"This is unlikely to be much more than political window dressing unless the Congress takes further action. So it doesn’t warrant an over-reaction from our side anyway."
Thank you. THANK YOU. THANK YOU! for having a perspective based in reality. I spent too much time this week explaining to conservatives, "No. Biden DOES NOT have the power to unilaterally rewrite the Second Amendment. He has to jump through hoops A through Z to get anything meaningful done." Glad to see some folks embracing a reality-based perspective instead of letting speculation ruin their days.
As for reforms, I'm a fan of fixed terms (on the order of a decade or more) for SCOTUS justices, so that we're not playing a ghoulish game waiting for someone to die to update the composition of the Court, but we know in advance how many appointments each President will get to make.
I agree that Joe can't change the Constitution by executive order but with a compliant Supreme Court he could make it meaningless or useless. Obama care proved that total control by one party could tax anything into or out of existence with the help of the Court. I really like the idea of fixed term Justices.
Biden has zero ability to do that. First, conservatives have a 6-3 majority. Second, it’s never been compliant. Least of all the last several decades. Third, your perspective on Obamacare is a bit exaggerated. Nothing has been taxed in or out of existence, and most of that law has been weakened or rescinded. But a single law or ruling doesn’t change the course of our country. It’s the thousands of cases that matter up and down the line. I’m far less cynical about the court, or the power of democrats. I’m so tired of seeing them as an enemy. They’re just wrong on a lot of stuff. Most things, actually. But the over simplification and fear is unhealthy, IMO
Obamacare is still there. The individual mandate was repealed by budget reconciliation and can be reinstated by a democrat Congress using the same ploy. The Court ruled it was a tax, not a penalty or a fine. It exists because of a compliant Court. Two more election cycles of democrat control could easily destroy our republic. I'm not nearly as optimistic as you about democrats having pure motives.
Court packing is wrong no matter who does it. I do agree with one judicial expert, Jonathan Turley I think, who wrote that the Supreme Court should have more members so that filling each vacancy would not devolve into a war. Compromise is probably impossible but it should be easy to add four members with two appointed by the sitting President and two more by opposition Senators. I'm sure some sort of legislative maneuvering would be required to effect a one-time compromise.
I have a hard time accepting anything Turley says because he’s changed so much over the years depending on circumstances. His use for testimony during the two impeachment trials was especially annoying. But on this, I see his argument.
I just oppose the idea because it would create an insane war.
That being said, most western nations have much other supreme courts. There may be something to the idea one day, but I just don’t see it as politically feasible.
I like the idea of 18-year term limits (allowing for each president to appoint two per term). The other idea is a larger set of Justices that rotate in and out of cases, allowing for more to be heard/decided.
"This is unlikely to be much more than political window dressing unless the Congress takes further action. So it doesn’t warrant an over-reaction from our side anyway."
Thank you. THANK YOU. THANK YOU! for having a perspective based in reality. I spent too much time this week explaining to conservatives, "No. Biden DOES NOT have the power to unilaterally rewrite the Second Amendment. He has to jump through hoops A through Z to get anything meaningful done." Glad to see some folks embracing a reality-based perspective instead of letting speculation ruin their days.
As for reforms, I'm a fan of fixed terms (on the order of a decade or more) for SCOTUS justices, so that we're not playing a ghoulish game waiting for someone to die to update the composition of the Court, but we know in advance how many appointments each President will get to make.
https://fixthecourt.com/fix/term-limits/
I agree that Joe can't change the Constitution by executive order but with a compliant Supreme Court he could make it meaningless or useless. Obama care proved that total control by one party could tax anything into or out of existence with the help of the Court. I really like the idea of fixed term Justices.
Biden has zero ability to do that. First, conservatives have a 6-3 majority. Second, it’s never been compliant. Least of all the last several decades. Third, your perspective on Obamacare is a bit exaggerated. Nothing has been taxed in or out of existence, and most of that law has been weakened or rescinded. But a single law or ruling doesn’t change the course of our country. It’s the thousands of cases that matter up and down the line. I’m far less cynical about the court, or the power of democrats. I’m so tired of seeing them as an enemy. They’re just wrong on a lot of stuff. Most things, actually. But the over simplification and fear is unhealthy, IMO
Obamacare is still there. The individual mandate was repealed by budget reconciliation and can be reinstated by a democrat Congress using the same ploy. The Court ruled it was a tax, not a penalty or a fine. It exists because of a compliant Court. Two more election cycles of democrat control could easily destroy our republic. I'm not nearly as optimistic as you about democrats having pure motives.
Court packing is wrong no matter who does it. I do agree with one judicial expert, Jonathan Turley I think, who wrote that the Supreme Court should have more members so that filling each vacancy would not devolve into a war. Compromise is probably impossible but it should be easy to add four members with two appointed by the sitting President and two more by opposition Senators. I'm sure some sort of legislative maneuvering would be required to effect a one-time compromise.
I have a hard time accepting anything Turley says because he’s changed so much over the years depending on circumstances. His use for testimony during the two impeachment trials was especially annoying. But on this, I see his argument.
I just oppose the idea because it would create an insane war.
That being said, most western nations have much other supreme courts. There may be something to the idea one day, but I just don’t see it as politically feasible.
This is why I subscribe to the Racket. Reasoned discourse that isn’t driven by partisan myopia.
I like the idea of 18-year term limits (allowing for each president to appoint two per term). The other idea is a larger set of Justices that rotate in and out of cases, allowing for more to be heard/decided.