Fix The Court, Finally

July 26, 2024 11:48 AM

Senators Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Representatives Hank Johnson (GA-04), Jerry Nadler (NY-12), Cori Bush (MO-01), and Adam Schiff (CA-30) have cosponsored The Judiciary Act, not just calling for Supreme Court reform, but introducing (again and again, since 2021 if I'm reading this correctly) actual legislation to make it happen.

"The Judiciary Act would expand the United States Supreme Court by adding four seats, creating a 13-justice Supreme Court and restore balance to the nation’s highest court after four years of norm-breaking actions by Republicans led to its current composition and greatly undermined the Court’s standing in the eyes of the American people."

I guess all we have to do is elect a Democratic President and Congress and get this bill out of committee, right?

LET'S GOOOOO.

posted by ZakDaddy (25 comments total)

A little bit this feels like groundswell? Maybe even momentum? 🤞🏻🤞🏻🤞🏻
posted by ZakDaddy at 11:49 AM on July 26 [20 favorites]

WIthout term limits for judges, this is kind of like widening a highway to mitigate traffic. It's great when you get for more Dem judges in there! But then what do you do when the Rs replace them and now you've got 9 Rs and 2 Ds? Expand it again?
posted by grumpybear69 at 11:53 AM on July 26 [14 favorites]

Fair point, and I'd support term limits as well, but I think the fulcrum here is that the size of the court isn't articulated in the Constitution and changes have been made in the past; term limits would be a whole new thing and therefore more challenging?

(I'd also imagine that Congresscritters don't want to be subjected to similar term limit type scrutiny.)

And now I'll stop posting on my own thread. ❤️
posted by ZakDaddy at 11:58 AM on July 26 [7 favorites]

But then what do you do when the Rs replace them and now you've got 9 Rs and 2 Ds?

No, that's the beautiful part; when winter-time rolls around, the justices simply freeze to death.
posted by mittens at 11:59 AM on July 26 [52 favorites]

But then what do you do when the Rs replace them and now you've got 9 Rs and 2 Ds? Expand it again?

They would need to get elected first, and that only happens with aggressive gerrymandering, voter suppression, and millions of dollars pouring into election campaigns. A reality-based court would stop all three. The Republicans have stayed in power long past their due-by date thanks to the work of a court acting in bad faith.
posted by leotrotsky at 12:05 PM on July 26 [7 favorites]

Yes, then you expand it again. Not sure how exactly that would be a worse situation than what we have currently?
posted by jy4m at 12:15 PM on July 26 [4 favorites]

I am glad to see Hank Johnson hammering on the fact that this isn't just a good idea, it's constitutionally appropriate and for a hundred years there were as many Supremes as circuit courts. Each one "rode a circuit"of that circuit court, and they complained bitterly about it for 100 years, which is why it is no longer the practice. There are two areas where our country made a modification that has really damaged representation, and this is one of them. (The other was capping the number of representatives, which has made the House of Representatives pretty un-representative. FiveThirtyEight gamed out what it would look like if we expanded the House. But it would also require physically expanding the House.)
posted by rednikki at 12:36 PM on July 26 [18 favorites]

Yes, then you expand it again. Not sure how exactly that would be a worse situation than what we have currently?

... and then eventually every American would be a member of the court... and American would finally have a universal basic income program!
posted by Clever User Name at 12:36 PM on July 26 [24 favorites]

I guess it could be a start.
Not holding breath though.
posted by BlueHorse at 12:51 PM on July 26

But then what do you do when the Rs replace them and now you've got 9 Rs and 2 Ds?

No, that's the beautiful part; when winter-time rolls around, the justices simply freeze to death.

