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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
42 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
When (not if) we gain power, should we reform the Supreme Court? (Original Post) Stinky The Clown Friday OP
Unfortunately a the piece of shit and those around him can't afford Eliot Rosewater Friday #1
simple majority vote to convict and remove lapfog_1 Friday #2
The Supreme Court controls what is constitutional, not the President Polybius Friday #25
"borders on" strong man tactics? orangecrush Friday #27
No JI7 Friday #3
Can't we do both??? nt in2herbs Friday #13
We'll never do either n/t Polybius Friday #24
Yeah, we'll never do anything orangecrush Friday #28
Nah, we'll do a lot Polybius Saturday #35
You probably have a good point orangecrush Saturday #38
No one is a dumbass here Polybius Saturday #40
Thanks orangecrush Saturday #42
In order to do that.... The Grand Illuminist Friday #19
If we can get a big enough majority (big if) I definitely think we should make reforms to SCOTUS. walkingman Friday #4
Of course Cirsium Friday #5
This message was self-deleted by its author PeaceWave Friday #6
Yes bucolic_frolic Friday #7
How about sending justices to prison who commit treason by taking bribes from billionaires? Irish_Dem Friday #8
My ansewrs: Volaris Friday #9
Add one thing jmowreader Friday #12
So, youre suggesting locking the circuits, Volaris Friday #15
If you want the court to "look like America" that's what has to be done jmowreader Friday #18
Yes, it's way past time. DiverDave Friday #10
Term Limits. Xolodno Friday #11
And how would we get the required... SickOfTheOnePct Friday #21
That's obviously the elephant in the room. Xolodno Saturday #32
I'm more open than I used to be. But I can't help but wonder if Thomas ends up being their Ginsberg. tritsofme Friday #14
Roberts is just as big of an ass as the rest of the Rightwing 6 LR3 Saturday #39
The second two would require a constitutional amendment EdmondDantes_ Friday #16
We would have to get 67 senate seats first bob4460 Friday #17
230? n/t SickOfTheOnePct Friday #20
Only for the last two Polybius Friday #23
Only the first is possible Polybius Friday #22
No choice... Or deNAZIFY by impeaching all who lied JCMach1 Friday #26
Hard to prove a lie, or even what is a lie during hearings Polybius Saturday #41
Should have been done long ago. orangecrush Friday #29
And impeach those who clearly have been ruling based on fear and politics as opposed to the rule of law? SSJVegeta Friday #30
Impeach all you want TnDem Saturday #37
Yes. The whole constitution needs a rework because AllyCat Friday #31
Absolutely EnergizedLib Saturday #33
Whatever is done, it better be RUTHLESS HAB911 Saturday #34
Adding Justices TnDem Saturday #36

Eliot Rosewater

(33,186 posts)
1. Unfortunately a the piece of shit and those around him can't afford
Fri Jul 18, 2025, 08:42 PM
Friday

Risking Democrats taking over because they would have so much to lose so they will do whatever they have to do to make sure there are no elections or they are interfered with in major ways.

Maybe everybody will better understand that after they arrest Obama here soon or something like that 😡

The piece of shit will do anything and the DOJ and FBI will follow orders to change the subject from Epstein and to make sure no Democrat is ever any kind of power ever again.

lapfog_1

(31,124 posts)
2. simple majority vote to convict and remove
Fri Jul 18, 2025, 08:42 PM
Friday

impeach 6 of them and replace with people that have both the law and a soul

Not constitutional? Doesn't seem to stop this President or Congress.

Polybius

(20,535 posts)
25. The Supreme Court controls what is constitutional, not the President
Fri Jul 18, 2025, 11:23 PM
Friday

And that is tinfoil fantasy. We complain that this Administration borders on strong-man tactics, but that proposal would trounce anything he did.

JI7

(92,333 posts)
3. No
Fri Jul 18, 2025, 08:45 PM
Friday

If we do gain enough power to be able to make these changes than it probably wouldn't be necessary.

Getting rid of the electoral college will be better .

Polybius

(20,535 posts)
40. No one is a dumbass here
Sat Jul 19, 2025, 09:26 PM
Saturday

To be clear, I was only rereferring to getting rid of the Electoral College, term limits for Supreme Court members, and ability to recall them. Those are pretty staggering tasks, and we would need supermajorities not seen since the 30's.

With that being said, expanding the Court is much more realistic. We theoretically can do it with simple majority votes in the House and Senate*.

The asterisk is for overcoming the filibuster. It can be removed, but I don't know I feel about it. Look at the state of things now. It's good that we have it during this term.

walkingman

(9,576 posts)
4. If we can get a big enough majority (big if) I definitely think we should make reforms to SCOTUS.
Fri Jul 18, 2025, 08:45 PM
Friday

I think there is a good likelihood that both Thomas and Alito will resign to allow Trump to appoint two younger justices - that being the case, that would ensure for at least a generation the draconian destruction of our democracy.
Of course the big question is will the voter of America support a party that believes in diversity, inclusion, and that everyone deserves a fiat shake in this society? That hasn't been the case for most of our history but I have to think it is possible.

Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

bucolic_frolic

(51,507 posts)
7. Yes
Fri Jul 18, 2025, 09:16 PM
Friday

There is a thing of too old, and also too young. Forty year olds haven't weighed the seasons and cycles of life, law, economics, and culture, enough. The McConnell stolen seat should never have happened. He should have been told he waved his advisory powers by not acting. No president should appoint more than 3, or more than 2 per term.

Volaris

(10,947 posts)
9. My ansewrs:
Fri Jul 18, 2025, 09:29 PM
Friday

Expand: yes--13 districts, 13 justices
Term Limits-- KIND OF.. 13 justices sitting, mandory retirement from active work at 70. (plus an emeritus block)
A normal case would consist of 12 of the 13 judges, and the last vote would be the majority opinion of the aforementioned Emeritus Block (ergo, all of the judges with constitutional lifetime appointments, BUT ALSO with mandory 'retirement' at age 70)

jmowreader

(52,543 posts)
12. Add one thing
Fri Jul 18, 2025, 10:08 PM
Friday

The justice for a circuit has to be a resident for minimum 10 years of one of the states that make up that circuit.

We don't need thirteen Fifth Circuit judges elevated to the Supreme Court.

Volaris

(10,947 posts)
15. So, youre suggesting locking the circuits,
Fri Jul 18, 2025, 10:21 PM
Friday

I.E., if a Justice X hits 70 and 'retires' from all duties (including running that circuit) the replacement judge would have to be nominated from the appellate bench of that circuit?

Just me, but I'd assign them by seniority; the most senior judge that's not the chief, gets the 'most important' circuit to sit, and the chief automaticly gets the 'least important', as a matter of power-sharing.

jmowreader

(52,543 posts)
18. If you want the court to "look like America" that's what has to be done
Fri Jul 18, 2025, 10:33 PM
Friday

Otherwise, the next Trump is going to pull all his justices from the most extreme circuit.

I've got a better way to handle term limits. Divide the court into three groups, which we'll call Classes 1, 2 and 3. It will be the 49th president who'll be the first to enjoy this system, but the 49th president will install Class 1, the 50th Class 2, the 51st Class 3, the 52d Class 1...

DiverDave

(5,134 posts)
10. Yes, it's way past time.
Fri Jul 18, 2025, 09:43 PM
Friday

Not only for bringing fairness back, the case loads can be resolved faster.

Xolodno

(7,081 posts)
11. Term Limits.
Fri Jul 18, 2025, 10:02 PM
Friday

A bunch of 80+ year olds should not have the power to overturn precedent because of a few generations of old school values. And term limits will dissuade anyone looking for a cushy job. Yes, we may get some bad apples over time, but they won't be lifetime bad apples.

While we're at it, lets put term limits on Congress as well.

Xolodno

(7,081 posts)
32. That's obviously the elephant in the room.
Sat Jul 19, 2025, 12:09 AM
Saturday

How do we? When the system is set up against it. Career politicians are not going to vote for their demise when they prefer to "demise" when the grim reaper shows up. I'm just opinionating a better solution, but have no illusions that it will ever get done.

tritsofme

(19,375 posts)
14. I'm more open than I used to be. But I can't help but wonder if Thomas ends up being their Ginsberg.
Fri Jul 18, 2025, 10:17 PM
Friday

Too stubborn to retire, and we end up getting his replacement.

Could Roberts be sick of this whole mess and leave town after Trump is gone?

All of the sudden we have a 5-4 Court in our favor. It’s not impossible to take it back by conventional means, in the fairly near future.

LR3

(37 posts)
39. Roberts is just as big of an ass as the rest of the Rightwing 6
Sat Jul 19, 2025, 12:19 PM
Saturday

His reputation as a moderate has long since expired

EdmondDantes_

(638 posts)
16. The second two would require a constitutional amendment
Fri Jul 18, 2025, 10:29 PM
Friday

That's not going to happen.

Expanding the court does risk causing an escalating cascade, but I am more open to considering options. Just unilaterally with a 50+1 majority expanding the court would be problematic. Maybe open the new seats over time to let the public have time to reflect and digest in terms of how it impacts their votes.

Polybius

(20,535 posts)
41. Hard to prove a lie, or even what is a lie during hearings
Sat Jul 19, 2025, 09:31 PM
Saturday

Justices are all intelligent. None specifically said that they would not overturn Roe. However, 5 of the 6 said it was precedent (Amy refused to call it precedent). You can technically call something precedent and still vote to repeal it.

SSJVegeta

(1,151 posts)
30. And impeach those who clearly have been ruling based on fear and politics as opposed to the rule of law?
Fri Jul 18, 2025, 11:42 PM
Friday

Yes.

Any of these fuckers who have been appointed solely as a rubber stamp, or have become one for this wannabe dictator has GOT TO GO

TnDem

(1,080 posts)
37. Impeach all you want
Sat Jul 19, 2025, 11:41 AM
Saturday

To try to remove them via impeachment because we disagree with their rulings will do two things:

1) Jack and 2) Shit

AllyCat

(18,075 posts)
31. Yes. The whole constitution needs a rework because
Fri Jul 18, 2025, 11:57 PM
Friday

As we have found, it has no teeth.

No lifetime appointments. Consequences for conflict of interest, poor behavior, and such. Raise up the minimum standards for eligibility to be appointed.

EnergizedLib

(2,628 posts)
33. Absolutely
Sat Jul 19, 2025, 06:56 AM
Saturday

Get rid of the filibuster, expand to 13, get young, ultra liberal judges, impeach and remove the disgraceful six.

TnDem

(1,080 posts)
36. Adding Justices
Sat Jul 19, 2025, 11:36 AM
Saturday

If that Pandora's box is opened, then it starts a cascading effect that will never end.

We add 3...next election, they add 5 more...Next election we add 10 and then they get power back and add 25.

It will never end and the SC will end up with 10,000 justices.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»When (not if) we gain pow...