News
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.
view the rest of the comments
This matches the broad strokes of the approach I favor as well.
There are 13 Federal circuits. Expand to one justice per circuit, then double that.
But the core of the approach, regardless of the exact number, is to shift to having cases heard by randomized panels of judges. The amount of power wielded by individual justices right now is just insane. Dilute it down so that the power rests with the body rather than individuals.
Further, randomizing who hears any given case would help curtail the current environment where test cases get tailored to the idiosyncracies and pet theories of individual judges.
SCOTUS should be deciding cases based on rational reading of the law, not entertaining wing nut theories that Thomas or Alito hinted at in previous decisions. That sort of nonsense becomes a lot less feasible if there's no guarantee a case will actually end up in front of Thomas or Alito.
So what happens when the judges chosen for a case interpretation end up being 7-2 in one party's favor? Conservatives would be sitting at the slot machines in a diaper pulling the lever until they hit a jackpot. It's not like making them sit out of some cases based on a lottery is going to make them any less hypocritical or prone to power tripping and bribery. They'll just wait their turn.
Appointees should just be subject to term limits and yearly affirmation votes by members of the BAR association to renew or revoke their qualifications. That way members of the public that are still well versed in law are able to hold them accountable.
I think you're missing the point.
As things stand now, you get cases that are tailor made to the whims of specific people because there's a 100% chance it ends up in front of those specific people. That's an absolutely massive problem.
The point is that you're less likely to have cases that are specifically aimed at stroking any given individual's brand of crazy when there's only a ~1 in 3 chance they'll even hear it. A panel of 9 from a pool of 26 means that you go from a 100% chance that, say, Alito and Thomas, hear a case together to around 12%. That's a huge gamble when it takes years and a massive amount of money to get a case in front of SCOTUS.
No, it doesn't solve all conceivable problems with the court. But it'd help address the fact that SCOTUS justices are entirely too powerful as individuals and it can be done via simple act of Congress.
Not going to happen. SCOTUS terms are life appointments constitutionally. That means you've gotten into amendment territory which just plain is not realistic right now.
Honest question: Could all of the other stuff you’ve suggested happen without getting into amendment territory? I honestly don’t know almost anything about where all these SC things are defined in law, but changing the way the entire SC operates sounds pretty extreme when compared with simply adding term limits. It’s hard to believe it wouldn’t also stray into some constitutional territory.
Article III only lays out there there will be a supreme court and a Chief justice and makes Congress responsible for establishing them. It does not lay out the makeup or structure of that court. The current body of 9 justices is set by federal statute and could be changed by a simple act of Congress.
Article III also explicitly states that whatever Justices are appointed hold their office as long as they maintain good behavior (I e., as long as they haven't been impeached) and that Congress cannot reduce their pay.
Term limits are explicitly unconstitutional.
Setting the number of judges is explicitly within Congress' constitutional powers.
Randomized panels would probably be challenged just because it's never been tested, but the language in the Constitution re: Congress establishing the Supreme Court is vague. That said, Congress has already established inferior Federal courts that operate in this manner, so there's precedent.
Supreme Court function is a hot button topic right now because of Roe v. Wade. The vast majority of Americans agree that at the very least SCJs should have term limits, so start there and force a vote on an amendment. Then if it fails, you have votes on record for the next election. Many Republicans have pro-choice, pro-union, anti-lobbying stances that aren't aware that their representative in congress would vote against because it never comes to their table in the first place. Some(not all) would change their vote from red to at least 3rd party if we were able to highlight those issues in voting records during campaign season.
And even if you feel that isn't worth the time or energy for only speculative shifts in the public vote, the opinion you're expressing is that the constitution should remain unchanged until some undetermined date in the future which may never come. And that is more damaging to the bureaucratic system than a proposed amendment failing because definitions shift over time. It wasn't too long ago that property was determined to include black people because it suited the interest of wealthy land owners in the south. Then because of that we ended up fighting a civil war.
The problem is that the process for amending the Constitution is heavily, structurally biased in favor of the Republicans now. The GOP would absolutely rally around this issue because it's one of the primary things allowing them to hang on to power right now.
I don't believe in engaging in theatrics with a zero percent chance of success when there are real, feasible steps that could be taken to make things better.
Appointments are for life, but I've seen arguments it's possible to "retire" justices to powerless seats so they technically keep the job and title. Or rotate them out of SCOTUS cases to the federal circuits, so they still keep their title but have the role and power of regular judges.
If you triple instead of double that you could have a three judge panel (like federal districts do) that could rule on smaller cases that come out of that circuit. Then, if needed, they could call a full 9 - 11 judge panel if it's a larger topic. This would also allow them to hear many more cases than they currently do, which has been a problem for decades.
I'd be in favor of more. 26 is just because I think there's a very easy argument to make for "every circuit gets direct representation on SCOTUS" and it's not a huge leap to go to two per circuit from there.
Increasing throughput is definitely one of the reasons I'd support doing this as well. Thanks for highlighting that since I didn't.
I totally agree! Just saying you could make that exact same argument but for three per district and it opens up a bunch more possibilities.