How to reform the Supreme Court

[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)

 

[Luissa]

We have a constitution now. End of story.

 

[eflatminor]

We have a constitution now. End of story.

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are not going back to pre-1791 days.

 

[Alfalfa]

We have a constitution now. End of story.

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.

So you want to substitute the House and state legislatures for the SC? Why not just do away with the SC?

Somebody has to make the call, in the US it's the SC.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We have a constitution now. End of story.

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.

 

[eflatminor]

We have a constitution now. End of story.

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.

So you want to substitute the House and state legislatures for the SC?

No, I want to provide a check against 5 people that rule over all of us.

Why not just do away with the SC?

Because they serve an important function. They are not, however, omnipotent as the long list of AWFUL decisions clearly demonstrates.

Somebody has to make the call, in the US it's the SC

I would argue THE PEOPLE should ultimately make the call, not central planners or all powerful judges.

 

[eflatminor]

We have a constitution now. End of story.

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.

I couldn't disagree more with your conclusions. In fact, I find them ignorant and downright stupid.

 

[JakeStarkey]

eflatminor is arguing in the strain of Jefferson and Calhoun and Jackson. He wants to turn the Will of the People over the Will of the States.

Never going to happen.

 

[dcraelin]

We have a constitution now. End of story.

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.

I could go with a type of term limit or mandatory retirement age. Unsure on other proposals but reform is necessary as your list of cases shows. I would add CitizensUnited, the Kelo case, for recent decisions broadly agreed to be wrong.

 

[HenryBHough]

Why do we even have a "Supreme Court" when our one and only branch of government not just ignores it but regularly lampoons it?

 

[boilermaker55]

The over all goal of those who are so strong an advocate of states rights and not the right of the country, they are trying to make federal government as ineffective as possible so they can destroy the presidency. Probably because they feel they may not win the top position again for sometime. So in order to alleviate the tragedy they suspect that will befall them to take this strategy.
It works quite well for them in gerrymandering in their states as it is now.
Beware of wolf in sheep's clothing.

eflatminor is arguing in the strain of Jefferson and Calhoun and Jackson. He wants to turn the Will of the People over the Will of the States.

Never going to happen.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gerrymandered districts for a majority will last less three more presidential elections.

The darkening, youthful growing, technological forward looking anti-racist and anti-sexist generations will turn the House blue for generations.

 

[ron4342]

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.’

I usually agree with you, but not in this case.
Politics needs to be removed from the Supreme Court. The goal of Supreme Court justices should be to interpret the Constitution WITHOUT regard to the political party that appointed them. The Supreme Court should be neither conservative or liberal. It should be fair but as long as justices vote party rather than principle it cannot be fair. My proof to the above is the Citizens United decision.

 

[boilermaker55]

Let us not try to underestimate the extreme right wing of this country. Never would or should it have been possible to have something such as citizen united get put into affect.
Even now the teaparty movement, as it looses membership, is still strong because of the unlimited amount of contributions multi - billionaires and corporations can make to a candidate. That is the path upon which they will operate and be successful, unless their is some vigilance to keeping the other party strong.
So, gerrymandering is something they would be able to somehow figure to keep in their favor.

Gerrymandered districts for a majority will last less three more presidential elections.

The darkening, youthful growing, technological forward looking anti-racist and anti-sexist generations will turn the House blue for generations.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let us not try to underestimate the extreme right wing of this country. Never would or should it have been possible to have something such as citizen united get put into affect.
Even now the teaparty movement, as it looses membership, is still strong because of the unlimited amount of contributions multi - billionaires and corporations can make to a candidate. That is the path upon which they will operate and be successful, unless their is some vigilance to keeping the other party strong.
So, gerrymandering is something they would be able to somehow figure to keep in their favor.

Gerrymandered districts for a majority will last less three more presidential elections.

The darkening, youthful growing, technological forward looking anti-racist and anti-sexist generations will turn the House blue for generations.

$$$ interests would have to bribe the target generations. Since those generations' interests are not of the far right, the $$$ would ahve to go to the targets' interests.

Guess what.

 

[OKTexas]

The court has exceded its constitutional power just like the other two branches have, it's time the states use article 5 to put the government back within the constitutional box. The only problem with that is state level politicians who what to be in the US Government have no interest in reducing the powers of officies they aspire to. Eventually when the people have had enough they will take the country back.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The "people" take the country "back" every four years.

 

[legaleagle_45]

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)

Not quite. That practice only applied to disputes between the states concerning boundaries. Regular courts were established for the "trial of piracies and felonies commited on the high seas and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures"