Post

How to respond? I agree, BUT... Bonus 257: Hard Questions About Court Expansion open.substack.com/pub/stevevla...

open.substack.comBonus 257: Hard Questions About Court ExpansionThose who argue that Court reform *must* include expansion need to answer hard questions about the precedent it would set and the effects it would produce.

Gary Goldberg

@digimark.net

I would really like to see people like @joshtpm.bsky.social , @donmoyn.bsky.social , @brianbeutler.bsky.social and @paulwaldman.bsky.social engage in this argument more, perhaps to come to a compromise. For myself, I'd offer: 1. Add enough justices to match the # of circuits.

15/10/26, 5:07 pm0 reposts1 like

Gary Goldberg

@digimark.net

2. Consider how the court's reputation would have been different (even including their current rulings) if R's hadn't gamed the system? Fix THAT. 3. Separate SCOTUS from being in charge of the lower courts and only speak through their rulings.

Gary Goldberg

@digimark.net

4. Devise and implement an ethics body comprised of a wide part of the lower courts to investigate and judge SCOTUS ethics violations/complaints. 5. Limit the kinds of cases the SCOTUS can adjudicate per the original Congressional authority.

Gary Goldberg

@digimark.net

6. And constrain the emergency docket to emergencies, and require explanations. I look forward to the conversation.