I'm in full agreement, but ... there are other ways to rein in the rogue court which would not work for '27 and '28 (nor would expansion) but could beginning Jan. 20, 2029.
1) For every piece of legislation the Democrats pass, there must be this "exception" and "regulation" as described in the Constitution: that "this legislation is not subject to review by the Supreme Court or any other federal court."
How do they do that? It's simple: the READ THE FUCKING CONSITUTION, III, 2, ii. To wit:
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority ...
[blah blah for a few more specifics]"
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, [and here's the kicker] WITH SUCH EXCEPTIONS, AND UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS, AS THE CONGRESS SHALL MAKE."
They "except" any core law, such as a full restoration of the Voting Rights Act; the right to reproductive choice; a ban on mid-decade redistricting; a requirement for non-partisan redistricting commissions in every state; enabling statutes for the Emoluments Clause, and all the other legislation they'll have to pass on day one, from ANY REVIEW BY THE COURT. The Congress created the courts, under the Constitution, and the Congress can "except" its jurisdiction, "regulate" it, and oversee it. PERIOD.
2) They begin immediate impeachment investigations of the four justices who have admitted profiting from their role -- Roberts, whose wife has brought in at least $10 million from clients by directing them to attorney-friends to argue the cases; Alito and Thomas, whose corruption is so blatant they don't even bother hiding it; and Gorsuch, who joined the court and then, within six months, sold a house he owned that had been for sale, unsold, for two years at least, and sold it for above the asking price to a wealthy investor who had a case before the Court--but saw no reason to recuse himself from the case.
3) They legislate specific ethics rules for all justices, with required recusals, absolute prohibition against financial investments and/or stock trading except by a truly blind trust made up of 25 investment advisers from 25 different states and at least 1/3 each from each major party and 1/3 who are registered independents. And if they don't like those strictures, they're free to resign and get a real job.
These are real reforms that can be done by an act of Congress and the signature of the new president. That's ALL it takes.
Thanks. I wish we could get them into the brains of the Democrats in Congress! Same with the "appointed for life": nope, the Constitution says they "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" -- but good behavior is not defined, just like ethics rules. I don't know if the comment I just added got posted -- but it could specifically limit their ability to receive ANY compensation besides their government paychecks, and if they do, of any sort (free trips, money for books, cash bribes from Harlan Crow) they are not in good behavior.
All it takes is Congress-critters with A) brains, B) knowledge, C) determination, and D) no fear! Which I admit is asking a lot. :-)
I hope there are some spines out there. The Six are out of step with American public opinion and the law. Find me where it is in the Constitution that a president has immunity from criminal acts?
Noah: you write that the justices are appointed "for life." But that's not exactly accurate. According to the wording of the actual Constitution, the justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour."
However, "good Behaviour" is NOT defined in the Constitution. The Congress can establish legislation that DOES define good behavior, just as it can establish "such Exceptions and Regulations" as they wish. The Congress is the enabling body, and if they describe "good Behaviour" so that "accepting any financial benefits from any entity, individual, corporation, organization, or source other than the paycheck provided by the government of the United States" is NOT good behavior, they can be removed. Yes, it might entail impeachment -- but it might not, if they write the legally binding description of "good Behaviour" in such a way as to be airtight.
Expanding the Court is a useful step, but I also think it's time to reign in the Court's jurisdiction. Congress has that power and in the process of recovering voting rights and addressing gerrymandering, independent commissions, and the flood of money in elections, needs to include that these new laws are not reviewable. Or as I like to say, " Tell the Supreme Court to go pound sand."
Completely agree. The inevitable MAGA lies and freakouts about every Dem candidate is coming anyway. Dems and normies want someone who has concrete, workable plans for destroying christofascism* ready to go on day one. Packing the Court should be table stakes, a no-brainer, the easiest promise to make and keep (with Dem House & Senate majorities).
*Even if they don't recognize it as such, people know Trump is dragging this country to hell.
