Is It Time To Expand The Supreme Court? l FiveThirtyEight
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 апр 2022
- There’s nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says the Supreme Court must have nine justices - that’s just the way it’s been for more than 150 years. But recently, some Democrats have proposed adding justices to the court. Here, senior writer and legal reporter Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux asks legal experts and historians to weigh in: Should Congress expand the Supreme Court?
Website: fivethirtyeight.com/
Merch: fivethirtyeight.com/store
Twitter: / fivethirtyeight
Facebook: / fivethirtyeight
Podcast: itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/f...
The difficult thing to reconcile is that Supreme Court Justices are intended to be impartial, but our political parties have incentives to nominate a clear partisan when possible. I don't see how to resolve that.
End "lifetime appointments". Set a term of service, maybe 16 years, and rotate 2 Justices off the court so that you are not replacing all 9 of them at the same time.
The problem is that there competing 'philosophies' for interpreting the constitution. If there is a correct one, the rest are wrong. Love to see a series of debates on competing philosophies and have a bunch tossed in the garbage as being 'heretical'
We used to need a 2/3 Majority vote to confirm a Supreme Court Justice. Do you think that returning to that could give us more people like Merrick Garland or Anthony Kennedy?
@@connorthompson66 Since the Senate is so closely divided and partisan, requiring a ⅔ vote would virtually guarantee that no nominee would ever get appointed. That’s the trouble they keep having with the 60% cloture rule to end fillibusters, which IIRC used to apply to votes on justices until Republicans used the “nuclear option” to reduce that to 50% in the last term … which is the same tactic that Democrats used in the term before that to get appointments other than justices through.
@@trevinbeattie4888 but, this is the Supreme Court we’re talking about, if congress fails to pass any bills because of the filibuster then that’s just another Tuesday, but if they fail to fill, like, half of the seats on the Supreme Court, that’s something that Joe voter would notice, no? I feel like there would be a much more visible target for people all across the aisles to get upset at the gridlock over. But maybe you could also come up with some sort of punishment if a nominee isn’t confirmed in time. Like, in many parliamentary democracies, they’ll have snap elections if the parties elected can’t form a functioning government, so maybe something like that could be done in the Senate, that would probably scare the hell out of them enough to bring them to the bargaining table. But of course the Senate would never vote for something that would limit their own power without huge public pressure :/
"I want to grow the court to get my policies through" just means that now the court is controlled by whoever the dominant party is.
Exactly.
The Republican Party has become obsessed with treating the SCOTUS as a sort of 9-member Supreme Mini-Senate, where the “Senators” serve for life and issue rulings like legislation, and on this mini-Senate Republicans of course want to have a commanding majority
Which was never supposed to be how the SCOTUS worked. But the modern Republican Party has decided they have no use for unwritten rules and traditions that don’t give them a partisan advantage
@@coyotelong4349 the last part is true with the democratic party too.
Right but Republicans somehow put more justices on the court despite losing the popular vote so many times. Putting people on the court who just don’t represent the vast majority of the people.
@@alexandrostheodorou8387 the court was never intended to represent anybody.
@@realmless4193 I cant help but think....its a created problem with one party or another just getting their way. I mean why was it "ok" for the SC to be liberal leaning for 50 years and now its a problem now that conservatives have the majority? Didnt the liberal activist judges set the precedent that they are now complaining about?
The one of the main reasons the courts have so much power is that is that partisanship in the other branches of government (and American society at large) is so extreme, which is getting in the way of legislating. The American Supreme Court seems to constantly be answering questions that are more about social value judgements (which ought to be handled by the executive and legislature) than how to apply the law in a fair manner and resolve points of ambiguity.
Even many things that touch on the constitution should be debated on merits and resolved by amendments, if they are really that controversial.
I 1000% agree with this. We should not be comfortable allowing a group of nine oligarchs deciding so much about our lives that should be handled by our legislatures. But I'm not really certain what the solution to our current partisanship is.
Glad you mean it
If you can explain to me how the constitution justifies Roe then I will accept your argument
@@mrttripz3236 it doesn't so it's going to the legislative like it should.
@@mrttripz3236 please see the 9th amendment
When progressive Democrats accused the Polish government of authoritarian tendencies for years now due to Polish President Duda's party its actions in regards to their supreme court but equally want to pull the same kinds of tricks with the U.S. supreme court...
Just wait until a republican president says 6 Justices aren't enough, we should add 3 more
Democrats only want more power. They don’t actually care. They are much dirtier players than republicans.
The republicans could do the same thing in the future.
And they will if this is the standard. The fact that one side feels the need to weaponize the court destroys the practice of checks and balances.
@@joespice785 the only solution to expanding the Supreme Court once is to make a new amendment, but there will not be enough states to support that
Welcome to the supreme court that is the size of the galactic senate.
Not could, would.
@@joespice785 To be honest, both parties try to weponize the supreme court in one way or another
After today, the idea of impartiality in federal judges has gone away.
The Court is now interpreting the Constitution based on what it says and what was intended, and the era of leftist judges reading anything they want into the Constitution is over.
You know it's bad when the prescription to a bad problem is another bad problem and hoping everything works out
This. If the Dems pack the court what's to stop the GOP from eventually replacing the Democratic justices with Republican ones in the future? Just because Mitch McConnell has broken both the Senate and the Court that doesn't mean the Dems should alter the government just to compete. That'd be like one football team using their possession of the ball to score a touchdown; as soon as they score the other team's gonna have a chance on offense, and they may use it to score a touchdown of their own.
Is the rationale for expanding anything more than Democrats not willing to lose under the existing rules?
Supreme Court is literally taking away basic rights that have been existing for decades
Not to mention these conservative justices promises not to mess with roe v wade, guess that was a lie.
If conservatives play dirty, then we shouldn’t judge if democrats play defense
Well generally we want a nonpartisan court that doesn’t overturn the constitution for the sake of conservative ruling.
@@shrimpology when the Americans was generally more conservative than now, in the 1950s~1990s, why cant we have a conservative court now.
Sir are you having a stroke?
The GOP stole a seat first so it's more like revenge
Poland destroyed their judiciary last decade. Don't go down that route. There are improvements the court needs but due to the high bar needed, most stand no chance. Reform the US house to clean up gerrymandering so it is more representative. Enact some term limits for congress. Control campaign finance.
Then maybe congress can more actively legislate without being so partisan . that would allow them to check the court instead of all things punted towards the court and letting them have the last word.
The house is representative enough. State reworking their districts doesn't change that.
@@kordellswoffer1520 It isn't representative when 5% of seats are competitive. The US house can also be won while losing the popular vote. So basically house, senate and presidency can be won while losing the popular vote.
@@theuglykwan they can be but rarely are. The seats are by definition representing the people in the district they won. A person can only win if they win a majority of the largest vote share which is usually either of the 2 most popular options. The senate isn't meant to be representing the people nor should it be, it's meant for the states. The
The lack of or abundance of competition between the parties in certain areas doesn't make them undemocratic at least within the context we are debating them in.
@@kordellswoffer1520 Because of FPTPF and single member districts, a party can get second in each district and get zero representation. Effectively you could have 49% of the population without representation. That's not a representative system. It doesn't happen often doesn't really save it.
@@theuglykwan actually yes it does. The English speaking world is old as we date back over a thousand years ago and works off of precedents. This out come is rare and one of the other parties ussally wins.
Im not inteeated in second place winners, why should we give seats to people who lose, the whole point of a race is win not lose.
Actually by definition it is a representative system as they are elected to represent the people in the district not the people who just vote for them, so if republicans lose in a district the republicans voters are still being represented.
I think term limits on Supreme Court justices would be a better idea. New justice once every 2 years, unless an existing one dies. The full term of a Supreme Court justice would be 18 years
That’s a creative idea, but my fear about having a constantly revolving Supreme Court, is that it will be politicized and campaigned on in every election, unlike now, where it only becomes an issue when a Justice retires or dies. I would hate to see the Supreme Court even more affected by party politics.
@@arynrowland862 the fundamental problem is that we expect the supreme court to rule on policy decisions that the legislative and executive branch haven't resolved. In other countries like the UK and New Zealand, ths supreme court can't make policy decisions b/c they can't strike down laws as unconstitutional. Neither of them have constitutions and they don't have judicial review so the powers of the court are much more limited. it's more democratic because the legislative body can make laws that go against the supreme court, or change the law so the ruling no longer applies, instead of having the unelected justices have so much power
The court does takes a lot of time to make decisions so that would be dumb
@@arynrowland862 The president still chooses the supreme court justice, not the people, mostly just to spare us the extra campaigning. It would probably be best (in my opinion) if the cycle begins in a non-campaign year, such as 2023 or 2025
"Limit the court power" - THAT IS exactly why the conservative justices are doing it. Abortion is not a right that is written in the constitution of the United States. Roe V Wade overreaches the court's power and we must return the discussion about the legalities to the people's elected representatives.
Forced labor is in the constitution.
@@Spiral.Dynamics and?
Under common law there is this thing called stare decisis. It is valid. The debate is about an established precedent on an interpretation of the 14th amendment. In lamens terms. If a person is unfairly discriminated against by a state or federal government the court should seek to protect that person's right to exercise.
So overturning Roe is the far more controversial, radical, and had less constitutional backing than the original ruling itself.
