Jonathan Turley: Here are the worst proposals to reform Supreme Court

The Hill ^ | 10 24 2020 | Jonathan Turley,

[yesthatjallen]

SNIP

Jurisdiction stripping

Several professors argue for a court packing alternative that moves to the opposite approach: If you cannot make the court bigger, then shrink its authority. By using “jurisdiction stripping,” Democrats would bar federal courts from reviewing certain types of legislation.

SNIP

Supermajority voting

Another approach is to leave the Supreme Court at its current size but effectively “pack” the vote by requiring supermajority decisions. A Democratic Congress would enhance the votes of the court’s minority by requiring a two-thirds vote or even unanimity for certain types of cases or laws.

SNIP

Balanced bench

Pete Buttigieg and some academics have proposed disregarding any pretense of nonpartisan justices. They would convert the court into a kind of judicial Federal Communications Commission, with Democrats and Republicans each picking five justices who would then pick five more from federal appeals courts to serve terms of one year. That would make the Supreme Court a crude reflection of our dysfunctional political times.

SNIP

Lottery system

Another proposal would “solve” the “problem” of a conservative majority by literally turning every judge into an associate justice. A lottery would be held every two weeks to randomly select nine justices to hear cases, with each panel limited to no more than five judges nominated by a president of the same political party. Senator Bernie Sanders actually endorsed this looney idea. It is akin to the character “Syndrome” in “The Incredibles” explaining he would give everyone superpowers because “when everyone’s super … no one will be." Most Americans are unlikely to want to replace today's court with a law by lottery approach.

SNIP

[PGR88]

The court doesn’t need “reform.”

Globalist, activist, leftist and permanent government types simply want to limit its power because they are losing control of it.

[BenLurkin]

“Reform”? Why?

[Dilbert San Diego]

That occurred to me too.

Why all this talk of “reforming” the Supreme Court? What is wrong with it, that liberals decided we need “reform”?

[Dutch Boy]

The only reform needed is to select SC justices that rule only based on the US Constitution and US Law. Judicial activists need to be replaced. If they want to be an activist, be an activist. If they want to be a judge, be a judge. Being both is not following the intent of the seat.

[Blood of Tyrants]

All of those require a constitutional amendment.

[ecomcon]

All of them inferior to what the framers laid out. There is nothing wrong with the supreme court. It is an extension of the will of the people.

The trouble lies with the will of the people. A people who are rebellious toward God will destroy themselves with their willfulness.

[gov_bean_ counter]

Who is going to enforce that requirement???

[mn-bush-man]

This is the same nonsense, whiny “popular vote” hysteria we heard after 2016 when liberals didn’t get their way.

Sore/Loserman - they know no other way.
(Gosh, I wish I still had that t-shirt!)

[TomGuy]

Supermajority voting

Another approach is to leave the Supreme Court at its current size but effectively “pack” the vote by requiring supermajority decisions. A Democratic Congress would enhance the votes of the court’s minority by requiring a two-thirds vote or even unanimity for certain types of cases or laws.

I suspect a court challenge would make that effort unconstitutional, as the Judicial Branch is a separate and equal branch of government.

[socalgop]

Noor, republicans used jurisdiction stripping to keep gitmo detainees out of court. There’s an argument it’s unconstitutional but not recognized under current jurisprudence.

[leaning conservative]

Bkmk

[leaning conservative]

Bkmk

[Dilbert San Diego]

Another approach is to leave the Supreme Court at its current size but effectively “pack” the vote by requiring supermajority decisions. A Democratic Congress would enhance the votes of the court’s minority by requiring a two-thirds vote or even unanimity for certain types of cases or laws.

---

Then would the liberals be happy to get rid of certain cases, such as the 5-4 vote which imposed homosexual marriage on America? I have to believe that there would be exceptions made by the liberals, for decisions which they agree with. Then a 5-4 majority would be considered ok.

[Gene Eric]

When they can’t win the constitutional way, the Rats attempt to force their will through reforms

[Wonder Warthog]

"Noor, republicans used jurisdiction stripping to keep gitmo detainees out of court. There’s an argument it’s unconstitutional but not recognized under current jurisprudence."

Not true. This is an authority specifically granted to the Congress by the Constitution, which, AFAIK, has never been yet used in the 200+ year history of the Constitution. It isn't specifically CALLED "jurisdiction stripping", but the authority amounts to the same thing.

[asinclair]

What's good for the Court is good for the Legislature. How about this:

• 40 percent vote to kill a law
• 50 percent vote to adjust a law (think COLA change)
• 60 percent vote to make new law

I admit this isn't original to me; credit Robert Heinlein.

[turfmann]

The only thing wrong with the Supreme Court is that there are four justices that do not wish to follow the clear words of the Constitution as it was originally written, and those who concur with these four.

If Trump is re-elected, look for the older originalists to retire (Thomas for example) to allow for originalist replacements. That plus the inexorable march of time for the older progressives, will make the Supreme Court solidly originalist for a very long time indeed. Trump may have as many as three more nominations.

[yesthatjallen]

“Reform”? Why?

Because Democrats are Ruth-less.

[JudyinCanada]

Wow. Anything that the dems don’t completely control needs to be “reformed”.