The only reason polls show a preference for unrealistic court reform is that no one bothers to attack those proposals. Republicans attack expanding the court because they rightfully see it as the most likely attack against their ill-gotten power.
I’ve long thought adding 17 would make sense. 2 per district to make sure that it’s a backup. It would also have the side effect that if somebody wanted to try to do the same I the future they would have to add over 20 to have a discernible effect.
The Bulwark just reported that Trump's attacks on birthright citizenship have pushed more Republicans into believing the constitution is unconstitutional. Dems have time to increase support for court packing if they just talk about it enough! Have they never heard the elementary rule that repetition is key?
"the Christofascist court...will...subjugate and/or kill us all." - what the hell are you talking about? More saliently to your question, why won't they say that they will expand the court: 46% are in favor of expanding the court as you noted, and only 3% of people think that is the most important issue facing the country. 1 in 4 (28%) meanwhile are very concerned about the economy. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx
Yesterday you attacked a cartoon octopus on strict, narrow, academic grounds as a tropey, white centered melodrama, and then the next day unleash a fact-free hysterical attack rooted in appeal to emotion. It's inducing whiplash.
it’s not a cartoon; it’s a novel. don’t let your emotions lead you to hyperbole.
the SC has already made women and Black people second class citizens by denying bodily autonomy to the first and voting rights to the second. they will go further if allowed. if you are not among those they have subjugated yet, that’s great. but they’ll get there.
The question asked in the piece why won’t they say they’ll expand the court, to my mind was answered in the piece as well. Politicians are ascared of the poll numbers you cite, but they need not be. Your comment brings up a different concern though; can voters set aside their instant emotional responses dictated by fascist talking heads long enough to think a few steps into the results of policy changes to better understand how they may be benefited. I doubt it, particularly if so few people are willing to articulate those policy changes, those steps, or the benefits, as this piece does.
I'm in full agreement, but ... there are other ways to rein in the rogue court which would not work for '27 and '28 (nor would expansion) but could beginning Jan. 20, 2029.
1) For every piece of legislation the Democrats pass, there must be this "exception" and "regulation" as described in the Constitution: that "this legislation is not subject to review by the Supreme Court or any other federal court."
How do they do that? It's simple: the READ THE FUCKING CONSITUTION, III, 2, ii. To wit:
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority ...
[blah blah for a few more specifics]"
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, [and here's the kicker] WITH SUCH EXCEPTIONS, AND UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS, AS THE CONGRESS SHALL MAKE."
They "except" any core law, such as a full restoration of the Voting Rights Act; the right to reproductive choice; a ban on mid-decade redistricting; a requirement for non-partisan redistricting commissions in every state; enabling statutes for the Emoluments Clause, and all the other legislation they'll have to pass on day one, from ANY REVIEW BY THE COURT. The Congress created the courts, under the Constitution, and the Congress can "except" its jurisdiction, "regulate" it, and oversee it. PERIOD.
2) They begin immediate impeachment investigations of the four justices who have admitted profiting from their role -- Roberts, whose wife has brought in at least $10 million from clients by directing them to attorney-friends to argue the cases; Alito and Thomas, whose corruption is so blatant they don't even bother hiding it; and Gorsuch, who joined the court and then, within six months, sold a house he owned that had been for sale, unsold, for two years at least, and sold it for above the asking price to a wealthy investor who had a case before the Court--but saw no reason to recuse himself from the case.
3) They legislate specific ethics rules for all justices, with required recusals, absolute prohibition against financial investments and/or stock trading except by a truly blind trust made up of 25 investment advisers from 25 different states and at least 1/3 each from each major party and 1/3 who are registered independents. And if they don't like those strictures, they're free to resign and get a real job.
These are real reforms that can be done by an act of Congress and the signature of the new president. That's ALL it takes.
these are good ideas!
Thanks. I wish we could get them into the brains of the Democrats in Congress! Same with the "appointed for life": nope, the Constitution says they "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" -- but good behavior is not defined, just like ethics rules. I don't know if the comment I just added got posted -- but it could specifically limit their ability to receive ANY compensation besides their government paychecks, and if they do, of any sort (free trips, money for books, cash bribes from Harlan Crow) they are not in good behavior.