And you don’t have reading comprehension?
@@Spiral.Dynamics I do, that's why I asked you what does that have to do with the comment above
This argument is DOA in the senate. Going on about it might feed the Democrat base but the neither Senate nor the American public writ large is against this idea. It’s obviously a hyper partisan move that makes the situation only worst not better.
So effectively we need to accept the "new reality" that Democrats can only fill court vacancies when they control BOTH the Senate and the Whitehouse. We can call this The McConnell Rule.
The court is already hyper partisan
@@drepark2294 only to those that are upset about how it rules.
@@PaxAmericana76 No, I think holding a seat open for nearly a year, then forcing another through in weeks is hyper partisan no matter who you ask.
I agree in that the court is already partisan. What adds insult to injury is, right now, 1/3 of the Justices sitting on the court was installed by a one-term president (never done before) and confirmed by senators who represent less than half of the people in this country. When you combine this with the way in which those last there judges were installed, the groundswell of emotions right now has nothing to do with being a sore loser. It has everything to do with the fact that a single political blac is trying to run this country by minority rule. That's a big deal.
5:15 - ah yes, that’s what we have... a strictly nonpartisan court. Nothing else. Is that why Mitch wanted to wait for the general election? Oh wait. This is a stupid counter argument imo
No;
Term limit or age limit would seem more workable instead ☺👍
Exactly because if the democrats are gonna do it then the Republicans can do the same thing when their in power. Term limits is the solution
no thats dumb
Checks and balances...saying that the court should be packed because one party has more influence than another is no different than saying we need to add more senators or representatives because one party has the majority in Congress.
But these Supreme Court justices literally lied regarding roe v wade, it’s obvious they did this to get into the Supreme Court and do away with this decades long ruling, why should we play nice to this?
@@Charlie_Loves what lies were told?
@@DontTreadOnMyLiberty since you didn’t know, all three of the justices chosen by trump said they would not touch roe v wade
@@DontTreadOnMyLiberty but why does this matter, you’re not gonna agree even if I showed you them saying that.
@@Charlie_Loves they didn't say that. At no point did they say they won't touch roe. They said they won't comment on potential future rulings and they didn't. They said it was settled, that doesn't mean they can't rule against it in the future.
the precedent it sets if you add another 2 justices is difficult. All that does is makes it so that every time the White House/senate changes control from D to R, or vice versa, more justices will be added to make sure they have control of the court. making it bigger and bigger and more and more partisan.
I could understand a term limit, or a retirement age or something in that ilk. But not court packing.
It would set a precedent? Republicans already did by not even holding hearings for Obama''s pick. If the situation was the other way around, republicans wouldn't think twice about it and they would all get on board and make it happen, as they did with Trump after Jan 6th. Most republicans condemned Trump's actions, but now most of them are on board with him. Democrats are the only party following the rules, while Republicans do what they please, even when they are the minority (like they did during Obama's era).
@@colombiantom packing the court is completely different to not alllowing a nominee to be put to a vote. Both equally wrong, but completely different things.
If both parties agreed that an ideologically balanced court was desirable, there would be no need for an out-of-control spiral like this. But you're right, only the Democrats would let a little something like the precedent set by their actions to get in their way, so once they decide it's OK to add justices, it'll be a free-for-all.
@@rossjennings4755 Yes. An Ideologically balanced court would solve that. But it would also cause issues in that there is a large possibility for split decisions which would cause the court to become effectively impotent.
Pass a law that ties the number of seats to the number of districts the court oversees.
The court should not expand because it currently favors my politics. if it did not favor my politics, it should then be expanded
If the court favors my politics then it's non-partisan. If it does not favor my politics then it is biased and partisan.
"...it's a horribly bad idea. It gives up on the ideal that judges are supposed to be impartial, that they're not partisans."
"...if people don't like their views (...) well then you vote for a different president."
So are Justices political or not? Make up your mind.
My vote for President doesn't count.
Thanks to the Electoral College.
To be honest he didn't say that the judges are not political right now, only that there is an ideal that they are not supposed to be.
But it's a bad argument anyway. Any offices appointed by partisan politicians will be partisans.
@@Tresorthas true, to pretend otherwise is asinine. My country had term limit for the Supreme Court equivalent and the result was fine. None of its ruling were controversial as far I'm concerned.
It’s too late to still say they are impartial. Society has so politicized nearly every dynamic of life either justices serve terms with limits or we can dynamically allocate the court. Maybe every other or economic metric could determine when the court could be tampered with.
