I think the court should be expanded to 15 to allow for two more than the number of circuits. Term limits, as well, should be added. No one should have a job for life, especially in a situation in which clear thinking and judgement are required.
The present court needs to be cleaned out. It would be so refreshing to see a picture of the court without the vacant faces of Kennedy and Roberts, and the permanent, hateful scowl of Thomas.
The idea of a code of ethics is a solution that is not necessary IF laws are obeyed and if broken immediately result in suspension of participation until investigation complete. If found guilty of breaking a law there should be immediate removal from the court with forfeiture of salary and all benefits, plus paying of restitution, as well as at least a year in jail, regardless of age. Judges need something definite and absolute to look forward to. They are pampered while in office/power so it is only fitting that if they are necessarily removed for illegal actions that pampering should be replaced with physical punishment, not simply fines and being sent to their cushy homes.
In 1789 the average lifespan for a male was ~40 years. Or if you initially lived to your 20s you could live to your 60s. The lifetime tenure meant something completely different when it was passed.
IMO, more or less judges on the court isn’t really going to matter. Two ways to do this better.
1.) Stop using the executive branch to nominate candidates. Have the Justices be elected by either a federal wide vote or have the circuit court judges elect them.
2.) Minimum experience requirements in the circuit and a 12 year term limit.
In addition to reasonable term limits, SCOTUS should be bound by an Enforceable Code of Conduct just like all other federal judges. Code of conduct leading to impeachment, removal from the bench and prosecution for any crime to include unethical behavior, financial conflicts , and unscrupulous extra-judicial activities.
If we expand the Supreme Court a single administration could appoint an even larger majority. Term limits are more important. Also, somebody must have the authority to police the judges, other than themselves. If they break laws or violate ethics, they must be removed.
There need to be more reforms than term limits, probably requiring a Constitutional Amendment. We need to remove as much of the whiplash politics out of Supreme Court as possible. Corruption issues have not been addressed by the Supreme Court regarding favors and money from outside sources regarding their own members. Liberal Justice Kagan made excuses about this, excuses! Amazing! Neither political party and President in Power, should be able to decide on who sits or does not sit on the court. Other lower court justices, attorneys, and citizens might form a professional non partisan group to decide.
At least as many justices as the circuits for many reasons. 13 or 15. A binding code of ethics. In terms of the US Constitution, it must be remembered that the Congress is prime over the executive and judicial branches.. Term limits for justices even more so as they are appointed, not elected
The original intent behind appointing justices to the Supreme Court was noble, but today’s culture does not serve the country as a whole. Time and again, we see political influence guide their decisions. Lifelong terms are not logical. We need to turn the tide occasionally to refresh the institution.
Whether its 9 justices, 13, or 113 justices will never matter if they don't have good and enforceable ethics guidelines. Egregious violations of the ethics standards should be retroactively enforced under then-current law. Practically speaking, we should make the incrementally better changes that we can. SCOTUS can't be above the law any more than the President should be.
Let’s stop calling court-packing “reform.” Democrats lose the Court, so they add four seats. Republicans come back and add four more. Democrats answer again. That doesn’t reform the Supreme Court; it eventually abolishes the idea of an independent court and replaces it with a legislature in robes.
Roe is a perfect example of the confusion. The Fourteenth Amendment says the state cannot deprive you of liberty without due process. Roe somehow turned that into a trimester-by-trimester abortion policy. Where is the trimester framework in the Constitution? Nowhere. The judges wrote it themselves. You can be completely pro-choice and still recognize that nine unelected judges should not be drawing medical and policy lines because the democratic process was politically inconvenient.
If abortion is a fundamental constitutional right, then constitutionalize it. Write the right. Define its limits. Pass an amendment. Do the difficult democratic work. What you don’t do is stretch “due process” until it produces the policy you want, then when a later Court rejects that interpretation, add judges until you get the old answer back.
That isn’t constitutional law. That’s changing the scoreboard because you lost.
And there’s one question that exposes the entire thing: if Trump got to appoint seats 10 through 13 tomorrow, would you still be demanding a 13-member Court? If not, you don’t want court reform. Your goal isn’t an independent Court. It’s a Court compliant with your politics.
