1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Running SCOTUS thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by 2muchcoffeeman, Jun 15, 2020.

Page 51 of 55
  1. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Never had a president signed so many bills into law that infringed on people's individual rights. It wasn't the Supreme Court that changed.

    What FDR ushered in with his "new deal" was radical. It doesn't seem so to people living within the prism of 2024, because the barn door he cracked open has been blown off its hinges since. But what was going on was a president trying to expand the power the of the government he was presiding over in an authoritarian way, pushing through a series of things that subverted individual rights for the supposed benefit of many. And you had the branch of government that was supposed to be a check on that (protecting people's rights as spelled out in the Constitution) playing its proper role.

    The court-packing scheme was an attempt to subvert the separation of powers (weaken the court so he could bulldoze what he wanted through) that is built into our system.
     
    The Big Ragu, Jul 2, 2024
    #601
    Liut and Azrael like this.
  2. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member


    I don't disagree.

    But it's wrong to say liberals "got their way all the time" from 1932 - 1946.
     
    Azrael, Jul 2, 2024
    #602
    tapintoamerica likes this.
  3. Driftwood

    Driftwood Well-Known Member

    I'm 100% in favor of expanding the court. Nine unelected, unaccountable people shouldn't be able to sit in their ivory tower and make decisions for millions based on their latest whim or gift. The majority has been has been appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote, clearly not a reflection of the American people. As for packing, well, it's clearly been packed already. It renders decisions based on ideology, not rule. Any decision the Roberts court has rendered where it 6-3 or 5-4 along ideological/appointment lines should be immediately reviewed. If something doesn't have support from both camps, even if it's one, then that should raise a red flag to everyone.
    Someone mentioned upthread that there should be an even number of justices, half from each camp. That actually is a good idea and would require coming to some kind of consensus on what is a proper balance for everyone. Neither camp could lord over 333 million people with their ideology.

    Term limits. Absolutely term limits.
     
    Driftwood, Jul 2, 2024
    #603
    Liut and Neutral Corner like this.
  4. Della9250

    Della9250 Well-Known Member

    Bringing back from two and a half years ago:

    My idea has been to expand the court to 13 seats and each spot is tied to one of the circuit courts -- when one of the seats comes up, probably almost certainly by death, then the senior-most judge (not the oldest) in that circuit moves up and the president immediately appoints the successor in that circuit. That way, it's random chance for the replacement and you can't play politics at that point.
    Can you pack circuits with certain demographics? Sure, but there's a chance that circuit goes decades before being tapped.

    I posted this in Oct. 2020 and the time, this would be the order:

    1 Sandra Lynch (Clinton), 74
    2 Jose Cabranes (Clinton), 79
    3 Theodore McKee, Black (Clinton), 73
    4 J. Harvie Wilkinson, (Reagan), 76
    5 Edith Jones (Reagan), 71
    6 R. Guy Cole (Clinton), 69
    7 Joel Flaum (Reagan), 83
    8 James Loken (Bush I), 80
    9 Sidney Thomas (Clinton), 67
    10 Mary Beck Briscoe (Clinton), 73
    11 Charles Wilson (Clinton), 66
    12 (DC) Karen Henderson (Bush I), 76
    13 (Fed) Pauline Newman (Reagan), 93!

    One in three chance if there's an opening it would be a woman, essentially 50/50 to be Republican or Democrat

    And if you advanced the last four to take the new open seats, waiting in the wings would be:

    10 Timothy Tymkovich (Bush II), 65
    11 William Pryor (Bush II), 58
    12 Judith Rogers (Clinton, 81
    13 Alan Lourie (Bush I), 85

    Since Oct. 2020
    1 through 6 would be the same people
    7 would have changed to Frank Easterbrook (Reagan), 73
    8 and 9 would be the same people
    10 would have changed to Harris Hartz (Bush II), 75
    11 through 13 are the same

    If you get to go through the 11th circuit, everyone is born from 1954 on, but if you get the ninth, there's 10 born before 1954

    If you get the 10th, the longest serving started in 2001. If you get the seventh, there's four that are from 1995 and before, including two in the mid 80s
     
    Della9250, Jul 2, 2024
    #604
  5. Scout

    Scout Well-Known Member

    In the 1700s, it was much harder to get all the justices together and to find enough qualified people who could do the job.

