The three changes that I would consider would be:

1) 13 SCt justices, one from each of the 11 judicial circuits and the DC Circuit and the Federal Circuit. As an interim, each party gets to nominate 2, who have to come from unrepresented circuits, and each new justice after that has to come from an unrepresented circuit until all circuits are represented (right now we have one each from 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 10th, three from DC, and one from solicitor general, which would probably count as DC Circuit, so only 2 outside the NE elite group).

2) Only SCt has the power to declare a law unconstitutional. Lower courts merely interpret the law.

3) A lower court ruling is binding only in the district/circuit in which the ruling is made.

(04-09-2021 07:51 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 04:49 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Ugh.. NO NO NO NO ...

NO TO PACKING THE COURT and DOUBLE HELL NO TO SC JUDGE TERM LIMITS.

I've said this before and I'll say it again... The constitution SPELLS IT OUT... JUDGES SHALL SERVE AS LONG AS THEY SHOW GOOD BEHAVIOR (aka, no mental deficincies).

Any attempt at changing this that does not go constitutional amendments... needs to be shot down immediately by every frickin' court in the land, or those courts need to step down for not upholding their oath to the constitution.

I agree that term-limits on Supreme Court justices would require a Constitutional Amendment. But that doesn’t mean it would be a bad idea.

Term-limits for lower-court federal judges would not require an amendment. Although since they have less power to begin with, term-limits for them are less important.

Not really for term limits.......just wondering out loud if maybe age limited might be appropriate, you know, like 80. Yes, would require an amendment - hell age limit Congress and and the SCOTUS both.

Lots of those DC folks have proven they like the power and want to stay forever.......

(04-09-2021 08:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The three changes that I would consider would be:

1) 13 SCt justices, one from each of the 11 judicial circuits and the DC Circuit and the Federal Circuit. As an interim, each party gets to nominate 2, who have to come from unrepresented circuits, and each new justice after that has to come from an unrepresented circuit until all circuits are represented (right now we have one each from 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 10th, three from DC, and one from solicitor general, which would probably count as DC Circuit, so only 2 outside the NE elite group).

2) Only SCt has the power to declare a law unconstitutional. Lower courts merely interpret the law.

3) A lower court ruling is binding only in the district/circuit in which the ruling is made.

I agree with this part. It is a huge problem. I dont know the solution. Heck I agree with point 2 also

(04-09-2021 08:49 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 08:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The three changes that I would consider would be:
1) 13 SCt justices, one from each of the 11 judicial circuits and the DC Circuit and the Federal Circuit. As an interim, each party gets to nominate 2, who have to come from unrepresented circuits, and each new justice after that has to come from an unrepresented circuit until all circuits are represented (right now we have one each from 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 10th, three from DC, and one from solicitor general, which would probably count as DC Circuit, so only 2 outside the NE elite group).
2) Only SCt has the power to declare a law unconstitutional. Lower courts merely interpret the law.
3) A lower court ruling is binding only in the district/circuit in which the ruling is made.

I agree with this part. It is a huge problem. I dont know the solution. Heck I agree with point 2 also

Solution is simple. All 3 can be done by statute. I would try to back up the statute with a constitutional amendment, but getting the votes for that could be tough.

7 Supreme Court Justices and Voter ID for each vote or bring on a civil war. No statutes. No term limits.

One Person on Biden's Supreme Court 'Reform' Commission Confirms It's a Complete Joke

Quote:Court packing is such a dangerous precedent to set, even former Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is warning President Joe Biden "better be very, very careful."

"I think we should be very, very careful" in talking about adding Supreme Court seats, Reid told CNN this week, discussing President Joe Biden's commission to address Judicial branch reforms. "I have no problem with the commission, but I think that the commission is going to come back and disappoint a lot of people because I think they're going to come back and say, we should just kind of leave it alone."

Biden signed an executive order for a Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States to weigh reforms after a campaign of debate about court packing after former President Donald Trump raised the ire of Democrats by appointing three conservative justices to the Supreme Court.

Democrats might not get a shot at any nomination in Biden's 4-year term because of lifetime appointments, but they are determined to look at ways to change that, including adding seats if not weighing term limits for federal judges.

"It would be inappropriate at this time after the long history we've had in the country [to] have term limits for judges," Reid added to CNN's Jim Acosta.

"I think that we better be very, very careful in saying that we need to expand the Supreme Court. I think we better be very, very, careful."

When Acosta expressed dismay Reid would not push the court-packing talk, Reid did throw him a bone and predict the Senate filibuster will end.

"Let me just say one thing: the filibuster is on its way out," Reid said. "It's not a question 'if,' it's a question 'when.' You cannot have a democracy that takes 60% of the vote.

"And so it's only a question of time till the filibuster goes away."

Link