Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The only way to have a SCOTUS that looks like America is to increase it size to say 15 members

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 09:55 AM
Original message
The only way to have a SCOTUS that looks like America is to increase it size to say 15 members
Edited on Sat May-02-09 09:56 AM by Perky
This is not simply an issue of of diversity, it goes to having protection against wild swings in how the court pervieves it role and the role of the consiturion.

I am actually ok with conservatives on the Bench as long as they posess intellectual vigor (the difference between Scalia and Thomas. There is a place for full throated argument in chambers and conference so long as there are an equal number of liberal judges as well. The problem is that outside political issues (what;s coming down the pike next) has as much to do with choices for SCOTUS as does acumen and opinions But we also need honest samrt moderates to bring the sides togather,

The real issue is that the small size of the Court and the lifetime term is that replacements are rare and the impact can be massive and therefore highly political and highly partisan. I think it posits too much power in the Presidency, You have to change the calculus and you do that by making a single appointment less important.

I say increase the size to 15, and give them a ten year gig. A larger court that is not so politicized is in everyone's interest and would provide the diversity in identity, temperment and judicial philosophy to ensure the Cosnitution and the people are well served.

Obviously you would have to stagger the additional six and figure out a way to to avoid a chorus of "packing the court" but it can be done,


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. should it include ignorant individuals and people like Joe the Plumber
and Sarah Palin since Joe and Sarah and the willfully ignorant and ignorant are represenative of many
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I guess that would be up to the President and Congress
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShadowLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
18. One senator actually argued that when a SC nominee was attacked for being too mediocre
I don't have the exact wording with me, but he said something like "hey there's a lot of mediocre people in this country, aren't they entitled to representation on the court to?".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Bacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Ol Roman Hruska from Nebraska said that
defending Nixon's disastrous pick of Harold Carswell to the Supreme Court, back when the Senate actually stood up to Tricky Dicky and rejected that nincompoop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bobcat Donating Member (87 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
3. Deja Vu
FDR dejavu......Repukes would scream "stacking the court" (again).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. As I said
You need a method to overcome the charge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheMightyFavog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
5. FDR tried it, and it did not go well for him.
Not a good idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Of course he tried it It was ham handed and naive
It wa specifically about New Deal Legislation. Tell me somenthing I don't know.

My suggestion has nothing to do with the politics of the momentm its a serach to defuse the poliitcal importance of a single appointment
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abq_Sarah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. It would be seized upon
As a ham handed move to pack the courts. There is no other way to view it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. And you think Republicans and talk radio wouldn't...
treat the idea with the same venom they had for FDR? They saw through Roosevelt's "taking the workload off older judges" and would call Obama every name in the book over the idea.

And god help us all if a wingnut President gets to appoint 6 extra justices.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Of course they would in today's evironemnt
But I am not talking about Obama pickling all six or Obama proposing this,



He would habe to get hatch on board and make some accomondations with rears to the initial selection process,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #5
12. I wish FDR had succeeded.
The court stymied the New Deal and the social transformation of the country. We cannot let that happen a second time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
7. Congress sets the size of the Court...
according to Article III. And it has been 9 justices since 1869-- when the country was a lot smaller.

FDR tried to get Congress to increase the size of the Court to eventually be 15 by adding a new justice for every sitting justice over 70 who wouldn't retire, but was shot down.

Nobody really knows what would happen with a larger Court. There could be a lot more opinions and dissents clouding issues even more than before they got to the Court. And, it allows as much mischief from the conservative side as from ours.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #7
20. Nothing like a little logic to set things atraight...
I think that the notion that conservatives would have the same impact some time in the future would be a disaster.

Even if the GOP is in it's death throes, no one knows what kind of crazed fools would replace it, and perhaps actually gain power. The thought of another Reagan or bush should can this immediately.

Always look to the long term, it's too easy to go for the short term and suffer later...think Patriot Act.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
9. I'd give Obama 6 more choices anyday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
13. Adding 6 more immediately will never happen.
Adding 2 every 8 years until the 15 was reached might happen. That would take about 20-24 years to complete the process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
14. Didn't FDR try to do something similar and it was one issue where he got nowhere?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
15. Where in the Constitution of the United States
is a requirement for the Supreme Court of the United States to "Look like America"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. It obviously doesn;t
But is it not implied by the nature of the Republic? And I dunne E Pluribus Unum, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
17. Nope just need 1 black, 1 Latino and 4-5 women.
Edited on Sat May-02-09 08:05 PM by usregimechange
Or it would be nice if it were naturally like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidpdx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 03:02 AM
Response to Original message
19. I agree with the need for more diversity on the court
but not increasing the size to pack the court like FDR wanted to. As someone else pointed out, in theory, it would take much longer then Obama would have even if he were reelected. How many of the "new" justices Obama would get to appoint would be depend on how fast the whole thing moved along. In a way, it's almost like a type of court gerrymandering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 29th 2014, 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC