General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOpinion: The Supreme Court isn't well. The only hope for a cure is more justices.
By Nancy Gertner and Laurence H. Tribe
Today at 5:01 p.m. EST
Nancy Gertner is a retired U.S. District Court judge. Laurence H. Tribe is Carl M. Loeb University Professor emeritus and professor of constitutional law emeritus at Harvard Law School. Both served on the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court.
We now believe that Congress must expand the size of the Supreme Court and do so as soon as possible. We did not come to this conclusion lightly. One of us is a constitutional law scholar and frequent advocate before the Supreme Court, the other a federal judge for 17 years. After serving on the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court over eight months, hearing multiple witnesses, reading draft upon draft of the final report issued this week, our views have evolved. We started out leaning toward term limits for Supreme Court justices but against court expansion and ended up doubtful about term limits but in favor of expanding the size of the court.
But make no mistake: In voting to submit the report to the president neither of us cast a vote of confidence in the Supreme Court itself. Sadly, we no longer have that confidence, given three things: first, the dubious legitimacy of the way some justices were appointed; second, what Justice Sonia Sotomayor rightly called the stench of politics hovering over this courts deliberations about the most contentious issues; and third, the anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian direction of this courts decisions about matters such as voting rights, gerrymandering and the corrupting effects of dark money.
Those judicial decisions havent been just wrong; they put the court and, more important, our entire system of government on a one-way trip from a defective but still hopeful democracy toward a system in which the few corruptly govern the many, something between autocracy and oligarchy. Instead of serving as a guardrail against going over that cliff, our Supreme Court has become an all-too-willing accomplice in that disaster.
Worse, measures the court has enabled will fundamentally change the court and the law for decades. They operate to entrench the power of one political party: constricting the vote, denying fair access to the ballot to people of color and other minorities, and allowing legislative district lines to be drawn that exacerbate demographic differences. As a result, the usual ebb and flow that once tended to occur with succeeding elections is stalling. A Supreme Court that has been effectively packed by one party will remain packed into the indefinite future, with serious consequences to our democracy. This is a uniquely perilous moment that demands a unique response.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/09/expand-supreme-court-laurence-tribe-nancy-gertner/
Tetrachloride
(7,817 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,062 posts)They fall into such batshit disregard that no one takes them seriously and their ability to enforce the law becomes regional, selective, and weak for awhile. Marbury v. Madison isn't safe in their current lunacy. It was not known when the Constitution was ratified that the Supreme Court would hold such a powerful and lofty position. Power was all very new after the weak Articles of Confederation. Currently the right-wingers are like a bad set of ill-informed high school club members, rigid and uninventive. We fear what's happening, but in my view the insitution is faltering as the cases roll by.
JoanofArgh
(14,971 posts)and will be ignored.
One thing that's always gotten me is how every level of judgeship in the federal system has ethics laws they have to abide by except for the Supreme Court. This is insane. Sheldon Whitehouse has been talking about this for a while and said it needs to be corrected.
brooklynite
(94,361 posts)FBaggins
(26,721 posts)Obviously Tribe hasnt argued before the court in 15 years or so but that door is now firmly shut.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,551 posts)Dilute the power of any single Justice as much as possible.
roamer65
(36,744 posts)I think there are 13.
If so we need 13 justices at least. One for each circuit.
Volaris
(10,266 posts)Still wanna work you go back to whatever court you came from (or maybe you get to still write adjunct opinions but dont get a vote or somesuch).
radius777
(3,635 posts)roamer65
(36,744 posts)Term limits would require a constitutional amendment.
radius777
(3,635 posts)they can expand and pack, and you'd have a never ending tit for tat.
Overall I think the Supreme Court is too powerful. Major hot button issues perhaps should be put up to a national referendum. Abortion/choice, gay marriage and gun-control which are supported by most people would then easily become law. We don't need a panel of 'philosopher kings' deciding these things for us.
roamer65
(36,744 posts)But that too would require a constitutional amendment.
IMO, we have outgrown the document created in 1787.
If we ever open it up to a constitutional convention, I want to see a secession clause like the EUs Lisbon Treaty Article 50 introduced to the new document.
The differences between the states are so great now that states should have a choice between ratification or secession.
Buckeyeblue
(5,499 posts)The world we live in today is so vastly different than the one under which the constitution was written that I don't see how we can continue without significant changed. These people didn't even understand that hand washing could help curb the spread of germs. I don't believe that they understood that the pacific ocean lay on the other side of the country. They were ignorant about basic science. And yet, there are those who think we should discern the original intent to determine today's case questions.
On top of that, they made it very difficult to amend. 10 of 27 amendments came with the constitution. 2 of them deal with booze.
I think many ideas the formed the basis of the Republic need to be rethought. State rights for instance. States should have very limited legislative ability). How representation is determined. The separation of powers (should the DOJ be it's own branch?).
Back to the point of this thread: it's absurd to all 9 individuals lifetime appointments to have the final say on matters of law. With zero oversight. They aren't accountable to any other government body. You could say there is impeachment but that is a bite with no teeth.
We just need to rethink the whole thing.
roamer65
(36,744 posts)The Canadian confederation is more to my liking. Provinces in Canada, for instance, can run deficits. This can help economic development at a provincial level.
The future Provinces of New York, New England and Michigan.
🇨🇦
Buckeyeblue
(5,499 posts)TygrBright
(20,755 posts)And terms that last 30 years or until the holder of the seat is 80 years old, whichever is first.
This would already have happened in a robust democracy.
wearily,
Bright
Joinfortmill
(14,395 posts)aeromanKC
(3,322 posts)RBG comes to mind. Today someone her age at time of appointment would never be considered.
Joinfortmill
(14,395 posts)jalan48
(13,842 posts)nvme
(860 posts)WTF. Are we going to keep fooling ourselves into thinking we matter? Pack the damned courts already. The R's change the rules as needed. So it is time to push forward and F the niceties. Where is our fight? We need to stop them from dismantling democracy.
Takket
(21,529 posts)FBaggins
(26,721 posts)But there were individuals on the commission who wanted to. The OP is two of them speaking out.
Polybius
(15,336 posts)The article linked in the OP is an opinion by a Washington Post writer. There is zero chance it can happen now.
maxrandb
(15,298 posts)- Thomas Jefferson
- Congress can expand the Supreme Court
- Congress can limit the Jurisdiction the Supreme Court on certain issues.
- Congress can cut funds. Let the wingnuts write their fucked up opinions on manual typewriters, or in crayon.
- Congress can expand, or limit other federal courts. Find and identify the wingnuttiest court in the land, and just fucking dissolve it.
All of the above, and more MUST be on the table.
The Supreme Court needs to understand that, just like the other branches, there are limits to their power too.
Like Jefferson said; "THE CONSTITUTION HAS ERECTED NO SUCH SINGLE TRIBUNAL"
Kid Berwyn
(14,803 posts)Thank you!
Hekate
(90,562 posts)Silent3
(15,148 posts)I get this funny feeling of a hard NO.