Whomst among us hasn’t enjoyed watching Katmai’s Fat Judge cam, and enjoyed the delightful sight of Justices Thomas and Alito, their robes sopping wet, gorging themselves on fresh Alaskan salmon?
posted by Going To Maine at 12:53 PM on July 26 [19 favorites]

2098. Washington, D.C.

Over four hundred million Americans now sit on the Supreme Court,
posted by danhon at 12:56 PM on July 26 [11 favorites]

This is fabulous. But won't it get filibustered to death?
posted by bluesky43 at 1:42 PM on July 26

This is fabulous. But won't it get filibustered to death?
Not if the Dems take the Senate, and if George Will's latest article is any gauge, the GOP is pretty afraid that may happen.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 1:51 PM on July 26 [6 favorites]

First, reject the idea that expanding the SC to match the number of circuits is “packing”. It is categorically the opposite. Packing is when you you hold positions open until you get a nomination from a political ally. Or rushing through a nomination before expected political change. That is packing the court and Republicans have been gaslighting the people for decades on this matter in order to cement their anti-democratic agenda.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 2:08 PM on July 26 [25 favorites]

Building on what rednikki posted above, we should also consider how to make the house more representative. I have been thinking about this issue since I first heard this podcast almost twelve years ago. Honestly, I think we should triple the size of the house, along with rules to prevent gerrymandering. It would require an amendment but I think it is feasible.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 2:14 PM on July 26 [1 favorite]

What if the House of Representatives Had More Than 435 Seats?

One method we could use to add more seats to the House is the small state rule, where we’d divide the total U.S. population by that of the smallest state (Wyoming). Another is the cube root law, or the trend observed in political science that the number of seats in many countries’ lower chambers is quite close to the cube root of that nation’s population. And in some countries that have even more representatives like the U.K., France and Germany, political scientists have found that number is closer to the cube root of twice the country’s population (2x cube root law).

Small state rule: 573 seats
Cube root law: 692 seats
2x cube root law: 872 seats
posted by kirkaracha at 3:59 PM on July 26 [12 favorites]

This is huge. Just getting the ball rolling on SCOTUS refoem is significant, and will give those of us with SCOTUS on the mind even more incentive to show up and talk to people about why it is so crucial that we hold all three chambers come January.
posted by ichomp at 6:28 PM on July 26 [3 favorites]

If we’re talking about Supreme Court fantasies like term limits and expanding the court, I’ve got a few to add to the list (but yes oh god both please).

Judges should be treated like constitutional amendments; selection can be made by the president, approved by the senate, and the finally each state legislature would need to ratify the decision.

We have geographic (well, we’re supposed to) representation in the legislative branch, and an armchair-not-expert idea that’s been rattling around my head would for each Supreme Court “seat” to consist of someone 18-30, someone 30-50, and someone 50- to (proof of no cognitive decline. Each “seat” would need to reach consensus on a decision, on their singular vote on a case.

It’s just become so obvious, that there needs to be some mechanism to address the gerontocracy, and there seem to be very few levers to actually pull to balance that out.
posted by furnace.heart at 7:38 AM on July 27 [2 favorites]

My god could you imagine the utter chaos of a House with 800+ reps?
posted by gottabefunky at 10:54 AM on July 27

There's a solid 2 dozen countries ahead of the US in terms of numbers of representatives; and some of those countries are much smaller than the US.

I would personally err on more representation than less. In every level of government.
posted by furnace.heart at 2:25 PM on July 27 [10 favorites]

What if the House of Representatives Had More Than 435 Seats?

It isn't just about expanding the number of seats. The seats would generally go to high-population (i.e. Democratic-leaning) states (although Texas and Florida would also benefit. Doing so means those states get more electoral votes, which could help offset the small-state bias of the Electoral College.
posted by Gelatin at 6:48 AM on July 29 [2 favorites]

Joe Biden has an editorial in WaPo this morning calling for term limits and an enforceable ethics code (but not expansion).
posted by mersen at 7:21 AM on July 29 [2 favorites]

(plus a "no one is above the law" constitutional amendment.)
posted by nobody at 8:29 AM on July 29 [2 favorites]

It isn't just about expanding the number of seats. The seats would generally go to high-population (i.e. Democratic-leaning) states (although Texas and Florida would also benefit. Doing so means those states get more electoral votes, which could help offset the small-state bias of the Electoral College.

IMO, this is a really bad idea unless you first fix US housing/zoning rules.
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:37 PM on July 29

Dick Durbin will put a well-thought-out stop to these inappropriate shenanigans (with a strongly worded email, as is his strength). I think he's got "Comity or Death" tattooed on his ass....
posted by WatTylerJr at 2:44 PM on July 29 [1 favorite]