Packing the Supreme Court is unlikely to help with anything. It'll only make the Supreme Court even more partisan and more like congress than it already is. The best solution is to limit the power of the Supreme Court (the power which it gave itself and nobody has really questioned since Marbury v Madison). I do think that a 20-year limit in the court is more than reasonable, and the only way to do this would be via a constitutional amendment. Justices like Thomas, Breyer, Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy, Stevens (I really could go on with this list) spent/are spending way too long in such a position of power. Checking their power and imposing a year limit would be two steps in the right direction for ending legislation from the bench.
I would add in this proposed amendment details on the exact methods that the court are supposed to use while interpreting the constitution. There is a strong debate between 1. people who try to expand the meaning of the words of the constitution to cover things and 2. those who say that only the strictest interpretation of the words should be used and anything not covered should be added via an amendment even if that makes the constitution 1000+ pages long.
I frankly believe the latter as it gives the people more control and makes the law more responsive to democratic processes instead of being dictates from the lawyer class.
Four things to note about the 2016 vacancy on the Supreme Court:
1. Why didn't President Obama perform a recess appointment to the Supreme Court? When the Senate takes a recess, Obama could put Gardner on the Court temporarily OR another Judge, as a fill-in. The last recess appointment was done in October 1956, when President Eisenhower put William Brennan on the bench.
Democrats can blame Mitch Mcconnell about refusing a hearing for the next 30 years, but what about Obama not using his power of a recess appointment? Did Mitch Mcconnell keep the Senate in session throughout the last ten months of the Obama Presidency.
2. Is there any type of Constitutional Mechanism or Rule of the Senate that determines how slow or fast, the Senate should act on the nomination? I personally believe that the Senate should have hearings within 45 days and have the committee vote to confirm the nominee within 90 days.
3. I understand that The Senate Majority Leader traditionally controls the calendar. However, whatever happened to having any other Senator to get on the floor AND call for a vote of the entire Senate to decide when the nomination will have its hearings. The Majority Leader should not have an absolute veto, over the calendar of the Senate.
I strongly disagree with the power of "one man rule" when it comes to Presidential Nominations before the Senate.
The only thing worse, when it comes to partisan politics on Supreme Court nominations, is the possibility of a President asking for both houses of Congress to approve a Vice Presidential vacancy. As it stands, a Democrat (or Republican) Vice President could succeed to the Presidency in the next Presidential term. The new President could ask both houses of Congress to confirm her (or his) nominee to fill the Vice Presidency. If The Senate Majority Leader comes from the opposite party of the President, he or she could theoretically prevent a Vice Presidential nominee from having a hearing.
4. Is it a good idea for Democrats to advocate "packing the Court" ? If Trump wins The Presidency in 2024 and has a majority in both houses of Congress, they might feel justified to "pack the Court" with more Conservative Supreme Justices? The 6-3 ratio could easily expand to 8-3 (or higher).
No never
I'd prefer we either rotate the judges like in the UK or Mexico or we get rid of it entirely.
When FDR tried packing the court, it angered both Republicans and many of his fellow Democrats. Even his first vice president John Nance Garner turned against him. He wanted to increase the number of justices to 12 by adding another justice for each one who was 70 or older. However, 12 is also an even number, which is susceptible to ties. It could be that FDR would've wanted an even number of justices so that he could be the tie-breaker.
Does the Constitution say anything about the president deciding over a tie on the SCOTUS? I’m not American but I find these topics fascinating.
@@carlosvasquez6151 No and that's probably because there are nine justices, an odd number. When a justice dies or retires however, the lower court is more influential but the eight sitting justices try to avoid that until the 9th seat is filled with a new justice. American politics and jurisprudence can be fascinating but if you study it too much then you might become cynical.
@@carlosvasquez6151 if there is no majority on the Supreme Court then the decision of the lower court stands. The person above is making things up, FDR would not have had a vote.
We live in a far different America today than the one FDR lived in
The court should never get another judge. That just means that the party in power has control and we would see 50000 justices. Its a good system that they atleast serve for life and you have to wait for them to die. Everything else would be to easily manipulated, the real issue is that these things end up in the court anyway. ANY OTHER COUNTRY WOULD JUST MAKE A LAW ABOUT ABORTION. Clear and simple. Allowed or not allowed. Thats it. There is no need to get a court involved in the first place.
By 2050 the supreme court would be as big as the senate if they did that
That's exactly what overturning Roe v. Wade would do. That decision does nothing *except* take the decision out of the hands of legislators, both state and federal, and put the decision in the hands of the judges. It is a clear example of judicial overreach whether you support abortion or not.
5:51 it’s not necessarily about being upset with different outcomes, it’s about the fact that these things are legitimately harmful
You mean do the same as Viktor Orbán did with the Constitutional Court of Hungary in 2011?
What no one is talking about is why not make an amendment. Have a supreme court nominee have 80/100 senate votes to be confirmed. Keeps the 9 but it's harder to get partisans.
