Packing the Supreme Court?

[Trausti]

This editorial from 2016 lambasting Arizona Republicans for seeking to "court pack" the Arizona Supreme Court is kinda funny. Note that this means ADDING seats. When the Republicans did it this was bad. Now that Democrats want to do it, it's good.

Our View: Arizona's Supreme Court expansion is about 1 thing
Editorial: Republicans are using the promise of more funding and better pay to build support for two justices that aren't needed. Guess why.

If Arizona’s Republicans respect the Constitution, they had better show it now.

They had better resist the temptation to pack the Arizona Supreme Court and effectively take control of the third branch of state government.

They had better reject House Bill 2537, a proposal to increase the size of the state’s highest court from five to seven.

The corrosive potential of this bill should be apparent to constitutionalists who look beyond the siren call of instant gratification. It erodes the independence of the courts and makes a mockery of the concept of checks and balances built into our system of government.

LOL!

 

[laughing dog]

No matter who is doing the appointing, it is not packing the court when the number of justices remains unchanged. Elections matter. Winners get to choose who is appointed.

Increasing the number of justices to get a different "balance" is packing the court, no matter who does it.

I think term limits so that appointments are staggered across administrations are a good idea in general, but I don't see it happening during my lifetime.

 

[Jayjay]

How could staggering the appointments via term limits work in reality? Justices can still die or resign outside the scheduled retirement, in which case some presidents would get extra appointments while others just the agreed upon number. And it would still be possible for senate to refuse to confirm an appointment like McConnell did with Garland.

For example, let's say that each of the nine justices has a 18-year term, and get replaced in a staggered manner every two years. If justice A is due to retire and be replaced in 2025, but dies in 2024 (before the election), what happens? Does the president appoint a replacement only until 2025, in which case a different president might appoint someone else for the full term? Or does the seat remain vacant? Or does the replacement also have a full 18-year term from 2024 to 2042?

 

[laughing dog]

How could staggering the appointments via term limits work in reality? Justices can still die or resign outside the scheduled retirement, in which case some presidents would get extra appointments while others just the agreed upon number. And it would still be possible for senate to refuse to confirm an appointment like McConnell did with Garland.

For example, let's say that each of the nine justices has a 18-year term, and get replaced in a staggered manner every two years. If justice A is due to retire and be replaced in 2025, but dies in 2024 (before the election), what happens? Does the president appoint a replacement only until 2025, in which case a different president might appoint someone else for the full term? Or does the seat remain vacant? Or does the replacement also have a full 18-year term from 2024 to 2042?

I would be in favor for an interim appointment for the situation where the current justice leaves the bench for any reason to fulfill the reminder of the term or leaving it vacant for the reminder of term.

 

[Rhea]

I read a good article about increasing the number and increasinng the activity of the supreme court. The number of districts and the number of courts has increased, so why not let the SC finally grow? And also, to get the SC justices out of their ivory towers, a return to district circuits seem like a wise idea.

 

[TomC]

I read a good article about increasing the number and increasinng the activity of the supreme court. The number of districts and the number of courts has increased, so why not let the SC finally grow? And also, to get the SC justices out of their ivory towers, a return to district circuits seem like a wise idea.

I think it's time to expand the SCOTUS.
The USA, overall, has grown hugely. I'm not just talking about area and population. The sheer diversity for one thing. We are no longer the "of, by, and for wealthy WASP males" we used to be. But mainly, the complexity of modern society. Many, maybe most, of the huge array of issues today simply didn't exist during the formative years of this country.
I think we'd be better off with more minds making the decisions.

What I don't want is any particular group of partisan clowns deciding on all the additional justices. I want the enlargement spread out over a couple of administrations and multiple elections.
Tom

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What I don't want is any particular group of partisan clowns deciding on all the additional justices. I want the enlargement spread out over a couple of administrations and multiple elections.
Tom

That's not why people are talking about packing the court.

 

[TomC]

What I don't want is any particular group of partisan clowns deciding on all the additional justices. I want the enlargement spread out over a couple of administrations and multiple elections.
Tom

That's not why people are talking about packing the court.

I recognize that the TeaPartier's efforts to pack the court set off this episode.

But it's not why I think that SCOTUS should be enlarged.
Tom

 

[blastula]

This editorial from 2016 lambasting Arizona Republicans for seeking to "court pack" the Arizona Supreme Court is kinda funny. Note that this means ADDING seats. When the Republicans did it this was bad. Now that Democrats want to do it, it's good.

Our View: Arizona's Supreme Court expansion is about 1 thing
Editorial: Republicans are using the promise of more funding and better pay to build support for two justices that aren't needed. Guess why.

If Arizona’s Republicans respect the Constitution, they had better show it now.

They had better resist the temptation to pack the Arizona Supreme Court and effectively take control of the third branch of state government.

They had better reject House Bill 2537, a proposal to increase the size of the state’s highest court from five to seven.

The corrosive potential of this bill should be apparent to constitutionalists who look beyond the siren call of instant gratification. It erodes the independence of the courts and makes a mockery of the concept of checks and balances built into our system of government.