I understand the desire to add more people to the Court, but if we do that now, it just makes the problem worse. Trump will just put more people in that agree with him. Remember when Obama did not submit a name for the open seat on the Supreme Court, letting the person that won the election the privilege, then Trump forcing thru his nominee before he left office? What makes anyone believe he won't do the same. Putting more people on the Court will not fix the issue. Now, term limits or letting the People vote on retention of any sitting judge every two years will make real change. Term limits will also cause change. Let's stop the knee jerk reactions and actually think the problem through to decide which action will cause the positive change we need.
I also like some of the ideas I see below. We know, in a perfect world it shouldn't matter who nominates the individual o the position, as Democrat or Republican should not enter into any decision the Justices make, but we've seen in the last couple of years, that we THE PEOPLE can't count on that. That's why we should have a voice on the sitting judges and if the stay or go.
36 Justices in 4 rotating sets of nine, no summer recess, cases sent to each group as they come in. If someone has to recuse from a case, one of the other free justices can step in.
20 year term limits with mandatory retirements staggered such that any president gets two pick in a term.
Ethics laws with teeth- not declaring gifts or property gets you tossed off the bench and your name publicly trumpeted along with the REASON you got tossed. You get a trial from the state supreme court of the state you are personally from. If found guilty, then toss. Hidden gifts or property should then be taxed at the regular tax rate for that judges tax bracket. Not recusing from cases that would be defined as ethics issues should also get you tossed, as there are plenty of extra judges.
Max age limit of 75 years. Past that, they aren't familiar enough with the current world to judge some things correctly.
I think the court should be expanded to 15 to allow for two more than the number of circuits. Term limits, as well, should be added. No one should have a job for life, especially in a situation in which clear thinking and judgement are required.
The present court needs to be cleaned out. It would be so refreshing to see a picture of the court without the vacant faces of Kennedy and Roberts, and the permanent, hateful scowl of Thomas.
The idea of a code of ethics is a solution that is not necessary IF laws are obeyed and if broken immediately result in suspension of participation until investigation complete. If found guilty of breaking a law there should be immediate removal from the court with forfeiture of salary and all benefits, plus paying of restitution, as well as at least a year in jail, regardless of age. Judges need something definite and absolute to look forward to. They are pampered while in office/power so it is only fitting that if they are necessarily removed for illegal actions that pampering should be replaced with physical punishment, not simply fines and being sent to their cushy homes.
Term limits for all including Congress. No one should serve for life.
In 1789 the average lifespan for a male was ~40 years. Or if you initially lived to your 20s you could live to your 60s. The lifetime tenure meant something completely different when it was passed.
IMO, more or less judges on the court isn’t really going to matter. Two ways to do this better.
1.) Stop using the executive branch to nominate candidates. Have the Justices be elected by either a federal wide vote or have the circuit court judges elect them.
2.) Minimum experience requirements in the circuit and a 12 year term limit.
The supreme court needs a code of ethics passed that they have to abide by and if not they can be removed from office at once
In addition to reasonable term limits, SCOTUS should be bound by an Enforceable Code of Conduct just like all other federal judges. Code of conduct leading to impeachment, removal from the bench and prosecution for any crime to include unethical behavior, financial conflicts , and unscrupulous extra-judicial activities.
If we expand the Supreme Court a single administration could appoint an even larger majority. Term limits are more important. Also, somebody must have the authority to police the judges, other than themselves. If they break laws or violate ethics, they must be removed.
There need to be more reforms than term limits, probably requiring a Constitutional Amendment. We need to remove as much of the whiplash politics out of Supreme Court as possible. Corruption issues have not been addressed by the Supreme Court regarding favors and money from outside sources regarding their own members. Liberal Justice Kagan made excuses about this, excuses! Amazing! Neither political party and President in Power, should be able to decide on who sits or does not sit on the court. Other lower court justices, attorneys, and citizens might form a professional non partisan group to decide.
At least as many justices as the circuits for many reasons. 13 or 15. A binding code of ethics. In terms of the US Constitution, it must be remembered that the Congress is prime over the executive and judicial branches.. Term limits for justices even more so as they are appointed, not elected
The original intent behind appointing justices to the Supreme Court was noble, but today’s culture does not serve the country as a whole. Time and again, we see political influence guide their decisions. Lifelong terms are not logical. We need to turn the tide occasionally to refresh the institution.