Then literally no one would be added to the court when someone dies
@@darealpoopster Well then I guess we got no supreme court until we learn to work together.
@@ajackson8981 I agree. If we cannot agree on people to interpret the constitution then it becomes clear that the entire court system is broken.
Nobody in the world will ever be added to the supreme Court, especially considering Democrats and Republicans
Can't even get past the filibuster
@@jaqanjones4101 then in that case we will have less and less justices until we either have 0 justices or we can get pass partisan BS.
My issue is not that the court is too conservative, my issue is that it got that way because Republicans aren't being fair. They blocked Obama's pick endlessly, while they rammed through all of their justices in an instant. You can pick all the conservatives you want, but when a liberal is president, they get their picks as well. Otherwise, if you're not going to be fair, then yeah, maybe a court expansion is the only solution.
The reason they denied Obama's judges was because the Senate was Republican controlled during Obama's presidency, and the Senate is the body that confirms/denies judges. So of course a Republican Senate is going to deny a Democrat president's picks and accept a Republican president's picks almost immediately
5:17 The fact of the matter, the court is partial. Partial elected presidents along with a partial elected senate are the people responsible for appointing justices. To the point you made before about this new president, or at least new to most people, regarding this would make the court more partisan, the Supreme Court is already very partisan, and if you have a supreme court making decisions based on a bias, one that I add most of the American people disagree with, it is not only obvious, but a safe measure at that to commit to this promise
I would mention end of Lochner era was caused by one President getting to appoint 8 justices and one party at the end of Truman's term one party had appointed all 9.
If a change in the makeup of Congress next year, or the WH in 2.5 years would change your opinion on this idea, your idea is bad.
So if the Senate is falling a vote or two short of passing a piece of legislation, is it OK if they decide California can have 6 senators from now on?
No. One thing that cannot be changed is the states' equal representation in the Senate. This is specified in Article V (the Article covering amendments).
Court packing has the potential to get super out of hand, super fast. Term limits are a much better idea.
Exactly since they want to act more like politics rather then judges. It's only fair they serve terms.
@@darkiceywolf2953 They act more like politicians. Well duh they are approved by politicians. They can pack the supreme Court or whatever It all matters who's in power whether it's Democrats or Republicans
Maybe the problem is the fact that's an office for life?
Like how many places on the us or in the world have a supreme court justice that last so long?
Let's take a number like 15 or 7 years for the judges
True, we had a similar Supreme Court thing in Indonesia and I can assure you, the judge there had changed and retired from the position since its conception.
Supreme Court justices retire and die all the time. There's no need for people who interpret the constitution to need term limits.
“When we’re losing, change the rules!” ~ the motto of the democrat party.
The problem is that while the Senate's role is to advise and consent, they have become less representative of the American People. Senators from States with smaller populations have the same say as those who represent a larger population. If enough Senators from smaller populations group together, they can and will promote their views that don't necessarily reflect the will of the general population.
That’s literally the intent. To represent the states, not the people. This is intended to counter balance the federal government and prevent mob rule.
That’s the point of the senate. It was a compromise against the more representative house.
@@PaxAmericana76 mob rule versus oligarch rule. Democracy is best served by having everyone’s input represented and not marginalized.
@@0Ablades0 correct, that one of several intended roles for the Senate. To act as a massive break on the populist house.
@@davidh.2020 bad faith argument is bad faith.
Just because everyone thinks they should have a say doesn’t mean what they say matters or is relevant. This is why the US is a representative republic and not a true democracy. The intent is filter out and tempter mob rule (majority vote) to ensure that it doesn’t crush the minority.
This debate was solved several thousand years ago in Greece and every time it comes up democracy (mob rule) always fails in the end as it ends up eating the nation that tries to implement it.
Seems like the 1973 ruling have become a plague upon the judicial branch of the United States. Here in foreign lands, it is inappropriate and almost disgusting to have the judicial branch settle political issues. I welcome that legal formalism have come to America. Welcome to the modern age, where we value the separation of power.
Exactly. The current Court is set to return the abortion question to the people, and everyone says THAT'S politicizing the Court.
It's 180 degrees out of phase.
Settle down. The us has more separation of power than most European states and has had that for longer periods of time.
Are Scandinavians born smug or are yall taught to be that way?
We get it, you’re European and your system is different. Literally nobody cares.
@@greatwolf5372 they are born smug especially when they dont know what they are talking about (like overturning roe v wade is making it so the judicial branch doesnt settle a political issue, which is exactly what he says is best)
Court is not a political tool. Do as the rest of the world. Make the court 100.% non-political
What about a Retirement Age ?!
When the UK Supreme Court Chief Justice discussed it with RBG a few years ago ... RBG did NOT express opposition.
