559
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
559 points (98.1% liked)
News
23267 readers
4050 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
He should pull an FDR and try to get the court expanded to 12.
11 or 13. You don't do even numbers on the SC so there aren't voting ties.
13 makes the most sense. There are 13 circuits, why not 13 Supreme Court justices?
…and the district judges themselves elect/appoint their representatives to SCotUS. Get political appointees out of the top bench, I’ll take an unelected meritocracy over cronyism and patronage any day.
I like that Idea. It doesn't entirely solve the problem of political appointees since the lower court judges are themselves appointed, but it does provide a layer of abstraction to where the judge isn't directly beholden to a party, in theory.
It's not like Trump appointed hundreds of judges... right?
It would at least (in theory) kick the politicization of judges to the circuit level and promote the same borderline majority opinions there instead - but make accession to SCotUS a supermajority. Hopefully then the only ones they can agree on are outstanding jurists.
Or if it does fall prey to partisan agendas, then it makes the ideological bent of SCotUS stable-ish.
I...huh. Never thought of this tbh.
Yeah agreed. I never quite understood FDRs thinking on putting an even number of people in the court. We have so many 5-4 decisions now an even court would be chaos.
Force a definitive decision, instead of precedent that keeps getting overturned?
Tennis woks kinda like that.
Can’t they recuse or abstain from voting though?
They can, but as we can see from Thomas and Alito, they don't.
Yes. But that rarely happens (usually just because of health issues). There are very few decisions that have been made where all the members didn't weigh in. When even votes have happened the lower court ruling will stand as is. Which is particularly bad when you have places like the 5th circuit trying their best to fascism.
12 with ties being decided by a season of survivor.
13 is a better number, it matches the number of Federal Appelate Courts.
If Democrats manage to take both houses of Congress and the Presidency, I would advocate for immediately passing a law to increase the size of the SC to 13, effective for the start of the SC's 2026 term.
Then, Democrats and Republicans should go to work to enact a Constitutional Amendment for term limits on the SC. Republicans would finally have incentive to do it quickly, or else Biden would name 4 young Liberals to the SC who will be there 40+ years without term limits.
I think a better solution should tie SC seats to the number of federal district courts. That way, should the number grow in the future, SC seats will be added automatically
Yes, that is better, but would require a Constitutional Amendment to formalize, otherwise a future Congress can just change it. Which is why you start with expansion, then force the Republicans to the table to discuss the amendment under a time limit.
If I'm not mistaken, Biden could add seats if he wanted to, so could any president. I think no one wants to do it because then the other party would add more as well.
The size of the SC is set through legislation, so a law would need to pass Congress, and the President would need to sign it. So one party can't do it unilaterally unless they control both houses of Congress and the Presidency.
also 13 original colonies.. 13 stripes on the flag.
some magahead: so that means 1.2..3..4.....7 republicans........ and 1..2....6 confederates?
Hey, some of us smart people can't do that basic math either 😭
(In my case, calculus and ADHD combined powers to make me useless with actual numbers, real and imaginary, lol)
I wish he would. The only thing stopping him, ironically, is his fear of appearing partisan (and angering “moderate” republicans, if they even exist anymore), despite the fact that that’s exactly what this would be attempting to remedy.
I’d love to be wrong, but he’ll never do it. He’s barely even willing to talk about the supreme court’s corruption and blatant bias. I think he’s allergic to that much institutional change.
He called Trump semi-fascist in 2022 and backed off since. Biden does not push the limits of any power he wields.
You'll note there has been an endless amount of arguments about Biden's limitations to his ability and power to effect change, but never that he is pushed up against those limits.
Biden was most popular when he was fighting for Green New Deal and BBB. But his inability to whip his party into voting for the platform the Democratic party ran on was disappointing and he has never recovered.
He also implied he would be a one-term president and turn the reins over to someone younger. I'm so fucking sick of old, white men!
I hate that his pledge to be a one-term president was the deciding factor for me in 2020. I was so frustrated with the Clyburn maneuver to neutralize Bernie's momentum that I needed something that made me believe the goddamn reality of this 2024 ticket wouldn't come to be.
He won’t. Biden would have done it already.