Whether its 9 justices, 13, or 113 justices will never matter if they don't have good and enforceable ethics guidelines. Egregious violations of the ethics standards should be retroactively enforced under then-current law. Practically speaking, we should make the incrementally better changes that we can. SCOTUS can't be above the law any more than the President should be.
Let’s stop calling court-packing “reform.” Democrats lose the Court, so they add four seats. Republicans come back and add four more. Democrats answer again. That doesn’t reform the Supreme Court; it eventually abolishes the idea of an independent court and replaces it with a legislature in robes.
Roe is a perfect example of the confusion. The Fourteenth Amendment says the state cannot deprive you of liberty without due process. Roe somehow turned that into a trimester-by-trimester abortion policy. Where is the trimester framework in the Constitution? Nowhere. The judges wrote it themselves. You can be completely pro-choice and still recognize that nine unelected judges should not be drawing medical and policy lines because the democratic process was politically inconvenient.
If abortion is a fundamental constitutional right, then constitutionalize it. Write the right. Define its limits. Pass an amendment. Do the difficult democratic work. What you don’t do is stretch “due process” until it produces the policy you want, then when a later Court rejects that interpretation, add judges until you get the old answer back.
That isn’t constitutional law. That’s changing the scoreboard because you lost.
And there’s one question that exposes the entire thing: if Trump got to appoint seats 10 through 13 tomorrow, would you still be demanding a 13-member Court? If not, you don’t want court reform. Your goal isn’t an independent Court. It’s a Court compliant with your politics.
Reform the Supreme Court
Over the years, Congress has passed various acts to change the number of Supreme Court
justices, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the
number of Justices at nine. Currently, the 94 federal judicial districts are organized into 13
regional circuits, each of which has a court of appeals. The number of justices should therefore
be increased to thirteen, corresponding to the eleven numbered circuits, the D.C. circuit and the
Federal Circuit.
Furthermore, Congress should (a) Impose a mandatory retirement age for SCOTUS justices or (b)
impose a term limit for SCOTUS justices or (c) require the SCOTUS justices to be reconfirmed
by the American people in a popular vote after an initial period. The latter practice is followed in
three states: Florida, Oklahoma and Indiana require their Supreme Court justices to be
reconfirmed periodically by the voters to continue serving their terms.
Congress should also draft a Code of Ethics for Supreme Court justices including enforceable
penalties for violations of the code.
Expanding the court and term limits are ideas. How about we resolve all the ethical issues arpund the current justices?
I understand the desire to add more people to the Court, but if we do that now, it just makes the problem worse. Trump will just put more people in that agree with him. Remember when Obama did not submit a name for the open seat on the Supreme Court, letting the person that won the election the privilege, then Trump forcing thru his nominee before he left office? What makes anyone believe he won't do the same. Putting more people on the Court will not fix the issue. Now, term limits or letting the People vote on retention of any sitting judge every two years will make real change. Term limits will also cause change. Let's stop the knee jerk reactions and actually think the problem through to decide which action will cause the positive change we need.
I also like some of the ideas I see below. We know, in a perfect world it shouldn't matter who nominates the individual o the position, as Democrat or Republican should not enter into any decision the Justices make, but we've seen in the last couple of years, that we THE PEOPLE can't count on that. That's why we should have a voice on the sitting judges and if the stay or go.
Have very clear ethical rules and a mechanism for removal of judges both local and the supreme.
If were gonna do this, swing for the fences.
36 Justices in 4 rotating sets of nine, no summer recess, cases sent to each group as they come in. If someone has to recuse from a case, one of the other free justices can step in.
20 year term limits with mandatory retirements staggered such that any president gets two pick in a term.
Ethics laws with teeth- not declaring gifts or property gets you tossed off the bench and your name publicly trumpeted along with the REASON you got tossed. You get a trial from the state supreme court of the state you are personally from. If found guilty, then toss. Hidden gifts or property should then be taxed at the regular tax rate for that judges tax bracket. Not recusing from cases that would be defined as ethics issues should also get you tossed, as there are plenty of extra judges.
Max age limit of 75 years. Past that, they aren't familiar enough with the current world to judge some things correctly.