Court isn't supposed to be popular, it's about the constitution
“Elections have consequences “ - Obama
No, expanding the Supreme Court would just make things worse.
in what part exactly?
3:43 Two wrongs don't make a Right, but two Wrights makes an Airplane.
What happened to "Checks and Balances"? The will of the people is exerted through Congress and the vote for President, and the Supreme Court is there to make sure what Congress and the President do is constitutional. If you want something to be law, call your Congressional Representative. Don't rely on 9 people who we voted for by voting on the people who voted for them.
Restore the 60 vote requirement instead
Not going to happen. McConnell got rid of it to punish the Democrats for doing the same thing with the lower courts
@@AdamSmith-gs2dv I get it but I think it wouldn’t be fair if judges are confirmed by a narrow margin since the courts are never meant to be political
@UChYp1ZfclQEv3x_DGPROBQw I was against getting rid of the fillibuster for judges because I knew it would lead to partisanship. Oh well I guess the Democrats got what was coming to them for packing the lower courts under Obama
This is fair.
I think the better option would be to have terms in the Supreme Court, my full proposal would be:
- 8 year terms for justices and 12 year terms for the chief justice, after their term expires they can be reappointed by the incumbent president to another term.
- 4 cycles: Just like the senate has 3 classes, every 2 years one of the seats of the Supreme Court would be open + depending of the year the position of chief justice would also be open.
- Special appointments: If someone dies or retires, instead of getting someone appointed for a full term they will have the same year in which the seat will be up meaning they will only fill the rest of the term.
And that's it, every president would have at least 2 supreme court justices appointed unless party line senators want to ruin it on that close presidential appointment.
Such reform requires a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that
I think that's a truly horrible idea, all that would achieve is turn the supreme court into a constant political circus and to turn the justices into politicians who would have to campaign to make themselves popular so that a president would keep them.
And it would still probably simply result in two-term presidents stacking the court.
The worst thing we ever did to the senate was make them directly elected and this idea is even worse.
Term limits politicizes the court even more. Life tenure is the best way to be as apolitical as possible
If the president can reappoint the justice, the justice will be incentivized to get cozy with the party which is most likely to reappoint them. Justices need to either serve for life or one fixed term.
Your math isn't adding up. If it's 8-year terms (assuming the chief justice is on a different schedule?), each president would appoint 4 justices every term. The court would be like the House, radically changing membership from year to year.
Call the court conservative or liberal all you want, but at the end of the day either you interpret the constitution for what it is or you don’t. No where in the ninth amendment does it say that a woman’s right to privacy justifies taking the life of another human being.
We don't need to expand the court. The constitution says the justices may sit while in good behavior. Recent acts were NOT good behavior. Impeach them.
Could we just have a supermajority for each of the nominations
No one would get confirmed if that were the case given how bitterly divided the Senate is over supreme court nominationas. SCOTUS nominees USED to get confirmed with a bipartisan supermajority vote but with how partisan and disgraceful the confirmation hearings have become bipartisanship support of nominee is now extinct.
No absolutely not, end of discussion
Lol, yes vote for a new president while the Supreme Court is conservative for the next 15-20 years. . . .no. Burn it down (figuratively)
Limit terms to be justices is good. But packing is just insane
If a candidate includes appointing an additional supreme court justice as part of their campaign, then they will have a mandate to do so when elected. If they're party controls the senate, they will also have the means to do so more easily. This will also force the other side to make a stance on what they will do. If they commit to adding no additional Justices but then do, or try to do so after being elected then voters can punish them and/or their party. Doing this will somewhat neutralize the republicans dirty trick of blocking Merrick Garland just because they can, while still avoiding a slippery slope to infinite judges.
This also doesn't mean giving up on the ideal of Judges being impartial. It's not about court packing, but about obtaining the clear mandate to appoint a supreme court justice.
Who cares if it’s unpopular? It’s not the court’s job to take into account public opinion. Their job is to look at laws and answer whether or not it’s not constitutional. Not whether the public likes it or even they like it.
No
this doesn't solve anything, just term limit new justices if you want to actually moderate the system
I agree that is a good thing but probably needs a constitutional amendment. Court englargement (while ill advised) just needs a regular bill.
That will not moderate the system. That will leave room for short term partisans to hold the seat and than be replaced by the same party of a different party who is also partisan.
So Court packing is the solution when you don’t get your way? 😂😂
05:37 - easier said than done since there is heavy gerrymandering taking place in the US...
One of the near term things I wonder about is whether or not this would lead to a freaking clown car of justices where one side keeps adding more partisan hacks to give "their side" the edge.
