The Supremes
Here’s an idea that Ole Bubba has been kicking around for a while.
I think Ruth Bader Ginsberg is going to live forever. However, should she throw up her hands in disgust anytime before inauguration, everybody lives in terror that we’re gonna have Bob Barr on the Supreme Court.
Both Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell say they most certainly will push through an appointment if one occurs before inauguration day.
There is a solution and it has been done before.
Once Democrats take control, they vote to expand the court to make up for Brett Kavanaugh and whoever else Republicans think is horribly unqualified for the job and likes beer at a frightening emotional level.
Thanks to Kary for the heads up.
I worry about RBG all the time. She’s been through so many health problems. And I think expanding the court to make up for those unqualified judges who cheated their way in or will only make political decisions is an excellent one.
1Impeach all the unqualified covidiots jammed into lifetime positions by Moscow Mitch. Return respect to the rule of law by enforcing lying to Congress as a crime. Some would argue that we are a nation compromised of 50% total idiots. Fine. With a population of some 300 million from that remaining 150 million certainly people qualified for those appointments can be found. Preferably with a large enough contingents of Persons of Color, Latinx and women to reflect both our diversity and sanity.
Expand SCROTUS? If that is what it takes to repair the damage, let’s do that, too.
2Don’t let Louie anywhere near her!
3I think FDR expanded the court so he could move forward and save the country.
4I hope Notorious RBG lives forever–but in case she doesn’t, or wants to retire before she’s 100, I’m in favor of anything we can do to lessen the impact of Justice “I like beer” Kavanaugh, and at least one other unqualified person on the Supreme Court. Has an incompetent Justice ever been impeached? If Bubba thinks expanding the Court is reasonable, I’m in favor of that, too.
5JJH, having Bob Barr on the Court would be…bad. Very bad. But at least he has that Libertarian thing going, which might be good for the occasional crossover vote. Now, having *Bill* Barr, the Mango Mussolini’s current principal enabler, on the Court, would be infinitely worse. Nothing but pure fascism emanating from his pores. But he won’t be the nominee for one reason — he’s 70 years old. No, they’ll go a lot younger if they get the chance. Maybe PJ or Squee.
and Kate @4, FDR tried to expand the Court in 1937, proposing legislation that would have allowed him to nominate as many as six new justices, but it was never enacted. He got a little bit of revenge, though, appointing Hugo Black and William O. Douglas, who between them served 70 years on the SCOTUS.
6if there is anyone to “make up for,” it is gorsuch/garland.
the kavanaugh matter isn’t really any different than that of thomas.
7Whether anything will be done once the Dems take over the legislature and the Presidenc, I think there is sufficient evidence that Kavanaugh has committed perjury during both of his confirmation hearings. To the best of my knowledge there is no statute that protects a Supreme Court justice from being tried for criminal behavior while they sitting on the bench, unlike that Justice Department opinion that the President can’t be indicted or tried while in office.
8Be interesting to find out what would happen to the convicted justice. Would they be able to retain their seat Or would be forced to resign? Impeachment and subsequent conviction will, of course, force their removal (something we know won’t happen as long as the Republicans have 34 seats in the Senate) but what about a criminal conviction?
Arghh! Presidency! Where’s spellcheck when you need it?
9If one side starts adding to the SC, it’ll become an every-four-years tradition. One party has already established itself as the party that blows past every rule, tradition or common sense consensus in its quest for power. What should the other party do? I want to see serious talk about a Constitutional Convention to overturn Citizens United, and do about a dozen other things to make the next Trump’s power grab harder. Fix the Constitution and the SCOTUS has no choice but to say “yes, sir.”
10When Biden gets sworn I pray that he nominate Obama to replace Roberts who is on the edge of leaving. Obama simply cannot do any worse than Taft did! Obama actually taught constitutional law.
11Kate Dungan @ 4: right, when Roosevelt proposed it, it was called a “court packing” scheme by the Republicans, and was quickly withdrawn.
Brad in Dallas @10: I agree. I’ve also had the thought of increasing the Supreme Court (and appelate courts) but realized it could turn into flip-flop every four years, ending up with everyone and their dog appointed. I disagree about a Constitutional Convention, however. Texas tried to cut down on their bloated state constitution in the 1970s, but it failed because everyone had their favorite horse to flog: outlaw abortion, make flag-burning illegal, immediately put up all state-owned land for auction, and vastly nuttier schemes.
The only way any progressive constitutional change can happen is from focused amendments, and a take-over of the state governments.
12I don’t favor expanding the SC over Garland/Gorsuch, but if McConnell rams through another justice, I will change my mind. RBG may not need to hang on till Inauguration Day. If the Dems pick up four Senate seats, then control changes on January 3.
OTOH, I do like the idea of setting term limits on SC judges so presidents quit nominating 40 year-olds. Give each justice 18 years and retire them to senior status on the DC Circuit.
13To the various commenters above I agree. I’d like to see Michelle Friedland on the SCotUS, but I’d also like to see Merrick Garland on the Court, as Chief Justice.
Thanks to the FAQ section of supremecourt.gov I just read “The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.”
How bout this? Every time Congress subdivides the Federal judiciary creating a new regional circuit, for which there is today 12, there needs to be a new supreme. Congress owes us 4, since the work of the chief justice is a full-time job unto itsownself.
14On Garland: Obama nominated him as a attempt to draw some support of Republicans. Many had voted for him when he was confirmed to the Circuit Court, many praised his approach to the law and his ability to shape arguments by well chosen questions. Plus, he was already in his 60s, so his tenure would likely have been shorter than others nominated.
He’ll turn 68 in November. Appointing him would be a substantial “discount” to someone who could be on the Court for additional 15 years.
The only way Merrick should be put on the Court would be if there was first a legislative move to define Justices as having a limited time on the Supreme Court. Those leaving would have a choice: retirement, “senior status” to replace Supreme Court Justices who need to recuse themselves from cases or undertake other administrative tasks, or placement as members of a Circuit court.
15New Congress is sworn in on Jan. 3, 17 days before new Press. Jan 3 is the date to watch, if we can flip the Senate.
16