    Now, the Supreme Court should be at least 30 justices and should be appointed by themselves and not the president. They run their own club.
     
    Scout, Jul 2, 2024
    #605
  6. Della9250

    Della9250 Well-Known Member

    Now Four years later, here would be the makeup of candidates:
    1 David Barron (Obama), 56
    2 Debra Livingston (Bush II), 65
    3 Michael Chagares (Bush II), 62
    4 J. Harvie Wilkinson, (Reagan), 79
    5 Edith Jones (Reagan), 74
    6 Karen Moore (Clinton), 75
    7 Frank Easterbrook (Reagan), 75
    8 Kim Wardlaw (Clinton), 70
    9 Sidney Thomas (Clinton), 70
    10 Harris Hartz (Bush II), 77
    11 Charles Wilson (Clinton), 69
    12 (DC) Karen Henderson (Bush I), 79
    13 (Fed) Alan Lourie (Bush I), 89
     
    Della9250, Jul 2, 2024
    #606
  7. Della9250

    Della9250 Well-Known Member

    And it could work with the current makeup to tie in current group

    Sotomayor came from 2nd circuit
    Alito came from 3rd circuit
    Barrett came from 7th circuit
    Gorsuch came from 10th circuit
    Thomas came from 12th circuit

    Kavanaugh, Roberts, Brown came from 12th circuit
    Kagan doesn't have a circuit

    Randomly split the remaining four with the open eight circuits and the four that are open, those four move onto the court
     
    Della9250, Jul 2, 2024
    #607
  8. Driftwood

    Driftwood Well-Known Member

    Honestly right now, I think pretty much all the Circuit Courts of Appeal are far more credible than SCOTUS and the District courts.
    When a court of appeals rules on something sometimes 3-0 then SCOTUS overturns it 6-3 along ideological lines, that should be a major red flag.
     
    Driftwood, Jul 2, 2024
    #608
  9. tapintoamerica

    tapintoamerica Well-Known Member

    The Four Horsemen will never be as great a nickname as the Minnesota Twins.
     
    tapintoamerica, Jul 2, 2024
    #609
    Liut likes this.
  10. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    “To be the Court, you’ve got to beat the Court. Whooo!”
     
    Baron Scicluna, Jul 2, 2024
    #610
    DanielSimpsonDay, Tarheel316, JimmyHoward33 and 1 other person like this.
  11. Brooklyn Bridge

    Brooklyn Bridge Well-Known Member

    Can we add no more lifetime appointments? Justices shouldn’t be hanging on into their 80s and 90s.
     
    Brooklyn Bridge, Jul 2, 2024
    #611
    Neutral Corner likes this.
  12. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    We can. ... if we amend the Constitution.

    The idea behind lifetime appointments for judges is solid. They don't have to fear being fired for unpopular decisions and it is actually stabilizing in that you get consistent interpretations of the law. Most of the work of those judges is done by clerks anyhow (who comport with the views of the particular judge), so it's not like you have senile drooling 80 year olds trying to single-handedly do a job they aren't up for.

    The main reason people now have a problem with them hanging on too long is that we allowed the Supreme Court to become a de facto legislature that supercedes our actual legislatures (rather than their powers being relatively limited to being a check on the legislatures violating the rights that are actually spelled out by the Constitution). That has increased the amount of griping about the court from people who aren't on board with the social agendas and expanded power that now comes with the job, and want seats turned over to judges they think will do what they prefer. It's not really about age. ... it's about the judiciary being turned into a mess that makes the law into a shapeshifting thing that simply depends on who is holding the seat. That has made it an unstable institution.

    I'd suggest that rather than amending the Constitution with regard to age -- and not fixing that actual problem -- isn't a solution for anyone. We are going to need to roll back the expanded power (which will be even more difficult to accomplish; once the horse gets out of the barn, it's difficult to get it back in) we have vested in our courts over decades now, and try to reesbalish a system of balance via checks. With it, we are going to need to roll back some of the expanded powers we have allowed our legislature and executive to take, too.
     
    The Big Ragu, Jul 2, 2024
    #612
    maumann likes this.
Page 51 of 55
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page