5:47 well since they serve for life, and since we have gerrymandering, along with an electoral system that is extremely faulty, it is not as easy to accomplish as you claim. and if the losing side is able to do these things that you claim is so easy to repair by elections, who’s to say this losing side can’t win again and do more stuff.
Should be a rule that at least 1 or 2 of the judges be chosen by a bipartisan or independent committee
no comittee of such importance could be truly bipartisan or independent. Who appoints the members? The only way it could be bipartisan is if if had equal numbers liberals and conservatives. This just leads to the same situation in the senate when the requirement was 2/3
The democrats add 4 more then the next time the republicans add another 10 more then the democrats add another 20… a 30 years later we can have our Supreme Court meeting in a stadium!! Woohoo!!
There would be a point when all adult Americans are members of the SC lol.
YES 👏
Notice how this video doesnt talk about how the Democrats got rid of the voting filibuster for judges which would require 60 votes in the senate to pass a Supreme Court judge
They always seem to shoot themselves in the foot by taking the easy route
The Supreme Court not going along with the will of the people is its job. Courts are supposed to deal with the law as it is, and not as it should be.
The Repubs should just add four more. I guess the Repubs need to pass a bill saying only 9 Suprema court justices
Wow, the intro was a page directly from the future. SCOTUS did change status quo on all three as host had predicted.
Yes
Um, hell no
In my opinion, it is time to disband the SCOTUS and start all over with strong limits.
I don't believe the court is conservative as much as it is constitutional.
That's all you want a judge to do is uphold the Constitution it should not be liberal or conservative
Doesn't them lying in the selection process cause for impeachment for perjury?
None of them lied. It's lying v. changing your mind after the fact. That's the beauty of no term limits, the judges can be free to decide as they wish without political repercussion.
adding justices to the supreme court would be foolish. First off, in this specific instance, to even get their way they'd have to add 4 blatantly pro choice judges. Ignoring the colossal stability issues and the further weakening of our institutions, the senate wouldn't even go for this as it is. Sinema and Manchin aren't here for it and I imagine more would come out of the wood work as things progressed.
There's a bigger issue though. If the democrats did something as insane as adding 4 justices to the court then the republicans would play the same game once they get power again because that's just how precedence works. This is not the proper response. The proper check on the supreme court has always been for congress to pass a law. The reason roe v wade was so controversial was bc it forced states to go along with it when there's an obvious cultural divide on the issue. Which is also why theres no support for a federal law and the dems have never been able to make it happen. So what we have is a bunch of activists belly aching over something that there isn't actually national consensus on. This means it is an issue delegated to the states as per the 10th amendment. California can have its abortions and Mississippi won't and that's just how it'll have to be.
Actually 70% of the nation wants to keep abortion so it is a federal promblem not a state. And if it's overturn 70% of American is going to feel the supreme court failed them.
@@darkiceywolf2953 people keep spouting off that poll but if it were actually true abortion wouldve been passed the last time the dems had congress solidly, or even when they held a vote on abortion a few weeks ago in response to all this. There are a lot of details being left out from that poll.
First off, that poll was "70% of Americans support Roe v Wade, while 30% support it being overturned" Which is a different statement than "70% of americans support abortion being guranteed at the federal level." It's an important discrepancy because there are plenty of Americans who think overturning roe v wade completely bans abortion in america. Or simply that there are americans who don't really even know what roe v wade is exactly and just know they like it. That poll speaks more to Americans' understanding and opinion on roe v wade than it does abortion.
More importantly, a far more relevant stat as to why abortion will certainly never be mandated at the federal level, is that only 25% of americans say that a candidate they vote for must share their beliefs on abortion. So it's not a winner politically one way or another on a federal level. It means there isn't consensus on abortion nationally. But I bet california feels pretty strongly one way about abortion. And so does mississippi. So they agree to disagree and everyone is happy.
The fact of the matter is most americans aren't pro life or full on new york style abortions but are actually apathetic to the issue in general despite all the nashing of teeth. When an American enters a voting booth, they simply aren't thinking about abortion when they are making their vote.
No, no we don't want "pro choice" justices. We want justices that interpret the constitution accurately, which is to see there is no provision in that document for the federal government or the states to make decisions about the interior of citizens' bodies - no citizen's body.
@@jburton8594 I think you meant pro life
@@jburton8594 the justices did interpret the Constitution correctly, and that is why Roe v Wade was overturned. Roe v Wade was bad case law and needed to be thrown out.
So having control of the presidency, the house, and the senate is enough?
I’ll save you some time, no it’s not time to expand the court.
