How to reform the Supreme Court

[hangover]

It would take an amendment to the constitution to reform the Supreme Court, and congress can't even pass a budget.

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

This is the height of ignorance, not to mention undemocratic and un-American. It's eleven un-elected anointed rulers for life, deciding what is constitutional and what isn't.

When they made money speech and corporations people, they should have been committed to the funny farm.

 

[OKTexas]

It would take an amendment to the constitution to reform the Supreme Court, and congress can't even pass a budget.

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

This is the height of ignorance, not to mention undemocratic and un-American. It's eleven un-elected anointed rulers for life, deciding what is constitutional and what isn't.

When they made money speech and corporations people, they should have been committed to the funny farm.

Actually it's 9 not 11, so who's speaking form a position of ignorance?

 

[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.

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.

According to whom and by what authority?

You’re not advocating ‘reform,’ you’re advocating the elimination of the rule of law and with it the Republic, the people’s only bulwark against tyranny.

Marbury was the acknowledgement of the doctrine of judicial review already accepted and in practice since before the advent Foundation Era. The Court neither ‘made up’ nor ‘usurped’ any unwarranted power or authority it didn’t already possess.

Dred Scott was invalidated by the 14th Amendment, consequently there already exists an appropriate and Constitutional means by which the people might address Supreme Court decisions perceived to be wrong.

Plessey was overturned by Brown, an example of the Court’s ability to address an incorrect reading of the Constitution.

Wickard, Citizens United, and Kelo are all consistent with existing precedent in accordance with their respective jurisprudence.

Needless to say one needn’t fear such ‘reforms’ coming to pass, but the OP and those who agree with him need to seriously reflect on their ignorance concerning such matters.

And that some might ‘disagree’ with recent Supreme Court rulings because they don’t conform with subjective partisan or conservative political dogma is no justification for ‘reform.’

 

[Hoffstra]

the only change that should be made is a Constitutional Amendment limiting their size to 9 members only.

other than that, they are perfect.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It would take an amendment to the constitution to reform the Supreme Court, and congress can't even pass a budget.

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

This is the height of ignorance, not to mention undemocratic and un-American. It's eleven un-elected anointed rulers for life, deciding what is constitutional and what isn't.

When they made money speech and corporations people, they should have been committed to the funny farm.

Nonsense.

Clearly you’ve neither read the ruling nor understood what was at issue.

The Citizens United Court correctly reaffirmed the First Amendment principle that government may not preempt political speech absent a compelling governmental interest:

When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM?N

 

[OKTexas]

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.

According to whom and by what authority?

You’re not advocating ‘reform,’ you’re advocating the elimination of the rule of law and with it the Republic, the people’s only bulwark against tyranny.

Marbury was the acknowledgement of the doctrine of judicial review already accepted and in practice since before the advent Foundation Era. The Court neither ‘made up’ nor ‘usurped’ any unwarranted power or authority it didn’t already possess.

Dred Scott was invalidated by the 14th Amendment, consequently there already exists an appropriate and Constitutional means by which the people might address Supreme Court decisions perceived to be wrong.

Plessey was overturned by Brown, an example of the Court’s ability to address an incorrect reading of the Constitution.

Wickard, Citizens United, and Kelo are all consistent with existing precedent in accordance with their respective jurisprudence.

Needless to say one needn’t fear such ‘reforms’ coming to pass, but the OP and those who agree with him need to seriously reflect on their ignorance concerning such matters.

And that some might ‘disagree’ with recent Supreme Court rulings because they don’t conform with subjective partisan or conservative political dogma is no justification for ‘reform.’

The court has been complicit in the ever expanding authority, far beyond the limits of the constitution, of the federal government. The most egregious recent ruling was on the ACA where the court took upon itself the authority to rewrite the legislation without returning it to congress to be fixed.

 

[Toro]

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 do realize its no longer 1775, right?

I mean, you know they didn't have the Internet back then.

 

[Toro]

I have a better idea.

Let's stick all the candidates on one of these incredibly asinine reality TV shows, like Fear Factor or those Kardashians or whatever, and whoever wins is in!

 

[JakeStarkey]

If and when the Dems take all of the necessary majorities, they simply increase SCOTUS to 11 or 13 positions, put their folks in and overturn Citizens.

Is that how the far right reactionaries really wants to play?

This is not 1860, and the reactionaries are not Confederate-like whatevers.

