How to reform the Supreme Court

[Contumacious]

Draw names out of a group of eligible lawyers,judges

This was basically how it was in the Articles of Confederation

at the time of the revolution there were disputes between states over western territories. The states were very interested in coming up with a fair way to resolve the disputes. What they came up with in the Articles of Confederation was a kind of random system where the last step was drawing names out of a pool for the judges.

also have extra names drawn as replacements when main Judges should recuse themselves (which they should probably do more often)

You’ve got to be kidding, as this is a remarkable and disturbing display of ignorance.

And the Supreme Court is in no need of ‘reforming.’

SCOTUS was "reformed" in 1935 when FDR reduced the "justices to a cabinet level position.

.

 

[hunarcy]

I would add CitizensUnited, the Kelo case, for recent decisions broadly agreed to be wrong.

Ah, so you support censorship and ignoring precedent.

Gotcha.

 

[hunarcy]

The KELO decision is another example of why we need to reform the Federal judiciary. Kelo v. City of New London, which allowed the use of eminent domain to transfer private property to another private owner supposedly to further "economic development".

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did the state supreme court rule differently than SCOTUS? Why do you think that is?

Oh, and did SCOTUS ignore precedent to make that decision or was it in keeping with previous decisions?

 

[dcraelin]

I would add CitizensUnited, the Kelo case, for recent decisions broadly agreed to be wrong.

Ah, so you support censorship and ignoring precedent.
Gotcha.

Those who dominate political discourse with money are the real censors.

Amazing how different judges see precedent differently

And the Constitution allows for amendments that could easily reform the SC back to its intended purpose...which it has FAR exceed.
Proposal - An Amendment that basically imposes:

• SC justice term limits
• Ability for a 3/5 vote from the House and Senate to override a majority opinion without being subject to Presidential veto
• Ability for 3/5 vote of the state legislatures to override a majority opinion

One only need to look a decisions like Marbury v Madison, Dred Scott V Sandford, Wickard v Filburn, Plessy v Ferguson, Korematsu v US, and many others to see that we need a remedy against a tyrannous and all powerful SC.

More ignorance and stupidity from the right.
Term limits and subjecting Supreme Court decisions to Congressional oversight not only violate the doctrine of an independent judiciary vital to the judicial process, but violate the fundamental tenet of Separation of Powers Doctrine essential to preventing the very tyranny the poster seeks to avoid.

Term limits wouldn't, but Congressional oversight would.

the 3/5ths proposal is interesting, perhaps limit it to cases where the Judges call something Unconstitutional.

 

[Contumacious]

Draw names out of a group of eligible lawyers,judges

This was basically how it was in the Articles of Confederation

at the time of the revolution there were disputes between states over western territories. The states were very interested in coming up with a fair way to resolve the disputes. What they came up with in the Articles of Confederation was a kind of random system where the last step was drawing names out of a pool for the judges.

also have extra names drawn as replacements when main Judges should recuse themselves (which they should probably do more often)

You’ve got to be kidding, as this is a remarkable and disturbing display of ignorance.

And the Supreme Court is in no need of ‘reforming.’

SCOTUS was "reformed" in 1935 when FDR reduced the "justices to a cabinet level position.

.

 

[dcraelin]

You’ve got to be kidding, as this is a remarkable and disturbing display of ignorance.

And the Supreme Court is in no need of ‘reforming.’

SCOTUS was "reformed" in 1935 when FDR reduced the "justices to a cabinet level position.

.

actually FDR did try to reform by adding more justices. That wasn't a bad idea. I remember reading that Marshall's whole theory on the court was based on the premise that EVERY case that came before it would be ruled on. None of this granting cert. Like the rest of the federal government the SC has added aides and assistants and staff and yet still cant manage to get its work done. Take away some of the staff and add some more justices at reduced salaries.

 

[longknife]

Draw names out of a group of eligible lawyers,judges

This was basically how it was in the Articles of Confederation

at the time of the revolution there were disputes between states over western territories. The states were very interested in coming up with a fair way to resolve the disputes. What they came up with in the Articles of Confederation was a kind of random system where the last step was drawing names out of a pool for the judges.

also have extra names drawn as replacements when main Judges should recuse themselves (which they should probably do more often)

I was going to attack the poster. But, I think most of you realize the fallacy of the post.

The Supreme Court does not need to be reformed or changed!!!!

It is a body that is supposed to be free of political pressures and to look upon laws in the context of constitutionality. As has happened since the founding of this country, the court will swing back and forth in response to who is elected president and has the ability to nominate judges.

And remember, it is the Senate that has the final say and they too are elected by the PEOPLE!!!

 

[dcraelin]

Draw names out of a group of eligible lawyers,judges

This was basically how it was in the Articles of Confederation

at the time of the revolution there were disputes between states over western territories. The states were very interested in coming up with a fair way to resolve the disputes. What they came up with in the Articles of Confederation was a kind of random system where the last step was drawing names out of a pool for the judges.

also have extra names drawn as replacements when main Judges should recuse themselves (which they should probably do more often)

I was going to attack the poster. But, I think most of you realize the fallacy of the post.

The Supreme Court does not need to be reformed or changed!!!!

It is a body that is supposed to be free of political pressures and to look upon laws in the context of constitutionality. As has happened since the founding of this country, the court will swing back and forth in response to who is elected president and has the ability to nominate judges.

And remember, it is the Senate that has the final say and they too are elected by the PEOPLE!!!

you say it "is supposed to be free of political pressures",....my proposal would make it even freer of political pressures and biases. Think Gore v Bush.

The court was never really intended to look upon laws in the context of constitutionality....this is why Marbury v Madison is looked upon with such awe by the judiciary, why it is such a famous case.