>should the court be expanded cause of things i disagree with?
no, that's called court packing. like expanding gun rights is the only thing i agree with the court on in your video atm. however they def haven't been pro gun at all. they left more than 10 gun cases out from court and the case at the court right now is there because NYC denies people a constitutional right with no reason for denying a permit. they already said places you can't legally carry in the city anyways.
at most, this case will say: 'if you can legally own a firearm and are not restricted from owning one, you are entitled to a permit to exercise that right.
so what? you prefer people being denied for no reason at all or god forbid you get a racist cop gets the final say on these things like they used to with concealed carry permits in other states. (cause racist cops or cops with an agenda to keep power certainly cannot exist at all....like totally impossible (sarcasm))
either way, a response of packing the court sets an even worse precedent. just wait for the next more radical dipshit conservative. they'll pack it too. this shit is why we stopped adding at 9 a long time ago
The Court seemed to function well recently with 8.….also 11 or 13 would be reasonable if you need an odd number...but a better ideological balance would be very helpful in restoring the Court's balance in these hyper-partisan times where almost all decisions can be predicted by ideology. A proposal for 18 year terms with each president having an appointment or two hasn't gotten nearly enough attention
So you're talking court packing?
Adding more seats just pushes the problem down the line where in the future we just have 8 liberal justices and 3 conservative or vice versa.
Term limits are a good idea for the Supreme Court and congress as that has the ability to limit the damage any one person can do.
Gun right could be expanded? Why would that be a problem since gun rights actually are in the US Constitution? It is about time the Court upheld that part of the US Constitution after decades of left leaning judges ignoring it.
Maybe instead om having politicians appoint people to the supreme court the most qualified applicants should be chosen to the supreme court
Everyone on the court has a top notch education and experience on the federal circuit courts. All current justices are well qualified for the job.
If we decide to pack the court why stop at 15 justices? Why not go up to 101?
Because that’s too many?
@@your_-_mom the constitution says we need a Supreme Court, not how many judges serve on it. Only tradition has kept it at 9.
@@your_-_mom says who?
@@bandav_lohengrin says me???? Can you read
@@your_-_mom and on what authority do you declare that 101 is too much?
No, SIX MORE. The court should have AT LEAST 15 justices, maybe 21 or 23.
Enjoy the end of the Supreme Court’s term!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Not being American, it seems strange to me that the Supreme Court is so political. Law and justice should be neutral, especially the Supreme Court
Expand the number of Supreme Court justices after establishing term limits for members of Congress.
Horribly BAD idea is putting it mildly.
The solution is simpler.
Make that you need 2/3 of the Senate to elect a judge, and if they can't make an agreement an automatic judge would be elected by other metric. For example the most senior federal judge would enter the Supreme Court.
Maybe they should do the judges ranks. That would make it more fair
This is somehow worse
@@notsoawesomeone Why?
40 seconds in and already I can say no we don’t
What is wrong with gun rights being expanded? The second amendment says “shall not be infringed” our rights have been trampled for decades.
Americans did vote for a different senate and a different president. Both won control with a minority of votes.
Lifetime appointments are ridiculous
No they aren't.
because you don’t agree with the opinion of the court, doesn’t mean it should be changed because it doesn’t align with what you want…
(edit) FiveThirtyEight, where was your conservative interviewee? we can all tell everyone interviewer were democrats or left leaning too.
I think it's fine.
No.
Term limits debate first. Send it to the SC and let them face the public with their decision. Serving "for life" is ridiculous. There are literally no upsides to life terms. I think 20 years is more than fair.
After that, force hearings. Congress can't delay, once a justice is named, a hearing is pre-scheduled 1 month later and a vote 1 month after that. If that isn't constitutional, again, bring it before the SC.
If all that fails, then at least voters will have a constitutional amendment as a voting issue to bring before their elected officials. That's far preferable to this stupid quagmire we have now.
Voters do not vote on constitutional amendments.
I'm not a fan of term limits, but perhaps I wouldn't mind if justices had something like 18 year terms, with the ability to be re-nominated. The Senate would vote on a nominee every two years in that case.
@@PaxAmericana76 No one votes on constitutional amendments. Seriously. What are the odds that there will EVER be another amendment to the constitution? I'll give you my next paycheck if any newly proposed amendment is ever ratified, from now until the end of time.
@@PaxAmericana76 actually, some states have referenda to approve federal constitutional amendments.
@@stevechance150 there will be future amendments. The intent of the process was meant to be extremely hard on purpose.
The main issues for the Republic have been structurally addressed already. There isn’t a strong argument for an amendment with maybe the exception of a right to vote amendment.
No!! It is most certainly not!
Cue the republicans hypocritically telling us how gaming the system would be unfair
Maybe if they did not get their jobs for a lifetime... For instance, here in Brazil when a Justice turns 70 years old, he/she immideately retires, which causes more new Justices and give us the possibility of appointments closer to the incumbent government.