Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LostOne4Ever

(9,302 posts)
9. If we are imagining theoretical amendments to change the court:
Sat Apr 27, 2024, 03:41 PM
Apr 27

These are what I’d suggest

1) Every SC justice serves one AND ONLY ONE term.

2) Supreme Court terms last for a number of years equal to two times the total number of SC justices.

3) Terms are staggered such that a new judge would be appointed every 2 years with the appointment and confirmation of new judges being the very first thing congress must take up and finish before any other non-war time legislation.

4) Each judge must also nominate their own juniors (a first junior and a second) who would take their place should anything happen to the judge preventing them from doing their duties or finishing their term including death. These Juniors must be confirmed with the judge during the confirmation hearing. Should the first Junior have to permanently take over the term as the huge The first Junior is promoted to judge and the 2nd Junior is promoted to first Junior and the new judge must nominate a new second Junior.

5) Any judge that gets promoted to full judge is eligible for being nominated and appointed to a second term if and only if they served less than half of the original judge’s term.

6) The most senior judge on the SC would be the Supreme Justice with no judge allowed to take the position for more than one two year term.

7) Congress can void any ruling by the court if both houses can get a 55% majority vote and the president’s signature. OR a 60% majority vote of both houses. This is not a reversal so much as nullifying the ruling as though the case was never heard. The SC can rehear the case after two years time.

8) The president can force one case before the court of their choosing per year for a full hearing.

9) The court must decide on a code of ethics including situations where a judge must recuse themselves and situations warranting complete removal from the court by 2/3 or higher vote which must be approved by congress and the president before taking up any case.

[hr]
- - -

Reason why I suggest these specific suggestions beyond getting rid of radicals:

Since there are currently 9 justices the term would be 18 years, and if increased to 11 justices then they would all serve 22 years meaning 4 years would be added to each judges term. This would give EVERY congress a say in shaping the court and result in a court more representative of the American people and their votes.

Every president would get two nominees per term preventing situations like we had were Trump (a one termer) got 3 picks, as did Obama despite serving TWO terms, and Carter getting no picks.

It would prevent the court from being drastically changed just because a justice died for whatever reason. The will of the people would remain.

It would also add more checks and balances to the SC by both congress and the president and create a code of ethics the court must abide by.

You and which Constitutional amendment? NT mahatmakanejeeves Apr 27 #1
I agree. It's a long shot. A verrrrrry loooong shot. But I just did some googling and found out how the 27th Amendment LaMouffette Apr 27 #5
It isn't a radical idea... merely an unconstitutional one FBaggins Apr 27 #2
It's only unconstitutional until it becomes constitutional. But I agree that this idea is a very long shot. LaMouffette Apr 27 #6
How does it "become constitutional"??? FBaggins Apr 27 #10
Stop Polybius Apr 27 #3
Not yet we don't. But maybe with Roevember's Blue Wave coming . . . Still, you're absolutely right that at present, LaMouffette Apr 27 #7
There is no blue wave that gets us to 67 senate seats. FBaggins Apr 27 #11
We'll never have 67 votes Polybius Apr 27 #15
I'd prefer a fixed term for judges tinrobot Apr 27 #4
I like that idea, too. Seeing as how it looks like most of the current SC Justices were appointed in their fifties, that LaMouffette Apr 27 #8
If we are imagining theoretical amendments to change the court: LostOne4Ever Apr 27 #9
All excellent and well-thought-out ideas! Definitely agree that there need to be more checks and balances on the SC. LaMouffette Apr 30 #16
The Purge: Supreme Court Edition Kennah Apr 27 #12
I would like to change the pensions of Supreme Court Justices. LiberalFighter Apr 27 #13
As previously mentioned, it would be unconstitutional hardluck Apr 27 #14
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A way to purge the Suprem...»Reply #9