The court is badly in need of reform as the KELO and Citizens United cases show.

 

[Contumacious]

SCOTUS was "reformed" in 1935 when FDR reduced the "justices to a cabinet level position.

.

actually FDR did try to reform by adding more justices. That wasn't a bad idea. I remember reading that Marshall's whole theory on the court was based on the premise that EVERY case that came before it would be ruled on. None of this granting cert. Like the rest of the federal government the SC has added aides and assistants and staff and yet still cant manage to get its work done. Take away some of the staff and add some more justices at reduced salaries.

That is correct.

A slightly more honest SCOTUS ruled that :

" "It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously perform our duty."


EX PARTE YOUNG, 28 S. Ct. 441, 209 U.S. 123, 143 (U.S. 03/23/1908)

.

 

[hunarcy]

actually FDR did try to reform by adding more justices. That wasn't a bad idea. I remember reading that Marshall's whole theory on the court was based on the premise that EVERY case that came before it would be ruled on. None of this granting cert. Like the rest of the federal government the SC has added aides and assistants and staff and yet still cant manage to get its work done. Take away some of the staff and add some more justices at reduced salaries.

Except that wasn't FDR's goal. He was trying to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the court had ruled unconstitutional. In other words, he was trying to cheat to get his way.

 

[dcraelin]

actually FDR did try to reform by adding more justices. That wasn't a bad idea. I remember reading that Marshall's whole theory on the court was based on the premise that EVERY case that came before it would be ruled on. None of this granting cert. Like the rest of the federal government the SC has added aides and assistants and staff and yet still cant manage to get its work done. Take away some of the staff and add some more justices at reduced salaries.

Except that wasn't FDR's goal. He was trying to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the court had ruled unconstitutional. In other words, he was trying to cheat to get his way.

Yes, but it could only be seen as cheating because he was going to be the one to appoint them. The idea of having more judges I dont think is bad in itself.

 

[Unkotare]

SCOTUS was "reformed" in 1935 when FDR reduced the "justices to a cabinet level position.

.

actually FDR did try to reform by adding more justices. That wasn't a bad idea. .

It wasn't a 'bad' idea, it was a fucking horrible idea. Do you recall why that scumbag FDR threatened to pack the court?

 

[dcraelin]

actually FDR did try to reform by adding more justices. That wasn't a bad idea. .

It wasn't a 'bad' idea, it was a fucking horrible idea. Do you recall why that scumbag FDR threatened to pack the court?

was it because a bunch of glorified ambulance chasers were willing to watch the country crash and burn?

 

[Unkotare]

actually FDR did try to reform by adding more justices. That wasn't a bad idea. .

It wasn't a 'bad' idea, it was a fucking horrible idea. Do you recall why that scumbag FDR threatened to pack the court?

was it because a bunch of glorified ambulance chasers were willing to watch the country crash and burn?

No it wasn't, you ignorant douche.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Draw names out of a group of eligible lawyers,judges

This was basically how it was in the Articles of Confederation

at the time of the revolution there were disputes between states over western territories. The states were very interested in coming up with a fair way to resolve the disputes. What they came up with in the Articles of Confederation was a kind of random system where the last step was drawing names out of a pool for the judges.

also have extra names drawn as replacements when main Judges should recuse themselves (which they should probably do more often)

10 year term limits and their done....

 

[Unkotare]

Draw names out of a group of eligible lawyers,judges

This was basically how it was in the Articles of Confederation

at the time of the revolution there were disputes between states over western territories. The states were very interested in coming up with a fair way to resolve the disputes. What they came up with in the Articles of Confederation was a kind of random system where the last step was drawing names out of a pool for the judges.

also have extra names drawn as replacements when main Judges should recuse themselves (which they should probably do more often)

10 year term limits and their done....

Why?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Draw names out of a group of eligible lawyers,judges

This was basically how it was in the Articles of Confederation

at the time of the revolution there were disputes between states over western territories. The states were very interested in coming up with a fair way to resolve the disputes. What they came up with in the Articles of Confederation was a kind of random system where the last step was drawing names out of a pool for the judges.

also have extra names drawn as replacements when main Judges should recuse themselves (which they should probably do more often)

10 year term limits and their done....

Why?

same thing as anything else in these kind of jobs.....they get too comfortable.....

 

[Unkotare]

10 year term limits and their done....

Why?

same thing as anything else in these kind of jobs.....they get too comfortable.....

They are not up for reelection, and therefore not beholden to special interests or lobbyists. You won't avoid shitty justices by throwing out all the babies with the bathwater. What we all need to do as Americans is exercise better judgment ourselves in electing presidents.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Why?

same thing as anything else in these kind of jobs.....they get too comfortable.....

They are not up for reelection, and therefore not beholden to special interests or lobbyists. You won't avoid shitty justices by throwing out all the babies with the bathwater. What we all need to do as Americans is exercise better judgment ourselves in electing presidents.

well so far this decade we havent been to good with the Presidents.....the class A,B and C people are staying home.....

 

[oreo]

Draw names out of a group of eligible lawyers,judges

This was basically how it was in the Articles of Confederation

at the time of the revolution there were disputes between states over western territories. The states were very interested in coming up with a fair way to resolve the disputes. What they came up with in the Articles of Confederation was a kind of random system where the last step was drawing names out of a pool for the judges.

also have extra names drawn as replacements when main Judges should recuse themselves (which they should probably do more often)

Dream on--LOL. This is a LIFETIME job--no one can fire them--nor will they recuse themselves.

While the court is considered conservative--as we have seen--often unexpectedly--they will approve of something or disapprove of something regardless of party politics.

And that's the way it should be.