LOL!

So again you fall to understand that not every instance of adding seats has the same dynamics.

 

[Trausti]

This editorial from 2016 lambasting Arizona Republicans for seeking to "court pack" the Arizona Supreme Court is kinda funny. Note that this means ADDING seats. When the Republicans did it this was bad. Now that Democrats want to do it, it's good.

Our View: Arizona's Supreme Court expansion is about 1 thing
Editorial: Republicans are using the promise of more funding and better pay to build support for two justices that aren't needed. Guess why.

If Arizona’s Republicans respect the Constitution, they had better show it now.

They had better resist the temptation to pack the Arizona Supreme Court and effectively take control of the third branch of state government.

They had better reject House Bill 2537, a proposal to increase the size of the state’s highest court from five to seven.

The corrosive potential of this bill should be apparent to constitutionalists who look beyond the siren call of instant gratification. It erodes the independence of the courts and makes a mockery of the concept of checks and balances built into our system of government.

LOL!

So again you fall to understand that not every instance of adding seats has the same dynamics.

Wut? My point throughout this thread is that "packing the court" means ADDING seats. I'm well aware there's effort by democrats now to change that definition. But I've yet to see anyone cite an article/commentator/whatever saying that "court packing" had any other meaning before Ginsburg died. Wanna give it a shot?

 

[Worldtraveller]

Want a long term fix?

Expand the number of seats on the SCOTUS to 16.

Every case involves 9. The judges are rotated on a semi-random manor so all of them get approximately the same number of cases, but the mix will be constantly changing. It will make it much harder to 'pack' the court for a consistent vote. It also makes it harder for the senate to justify not approving an appointee (not that McConnell wouldn't try anyway) because any one jurist will have a much smaller overall impact.

 

[ZiprHead]

Want a long term fix?

Expand the number of seats on the SCOTUS to 16.

Every case involves 9. The judges are rotated on a semi-random manor so all of them get approximately the same number of cases, but the mix will be constantly changing. It will make it much harder to 'pack' the court for a consistent vote. It also makes it harder for the senate to justify not approving an appointee (not that McConnell wouldn't try anyway) because any one jurist will have a much smaller overall impact.

I like this idea.

 

[Gospel]

Better yet just limit how many of any officially recognized political party can be appointed as a judge (with a minority party serving as tie-breaker since an odd number of judges are required).

 

[TomC]

Better yet just limit how many of any officially recognized political party can be appointed as a judge (with a minority party serving as tie-breaker since an odd number of judges are required).

That would embed political partisanship in the process.
I'd rather ask the Queen of England to appoint SCOTUS judges.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

Better yet just limit how many of any officially recognized political party can be appointed as a judge (with a minority party serving as tie-breaker since an odd number of judges are required).

That would embed political partisanship in the process.
I'd rather ask the Queen of England to appoint SCOTUS judges.
Tom

I can't wet the ocean TomC.

 

[ideologyhunter]

That would embed political partisanship in the process.
I'd rather ask the Queen of England to appoint SCOTUS judges.
Tom

Are you saying that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops isn't doing its job?

 

[Trausti]

That would embed political partisanship in the process.
I'd rather ask the Queen of England to appoint SCOTUS judges.
Tom

Are you saying that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops isn't doing its job?

Hah!

 

[TomC]

Better yet just limit how many of any officially recognized political party can be appointed as a judge (with a minority party serving as tie-breaker since an odd number of judges are required).

That would embed political partisanship in the process.
I'd rather ask the Queen of England to appoint SCOTUS judges.
Tom

I can't wet the ocean TomC.

But you could avoid adding yet more partisanship to the problem.
Tom

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Better yet just limit how many of any officially recognized political party can be appointed as a judge (with a minority party serving as tie-breaker since an odd number of judges are required).

Interesting. But even then, there will be fights over the minority party appointee. Democrats will want someone from the Green Party, Republican will want someone from the Constitution Party. Neither side would want someone from the Libertarian Party as that will be a consistent anti-government vote and both parties are pro-government.

 

[blastula]

So again you fall to understand that not every instance of adding seats has the same dynamics.

Wut? My point throughout this thread is that "packing the court" means ADDING seats. I'm well aware there's effort by democrats now to change that definition. But I've yet to see anyone cite an article/commentator/whatever saying that "court packing" had any other meaning before Ginsburg died. Wanna give it a shot?

I already answered all this here.

Packing the court has always meant adding seats. Saying that Barrett's appointment is "classic court packing" is just stupid.

Or it's that you can't handle the truth. "Court packing" does not mean and never meant simply adding seeks to the court, it means adding them in an illegitimate norm-violating manner. There is nothing inherently illegitimate about adding seats, what makes it illegitimate is the context of how it's done.

FDR wanted to add seats simply because he didn't like the rulings, which was considered an illegitimate reason.

Republicans likewise blocked Garland's confirmation for illegitimate reasons. They also jammed through Barrett's confirmation very sketchily. They stole seats and in effect packed the court.

You haven't refuted any of it.