Post

Appointment by lot too. Let's go!

I’ve suggested returning to 2/circuit (originals used for a good) and have every justice serve 18 years and they then cycle into their circuit. Each case heard by random 9 would still be an improvement. Chief would be meaningless, yes?

Impeach, convict, and remove Thomas, Alito, and Roberts for their corruption.

Yeah calling it court packing isn’t only a misnomer but bad marketing.

Of course, that assumes a Congress with any ability and willingness to do its job, but then we're talking hypothetically anyway.

John Roberts will be remembered as the weak, partisan man he is. The Supreme Court only survives as an institution if Americans wrest power back from nihilistic zealots.

that clearly violates the 'supreme court justices must never feel like anything less than the most special of special boys' clause of the roberts constitution

And the other 91 have veto power on a decision if a decided percentage of them disagree.

*monkey paw curls* "democrats announce bipartisan supreme court reform, replacing justices with 100 instances of grok"

I like this idea

You don't even need to do appointments. Just pull from all the existing appellate judges. 🤷‍♀️

Like, I agree the court needs to be expanded, but if it comes with randomization there would need to be some sort of last ditch nullification/redo mechanism, but most importantly, expansion or not, there has to be a removal mechanism that stands a chance of actually being used.

But that could be just as bad as current state of affairs if 75 of those judges are Republicans. And there would be repeated retesting of precedents to get a lucky draw.

Pack the court and institute term limits

I also like every POTUS appoints 1 and the eldest must Retire to make room.

Interesting.

bring in choir risers for en banc rehearings

Give us that Supreme Jury. I would also take another legislative chamber selected at random.

Agree!

This is the way

Interesting... W/ 100, maybe they could all also be sitting members of lower courts? How could overturning itself be handled so it wasn't flip flopping with random selection? Maybe larger en banc panels could review/appeal decisions that over turned precedent? 🤔

19 judges with one selected every year for a 19 year term.

Hear me out: NBA Draft for supreme court justices

Exactly!!!!

While we're talking about reforms, we need about 10-12 new amendments just to harden the democracy from bad actors. And a bunch more to fill the gaps in civil rights/liberties not even imagined 250 years ago.

we don’t have enough judges already. your plan would make it worse. and supreme court is a higher level of achievement and, when democrats are in charge, scholarship and jurisprudence there’s no reason we shouldn’t have 100 SCJs.

What would all those Justices do with all that free time? I want them to earn their money.

What we’re learning this year is that any rule, system or law can simply be undone by Republicans if/when they regain power. Which doesn’t mean packing the Court is bad necessarily, it just means we have to *do the hard part first*. Win elections, fill those seats, and HOLD those seats.

It's definitely time to unrig this court. It seems no matter how many decades conservatives control it, they will never be conservative enough for the times. They will never be MAGA enough, so they will continue to move to the extreme right until we get another FDR type gang buster.

And we need a lot more judges. They’re hearing 60 cases but they should be hearing many more.

Interesting. I hadn’t thought about that kind of structure before. But holy cow it would be a total game changer.

My idea is to make it an even number and settle ties with a coinflip.

I still don't see why it would be any different. We don't seem to have that issue in Circuit Courts which are also random draw. They tend to take precedent seriously. Why would this be different?

But Manchin & Welch's proposal to serve 18 years, with 2 justices appointed during each presidential term (plus replacements to fill out a term) seems quite viable to me.

That's a really good idea.

At least make the case for 13 to match the districts. Make the case.

I think the number needs to be such that you could list all of them as the answer to a trivia night question...so maybe 21?

I understand the appeal but the lesson of CAFC and the patent bar shows how that's subject to capture by one point of view.

One way to do this I've seen proposed is merging all the circuit courts and the Supreme Court, and having panels for everything, with just about nothing en banc... (warning: legal proposal from a non-lawyer, but unlike term limit proposals from lawyers, at least it's not obviously unconstitutional.)

I think this is actually BRILLIANT

Ancient Athens had a huge supreme court so as to make it near impossible to bribe them. They were more like jurors I think but there were thousands of them.