Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/06/07/four-ways-expand-us-supreme-court
Best way, vote “Green” till the cows come home.
A very useful and thoughtful piece. We need a wide ranging discussion of this. Personally I’m inclined toward increasing the number of justices. Yes this would set off a sharp durable conflict, but we will have one anyway as the country heads down an authoritarian vs. democratic road. The appeals court idea seems dubious because the right wing is capturing those courts. The partisan idea fails on two counts: the duopoly is historically obsolete, so cementing it in the Supreme Court is undemocratic; it would also produce the kind of paralysis and gross horsetrading we’ve seen on the Federal Elections Commission.
Why not just abolish it? These justices are no geniuses. Why have them when an artificial intelligence just beat a bunch of lawyers? Power to our robot overlords!
Is the author telling us that a simple act of Congress can change the make-up of this third branch of government in a willy nilly fashion?
I have written before about the court and how it has changed to become a blatant political tool with younger and younger justices nominated to impress their views on law for many decades.
I believe the court should only be made-up of old-timers who have earned their way in from a lifetime of service and legal decisions by which they themselves may be judged; their terms limited by age so there would be a greater turnover of thought and precedent.
The new normal is for young mostly without visible trail nominees, refusing to answer questions to fill-in those blanks, and rammed-thru that make the court an instrument of right-wing extremist views and “religious” claptrap, not good law. Those stealth nominees decisions will last for generations (Yeah, I mean republicans and “conservatives” 90%, because they are the worst, most extreme offenders!). Witness the treatment of Merrick Garland by the odious R’Cons.
Older people of wisdom and integrity can hold non-partisan views and serve, but packing the court with the kind of scum, by the kind of scum, we have witnessed recently, like the beer drunk rapist and other morally reprehensible extremists or idiots violates any norm of serving the people and planet to serve great wealth and power instead - there should be a minimum age requirement to assure turnover, and/or a strict peer-review process based on a long record of achievement, not party affiliation. Enough of the Kavanaugh’s and Thomases! When it is finally proven the angry drunk lied repeatedly under oath, he can be impeached and removed eventually!
That would never happen and anyone who would write such a statement obviously has a very superficial understanding of Hillary. Hillary is not a leftist partisan, she is a very centrist neoliberal who supports Corporate America because Corporate America has been very generous to her and her family. She is not a leftist Democrat.
Now, had you said Bernie, then you’d have a leg to stand on to make this argument…but you didn’t.
And as for your comment about what will result of the House Dems should impeach and the results this will have, you seem to be ignoring the Blue Wave we just had 2018, which is an indication that the majority of the American public wants some accountability, so I believe you are mistaken on that premise, too.
True enough, the court has become a partisan tool though I suppose it was not intended to be that way. The longevity thing is untoward, is damaging, is useless. It’s all premised on the fiction of non partisan, disinterested (save for the constitution’s preservation) neutrality. Hell, we are even coming to understand that the constitution itself is rigged in several important ways–that founding fathers were also grasping jerks, if I may say it plain. In this regard, the American revolution was pointless–we still have our king, our house of lords, our great land barons, our dukes and earls. Only a few episodes in our history have attempted to thwart this slide into business as usual.