Breyer got it Wrong. Dionne gets it Right
Last week during a speech at Harvard Law School Justice Stephen Breyer warned that “packing the court” by expanding it could erode confidence of the American people in the judgements of the courts. When I read this my first reaction was that my confidence in the judgements couldn’t be any more eroded, especially after the Heller decision which overturned more than a century of precedent regarding gun safety laws, Citizens United which stupidly claimed that money doesn’t corrupt, Shelby which struck down key protections of the Voting Rights Act, and lately Knight which dismissed the case against Trump for banning critics on his Twitter account even though he used that account for public policy making.
Yesterday EJ Dionne called out Breyer for his position, correctly criticizing him for blaming the wrong side for politicization of the court. Dionne pointed out the above cases and McConnell successfully stealing a seat when he refused to give Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to fill Scalia’s seat in 2016 and rushing Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination just a few days before the 2020 election that Trump lost.
Breyer is fantasizing about what the court should be rather than what it’s become, a tool for cementing in extreme rightwing ideology. Biden is correct to open a commission about the court, and I believe it’s long past time to increase the size of the court to balance its judgments. A better solution would be to establish term limits for SCOTUS seats, but that is more difficult due to the Constitutional arguments for not have limits.
All that said, it’s long past time to fix the Supreme Court, because what we have now is clowns in charge of the circus, and that damn sure doesn’t give any confidence in its judgements.
Agree, but it is off to shaky start:
*”Biden’s Supreme Court reform commission won’t fix anything*
“With so many prominent members of the Federalist Society praising the commission right out the gate, it’s clear that conservatives do not feel threatened by this commission. And the justices themselves are just as capable of looking at the list of names that Biden picked and seeing that this commission is unlikely to support significant reforms.”
https://www.vox.com/2021/4/10/22375792/supreme-court-biden-commission-reform-court-packing-federalist-society
1These days I don’t think even one member of the Senate and the Court itself, including the liberals could answer this question correctly: Why does the Supreme Court exist?
I ask this question of people occasionally and you get various stock but meaningless answers like “interpret the law” or “make final decisions” and
“determine constitutionality” and stuff. Not necessarily wrong but not right either. Try it yourself. Those are the answers you will 99% get.
Correct Answer: To protect the powerless. That’s it. The Supreme Court is there so that the guy who has no political power, no connections, no immunity conferred by wealth, no fancy pants lawyer, or even is not popular can get a fair deal.
Now ask yourself is that your impression of what the Supreme Court actually is for the past 40 years? Occasionally. But mostly we have been used to 5-4 decisions (now 7-3) that basically are those that a plutocrat would applaud. Time to change.
2I don’t think the justices realize how little confidence they inspire.
They have been distrusted by the right since the ‘Impeach Earl Warren’ era in the ’50s, by the left since Bush v. Gore.
The middle that still holds the court in high esteem is shrinking with almost every decision.
I part, i blame Congress, which if it were doing its job, would be deflecting numerous lawsuits from the courts by writing clear laws.
I had an interesting experience. A lawyer friend, somewhere between left and far left, came back from attending the Supco hearing in a case he was involved in. He was not the pleader.)
The case (involving pollution of public waters) was not highly political. he cane back most impressed with the questions asked by Kavanaugh.
(The decision, which favored the liberals, was completely wrong because the underlying facts presented to the court were, I can attest from personal knowledge, bogus, but that’s another problem.)
3Screw a commission. It might be political arson, but Pres. Biden needs to be the one to start blowing up the status quo that repugnantcans have framed. He won’t be packing the court. He’ll be UNPACKING the court. We can’t stop Fox news and their (repugnantcans’) entire alternate reality apparatus from pumping out their crap. But we ferdamnsure need to quit speaking the language they’re using. Of course the repugs will scream bloody murder that we’re burning down constitutional establishment.
4When in reality we’ll be backburning against the raging inferno that is the current situation. Repugs aren’t roasting marshmallows by cozy campfires, like they’ve portrayed themselves. They’re burning our f*ckiing country into a facist state and telling us the heat is just the warm fuzzy feeling of the framers’ intent.
We may not be able to stop it.
But we’ve got to start calling it what it is to be able to fight it.
what P.P. said.
5Appointing a commission that size is tantamount to saying, “I really have no intention of doing anything, but must show the appearance of acting concerned.”
6That’s like republocrat Joe Manchin wanting bipartisan cooperation – that ship sailed years ago, yet he’s still in the Senate holding up legislation that could help our country!
7The Court was originally had only 6 members. I recommend we go back to the Court as at the foundation of our country and remove the last 3 appointees.
8If Roe v Wade does in fact get effectively overturned by the current group of supremes, I suspect that Democrats will push Biden and Congress to do whatever they can to do expand the court. By that time, however, it’ll be too late.
9As for joe manchin, his go to excuse for blocking everything is he wants bipartisanship. That’s just a ruse for his being a closet repugnantican.
Nine is no problem.
People voting stupidly is the problem.
You don’t want Repugnicans in office,
10get your ID and vote
My proposal is to have 2 supreme courts, each organized just as the court is now. Over time, one would become more concerned about personal rights, the other with economic rights. But everybody would have to live with whatever a court decides.
Which court got which case would be decided with coin flips. That would take about 80% of the cases off the application list.
Legislatures would find it preferable to legislate.
11I would like to see mandated diversity on the court. Starting with 9, at least 5 females. At least two each Christian (any type), Jewish (any type), Muslim, since these are the dominant (at the moment) religions. The other three can be any combination of Buddhist, Hindu, Daoist, or anything else including atheist. At least four non-white, and at least one each Black, Hispanic, Asian and Native American. Any openings have to be picked to arrive at this mix eventually.
No POTUS can fill a seat within 3 months before a presidential election or after it until the new Congress is seated and in session. (In fact, I would bar ALL changes in presidential appointments for 3 months before the election and after to the remainder of the term. This would prevent the former’s plot to render the Capitol undefended on Jen 6.) No POTUS can fill more than 2 SCOTUS positions. If another one dies, a bipartisan committee with a majority of members of the opposition party must find a *moderate* they agree on 100% or wait for another president to fill the hole and they, like POTUS, would have to work toward a truly diverse bench. Senate would be required to bring any candidate to a floor vote (in other words, no more McConnells!!)
I would also *require* that proposed candidates for SCOTUS meet with and be approved by the American Bar Association before a POTUS asked the Senate to confirm, and that the Congressional approval process be required to take a sufficiently long time and follow a standard procedure to ensure we don’t have the likes of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch ever again. Any lie in answer to ABA or Congressional inquiry would be an automatic NO CONFIRMATION.
We have a lot of lawyers in the country, enough that I’m sure enough qualified ones in each category exist to fill all vacancies.
12