19 Sep 20
@ponderable saidThe SCOTUS is atypical for its size among "advanced" nations:
The more people sit around a table the more difficult any negotiation becomes.
Either that or some around the table are just there to give consent...
" A review of high courts around the world shows that most large nations have larger courts that avoid the concentration of power in the hands of so few jurists: Germany has 16, Japan 15, the United Kingdom 12, India 31, and Israel 15. Some use far greater numbers of justices who are divided among different divisions, like the 74 jurists in the Spanish high court or the 124 judges and deputy judges in France.
Again, while these systems have important structural differences, they do not have the concentration of power that characterizes the US supreme court. Canada does have a court that is the same size as the US supreme court, but the court has a mandatory retirement age of 75 that guarantees a higher turn over rate."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/27/bigger-better-supreme-court-reform
19 Sep 20
@no1marauder saidActually in Germany the Supreme Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) the courst id divided into two senates of 8. Only very seldom the whole court is involved. I presume that is the same for the other nations with large highest courts.
The SCOTUS is atypical for its size among "advanced" nations:
" A review of high courts around the world shows that most large nations have larger courts that avoid the concentration of power in the hands of so few jurists: Germany has 16, Japan 15, the United Kingdom 12, India 31, and Israel 15. Some use far greater numbers of justices who are divided among different ...[text shortened]... r rate."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/27/bigger-better-supreme-court-reform
19 Sep 20
@vivify saidA government with Democrats in control of both houses on Congress and the White House could simply pass legislation increasing the number of justices on the SCOTUS. All that would be required is a change in Senate rules similar to the one changing the requirements for a cloture vote to a simple majority (at least for this type of legislation) and that could be done by majority vote at the start of the Senate session.
Doesn't work quite like that. SCOTUS judges are appointed for life. New Justices are only chosen when one retires, dies or is removed through impeachment.
The stars have to align for a liberal SCOTUS judge to be chosen; a judge has to be on the way out, a Dem president must be in office and that president needs enough Dems in the Senate.
19 Sep 20
@ponderable saidIt's a trivial difference; the court does have to meet and vote together if one senate wants to override a precedent of the other. The most consequential decisions of the SCOTUS generally involved the overriding of precedent, so the full court there would have had to vote on them.
Actually in Germany the Supreme Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) the courst id divided into two senates of 8. Only very seldom the whole court is involved. I presume that is the same for the other nations with large highest courts.
There's nothing in the US Constitution forbidding smaller panels of the SCOTUS from hearing cases; this is the normal procedure for the Federal Courts of Appeals.
19 Sep 20
ActBlue, the progressive political fundraising group, has shattered its donation records since last night:
"According to the constantly-ticking tracker on ActBlue's website, in the hours from 9 p.m. ET, when the news of Ginsburg's death became widely known, to 9 a.m. ET on Saturday, nearly $31 million was donated to Democratic candidates and causes. The number keeps rising by tens of thousands every second."
https://www.npr.org/sections/death-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/2020/09/19/914764789/democrats-raised-more-than-30-million-following-rbgs-death
19 Sep 20
@no1marauder saidFor the first half of Trump's presidency, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Are you saying they could've just increased the number of SCOTUS judges to 21 and filled each seat with hard-right conservatives?
A government with Democrats in control of both houses on Congress and the White House could simply pass legislation increasing the number of justices on the SCOTUS. All that would be required is a change in Senate rules similar to the one changing the requirements for a cloture vote to a simple majority (at least for this type of legislation) and that could be done by majority vote at the start of the Senate session.
19 Sep 20
@vivify saidArticle III Section one of the Constitution of the UNited States of America:
For the first half of Trump's presidency, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Are you saying they could've just increased the number of SCOTUS judges to 21 and filled each seat with hard-right conservatives?
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
There is no provision for the number, and in fact it was originally six.
19 Sep 20
1 edit
@ponderable saidI wonder why Republicans didn't take advantage of this when they had the chance.
Article III Section one of the Constitution of the UNited States of America:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
There is no provision for the number, and in fact it was originally six.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
@vivify saidBecause changing the game ( as opposed to your play ) when you are losing is a democrat thing.
I wonder why Republicans didn't take advantage of this when they had the chance.
Also, you know it cost the American public tax money right? I know in your fantasy land you believe you can have everything given to you scot free... but do try to indulge reality once in a while.
19 Sep 20
@joe-shmo saidAs far as your "changing the rules" nonsense, Republicans killed the filibuster, changing the rules in their favor. So your statement, of course, is false.
Because changing the game ( as opposed to your play ) when you are losing is a democrat thing.
Also, you know it cost the American public tax money right? I know in your fantasy land you believe you can have everything given to you scot free... but do try to indulge reality once in a while.
19 Sep 20
@ponderable saidWould you rather have a more manageable size, than a proper reflection of society?
I diagree here. Let the court stay at a manageable size.
What bothers me is that large groups of people who are neither republicant or democrat can’t get anyone on the supreme court.
And obviously an appointment for lifetime... that’s bizarre.
But to get back to my former grievence... how the hell can ancient & establishment appointees ever fathom any situation which is relevant to a 15 year old, non-binary emo who’s moslim and gay?
And that’s the problem with a supreme-justice system. What you need is:
4 years learning (your vote counts for half)
4 years experienced
4 years learned. You only do 50% of the cases, the other 50% you’re teaching.
7 establishment appointed judges.
2 elected judges.
1 judge from an Asian country.
1 judge from the EU.
That way you guarentee good decision making, taking into account many of the international situations and deminish party politics in the decision making.
19 Sep 20
@no1marauder saidQuite a prediction. I hope you're right.
They can't, but they'll have both and the Presidency in January 2021.
19 Sep 20
@vivify saidProbably because they didn't want to take the political heat when they already had a SCOTUS conservative majority assured.
I wonder why Republicans didn't take advantage of this when they had the chance.
There used to be some respect for established mores regarding the SCOTUS and appointments to it (FDR's plan was swiftly rejected even though there were large Democratic majorities in Congress) but Moscow Mitch's treatment of the Garland nomination trashed those. The Dems are under no obligation to keep the gloves off.
@vivify saidYes, vivify, they *could* have.
For the first half of Trump's presidency, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Are you saying they could've just increased the number of SCOTUS judges to 21 and filled each seat with hard-right conservatives?
We have seen Democrat control of the supreme court since the 1970's.
We have had Republican Presidents Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and Trump installed in that time.
Not ONCE did the Repubs ever even suggest this type of of pure power piggery.
The slime-o-crats...? Can't wait to do it.
Freekin power pigs. Dirt balls. Iron-fisted dictators.
@no1marauder saidharry reed did that, mcconnel only used reeds rules. not very honest of you
No, Moscow Mitch and the Republicans eliminated the filibuster as regards judicial appointments.
EDIT: In technical terms, they made a vote for cloture i.e. to end debate require only a majority in judicial confirmation cases rather than the 3/5 required in most other cases.
reeds rules came back to bite dems, now they want to change scotus number and get bit again.