & perpetuates a race to the bottom. #SnowballEffect
@Lunatech @rbreich When PBO was elected in 2008, ppl got complacent. Tea Party extremists took over, obstructed everything. GOP & Trump made no secret of their intentions for SCOTUS, overturning RvW, etc in 2015/16, yet only about 1/2 the country voted & many libs/progressives voted 3rd party, for purity and/or protest.
I think we get ultimately get the govt (the collective) we deserve.
Btw, how are you able to make such long posts?
@Str8nger @rbreich The ability to make long posts varies by instance. There is a myth about #Mastodon that all instances are created equal and that it doesn't matter which instnce you join, but that is a big lie. Some instances only let you make posts of 500 or 1000 characters, because they are trying to be like the birdsite. Other, more sensible instances let you create much longer posts. For example, I am on https://infosec.exchange/ which lets you make posts of up to 11,000 characters. The highest limit I have seen is 65,535 characters but at that point in time I would not recommend the instance that allows that, if only because it is fediblocked by many other instances (apparently for reasons that have nothing to do with the post length).
All you have to do to find an instance that allows long posts is to look for long posts and then at the address of the person thatr made the post - everything after the last @ is the instance name, just take that and put https:// in front of that in your brower and you will be able to see the instance. You can then read their rules and about statement, etc. and if you like what you see and they are accepting new accounts, go ahead and create an account there.
Unfortunately most instances don't show their post limits until after you join. Maybe someone should create a database of Mastodon instances and allowed post lengths, so people who don't want to have to split their thoughts into tiny fragments can easily find instances that will welcome them.
go to BOKatTOOTdotCAT@Lunatech
"Unfortunately most instances don't show their post limits until after you join."
I didn't know this server had a limit of 100,500 characters until after I joined. I picked it fairly randomly as a medium-small English-language server with a short name.
MyMiloCat+MydogNoodles@rbreich impeach Thomas and arrest his wife for seditious conspiracy
Threadbane@rbreich
And no more Roman Catholics for a while. We need a few atheists, Buddhists, and Protestants to balance things out. We did it for Black people and women, let's see it for atheists, Hindus and Sikhs, but failing that, let's at least see a few Protestants, who are currently with zero representation on the court, nominated and confirmed.
And no more Roman Catholics for a while. We need a few atheists, Buddhists, and Protestants to balance things out. We did it for Black people and women, let's see it for atheists, Hindus and Sikhs, but failing that, let's at least see a few Protestants, who are currently with zero representation on the court, nominated and confirmed.
I Voted for McGovern@Threadbane @rbreich All.Of.This! Even Jesus would agree
@rbreich
6. Impeach corrupt justice/s
6. Impeach corrupt justice/s
Normal Guy@rbreich Add: Impeach Kavanaugh and Thomas.
@rbreich but wont the Dems need the WH House & 60% of Senate to enable that??
David Scott Moyer@rbreich I would change those a bit.
1) Set a retirement age, say 80. At that point they become a justice emeritus, only stepping in to break a tie or to fill a vacancy while a new justice is appointed. If more than one justice has emeritus status, they serve on a rotation.
2) Put ethics standards in place, then enforce them.
3) Require financial disclosures annually.
4) Expand the court to have the number of justices as the sytem has circuits.
5)See number 1.
1) Set a retirement age, say 80. At that point they become a justice emeritus, only stepping in to break a tie or to fill a vacancy while a new justice is appointed. If more than one justice has emeritus status, they serve on a rotation.
2) Put ethics standards in place, then enforce them.
3) Require financial disclosures annually.
4) Expand the court to have the number of justices as the sytem has circuits.
5)See number 1.
bouriquet@farbel @rbreich Based on research, I’d prefer a SCOTUS retirement age at 70, the same for a President, cabinet posts, Senator and Representatives also. Sure, there are some out there like RBG who were in good physical and mental condition, but there are some in Congress who don’t meet that standard and seem out of touch with society. They might be easily compromised or swayed by lobbyists or worse.
https://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/mph-modules/ph/aging/mobile_pages/aging5.html
@bouriquet @rbreich I just threw 80 out there as an example. As a 64 year old, I'd say 70 is pretty young. In 30 years or so, I bet you'll agree.
@farbel @rbreich Nearly 68 myself, still working full time, staying active too but once in a while feel that a thought can slip just out of reach for a bit.
True, even the data in the article shows less than 25% have issues at 70, but mental status can change quickly, especially over a 4 year Presidential term. Would you want a 70 year old performing surgery without the oversight of a younger doctor?
It’s not just cognition but attitudes and ability to quickly adapt to change.
True, even the data in the article shows less than 25% have issues at 70, but mental status can change quickly, especially over a 4 year Presidential term. Would you want a 70 year old performing surgery without the oversight of a younger doctor?
It’s not just cognition but attitudes and ability to quickly adapt to change.
loucovey@rbreich undoubtedly. How will we get Congress ti do any of that?
Kevin Boyd (he/him) 🇨🇦@rbreich Rotate them? I don't think it matters which direction they are facing. But on the off chance it does...
Spin those justices!
🎵you spin me right round, baby, like a record, baby, right round 🎵
(Sorry. Defense mechanism automatically deploys for seemingly intractable situations.)
Frances LarinaCan we accomplish any of those with the state of outrageous gerrymandering & other election manipulations and power grabs in so many red states?
@rbreich I’ve given it a day’s thought on why I found this post so repulsive. You are in a position to know what changes are realistically possible, and yet you’ve posted this list.
Your proposals require political capital that simply does not currently exist, and publishing ludicrous lists of what you’d like to change in a fantasy world you’ve constructed in your head at best does not change that. I think a case could be made that it’s actually counterproductive.
Wandering Star@rbreich I don't like the idea of expanding the court, because I think the group eventually becomes too large to have meaningful debate. But a hard term limit of ten years seems like a good idea. And they should have a nominal code of ethics, even if enforced through courtesy and impeachment.
The Flight Attendant@rbreich SCOTUS is illegitimate
MugsysRapSheet Blog ☑️@rbreich It's insane the highest court in the land has no "Ethics Regulations".
But I despise "term limits" at ANY level. Once a gov't official becomes a Lame Duck, they become unaccountable to anyone (EXACTLY the problem here.)
BETTER SOLUTION: Create a *pool* of 36 Justices from which 9 are randomly selected for every case. This ensures 1) not every ruling has the same ideological slant, 2) GREATLY lowers the temperature during confirmation hearings, 3) mitigates each justices' influence.
NeveranR@rbreich All good ideas that would take decades to introduce and put into effect. Let’s start with the impeachment of CT to get their attention first!!!