 

[OKTexas]

If and when the Dems take all of the necessary majorities, they simply increase SCOTUS to 11 or 13 positions, put their folks in and overturn Citizens.

Is that how the far right reactionaries really wants to play?

This is not 1860, and the reactionaries are not Confederate-like whatevers.

So you admit the court is not an impartial body operating outside of politics the way they were intended. Good job jakey, good job.

 

[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)

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"

Im not sure your entirely correct on this either, will have to look back but regardless I believe the method outlined takes alot of the politics out of the process making for a fairer court.

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.

According to whom and by what authority?

You’re not advocating ‘reform,’ you’re advocating the elimination of the rule of law and with it the Republic, the people’s only bulwark against tyranny.

It would have to be an amendment

"elimination of the rule of law"?!!!! talk about over the top and ignorant...Im merely suggesting an alternative that has worked before.

You do realize its no longer 1775, right?

I mean, you know they didn't have the Internet back then.

Yeeeas I do realize that

 

[Toro]

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"

Im not sure your entirely correct on this either, will have to look back but regardless I believe the method outlined takes alot of the politics out of the process making for a fairer court.

According to whom and by what authority?

You’re not advocating ‘reform,’ you’re advocating the elimination of the rule of law and with it the Republic, the people’s only bulwark against tyranny.

It would have to be an amendment

"elimination of the rule of law"?!!!! talk about over the top and ignorant...Im merely suggesting an alternative that has worked before.

You do realize its no longer 1775, right?

I mean, you know they didn't have the Internet back then.

Yeeeas I do realize that

Then why do you offer 18th century solutions?

 

[JakeStarkey]

If and when the Dems take all of the necessary majorities, they simply increase SCOTUS to 11 or 13 positions, put their folks in and overturn Citizens.

Is that how the far right reactionaries really wants to play?

This is not 1860, and the reactionaries are not Confederate-like whatevers.

So you admit the court is not an impartial body operating outside of politics the way they were intended. Good job jakey, good job.

Those are your words, not mine, OKTexas. Good job for putting words in my mouth I did not say.

Your TeaP reactionary time over is over. Now it is time for TeaP time out.

Watch.

 

[OKTexas]

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"

Im not sure your entirely correct on this either, will have to look back but regardless I believe the method outlined takes alot of the politics out of the process making for a fairer court.



It would have to be an amendment

"elimination of the rule of law"?!!!! talk about over the top and ignorant...Im merely suggesting an alternative that has worked before.

You do realize its no longer 1775, right?

I mean, you know they didn't have the Internet back then.

Yeeeas I do realize that

Then why do you offer 18th century solutions?

Pencils were invented in the 16th century, but they are just as valuable today. Funny thing about solutions, they always work when applied, otherwise they wouldn't, by definition, be a solution.

 

[Toro]

Im not sure your entirely correct on this either, will have to look back but regardless I believe the method outlined takes alot of the politics out of the process making for a fairer court.



It would have to be an amendment

"elimination of the rule of law"?!!!! talk about over the top and ignorant...Im merely suggesting an alternative that has worked before.




Yeeeas I do realize that

Then why do you offer 18th century solutions?

Pencils were invented in the 16th century, but they are just as valuable today. Funny thing about solutions, they always work when applied, otherwise they wouldn't, by definition, be a solution.

So IOW, instead of using computers, we should use pencils.

Got it.

 

[Hoffstra]

The Supreme Court is all that keeps us from becoming Nazi Germany.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

There are already remedies , the Congress can at any time pass legislation that restricts what the Court can rule on.

 

[OKTexas]

Then why do you offer 18th century solutions?

Pencils were invented in the 16th century, but they are just as valuable today. Funny thing about solutions, they always work when applied, otherwise they wouldn't, by definition, be a solution.

So IOW, instead of using computers, we should use pencils.

Got it.

Well if that was your take from what I said, maybe you are better sutied for the pencile.

 

[Hoffstra]

There are already remedies , the Congress can at any time pass legislation that restricts what the Court can rule on.

bullshit.

Congress has no control of the Supreme Court.

certainly not which laws they can rule on.

 

[Toro]

Pencils were invented in the 16th century, but they are just as valuable today. Funny thing about solutions, they always work when applied, otherwise they wouldn't, by definition, be a solution.

So IOW, instead of using computers, we should use pencils.

Got it.

Well if that was your take from what I said, maybe you are better sutied for the pencile.

The point is is that societies evolve. Modern societies need modern solutions. Simply because something was "the best" 300 years ago doesn't mean it is today.