"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.
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 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/
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.
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.