All it takes is Congress-critters with A) brains, B) knowledge, C) determination, and D) no fear! Which I admit is asking a lot. :-)
I hope there are some spines out there. The Six are out of step with American public opinion and the law. Find me where it is in the Constitution that a president has immunity from criminal acts?
Noah: you write that the justices are appointed "for life." But that's not exactly accurate. According to the wording of the actual Constitution, the justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour."
However, "good Behaviour" is NOT defined in the Constitution. The Congress can establish legislation that DOES define good behavior, just as it can establish "such Exceptions and Regulations" as they wish. The Congress is the enabling body, and if they describe "good Behaviour" so that "accepting any financial benefits from any entity, individual, corporation, organization, or source other than the paycheck provided by the government of the United States" is NOT good behavior, they can be removed. Yes, it might entail impeachment -- but it might not, if they write the legally binding description of "good Behaviour" in such a way as to be airtight.
huh. also a good idea.
Expanding the Court is a useful step, but I also think it's time to reign in the Court's jurisdiction. Congress has that power and in the process of recovering voting rights and addressing gerrymandering, independent commissions, and the flood of money in elections, needs to include that these new laws are not reviewable. Or as I like to say, " Tell the Supreme Court to go pound sand."
Thank you, Noah! Yes, we need a SCOTUS of at least 13 Justices, or even more.
And a couple or more (depending on the evidence) impeachments, too.
I’d settle for a couple of impeachments.
Por que no los dos?
Completely agree. The inevitable MAGA lies and freakouts about every Dem candidate is coming anyway. Dems and normies want someone who has concrete, workable plans for destroying christofascism* ready to go on day one. Packing the Court should be table stakes, a no-brainer, the easiest promise to make and keep (with Dem House & Senate majorities).
*Even if they don't recognize it as such, people know Trump is dragging this country to hell.
The only reason polls show a preference for unrealistic court reform is that no one bothers to attack those proposals. Republicans attack expanding the court because they rightfully see it as the most likely attack against their ill-gotten power.
End the filibuster and bury Thomas, Alito, and Roberts under the court... with a bunch of hungry rats.
I’ve long thought adding 17 would make sense. 2 per district to make sure that it’s a backup. It would also have the side effect that if somebody wanted to try to do the same I the future they would have to add over 20 to have a discernible effect.
The Bulwark just reported that Trump's attacks on birthright citizenship have pushed more Republicans into believing the constitution is unconstitutional. Dems have time to increase support for court packing if they just talk about it enough! Have they never heard the elementary rule that repetition is key?
"the Christofascist court...will...subjugate and/or kill us all." - what the hell are you talking about? More saliently to your question, why won't they say that they will expand the court: 46% are in favor of expanding the court as you noted, and only 3% of people think that is the most important issue facing the country. 1 in 4 (28%) meanwhile are very concerned about the economy. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx
Yesterday you attacked a cartoon octopus on strict, narrow, academic grounds as a tropey, white centered melodrama, and then the next day unleash a fact-free hysterical attack rooted in appeal to emotion. It's inducing whiplash.
it’s not a cartoon; it’s a novel. don’t let your emotions lead you to hyperbole.
the SC has already made women and Black people second class citizens by denying bodily autonomy to the first and voting rights to the second. they will go further if allowed. if you are not among those they have subjugated yet, that’s great. but they’ll get there.
The question asked in the piece why won’t they say they’ll expand the court, to my mind was answered in the piece as well. Politicians are ascared of the poll numbers you cite, but they need not be. Your comment brings up a different concern though; can voters set aside their instant emotional responses dictated by fascist talking heads long enough to think a few steps into the results of policy changes to better understand how they may be benefited. I doubt it, particularly if so few people are willing to articulate those policy changes, those steps, or the benefits, as this piece does.