• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Shrink the Court - The Perfect Compromise?

mashoutposse

Member
Jun 22, 2004
4,776
276
1,515
Scranton, PA
Should ACB be confirmed and the Democrats gain the Presidency and control of the Senate, strong consideration should be given to shrinking the SC to 7 justices.

ACB and Kavanaugh get booted. This penalizes behavior that is unprecendented and objectively dishonorable. Because it's not a naked attempt to forcibly hand control of the SC to liberals and restores the balance to a much more reasonable 4-3, there may even be bipartisan support for this. Though Gorsuch stays and Dems/libs don't get the majority, we have proof that this isn't the end of the world.


In concert, undoing Reid 2013 and McConnell 2017 and restoring the filibuster for federal and SC appointments is likely the right move to once again encourage bipartisan picks. (We'll still have to look out for the brand of blatant and baseless obstruction Obama suffered through.)

Shrinking the court isn't unprecedented, and has been considered as recently as during the last administration.

 

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
10,507
18,240
1,835
Should ACB be confirmed and the Democrats gain the Presidency and control of the Senate, strong consideration should be given to shrinking the SC to 7 justices.

ACB and Kavanaugh get booted. This penalizes behavior that is unprecendented and objectively dishonorable. Because it's not a naked attempt to forcibly hand control of the SC to liberals and restores the balance to a much more reasonable 4-3, there may even be bipartisan support for this. Though Gorsuch stays and Dems/libs don't get the majority, we have proof that this isn't the end of the world.


In concert, undoing Reid 2013 and McConnell 2017 and restoring the filibuster for federal and SC appointments is likely the right move to once again encourage bipartisan picks. (We'll still have to look out for the brand of blatant and baseless obstruction Obama suffered through.)

Shrinking the court isn't unprecedented, and has been considered as recently as during the last administration.

If it is not a naked attempt to change the politics of the court, why not remove Kagan and Kavanaugh so it is bipartisan?

Anyway, once seated, Justices can only be forcibly removed through impeachment. All that removing a seat would do is likely make it so that an existing judge would not get replaced. And this woukd get challenged in SCOTUS, so good luck with that.
 

RedVIper

Member
Jun 13, 2017
2,553
3,329
460
This only way you can change the court and not be completely bullshit is to allow both democrats and republicans to fill the new seats. Expand it by 4 or 8 and give each party 2/4 vacancies to fill.
 

TKOFromTokyo

Member
Jul 20, 2020
1,009
1,772
370
Okay, remove Kagan and Sotomayor for Bork and the Kavanaugh disgraces by the Democrats. That sounds fair based on your argument.
 

SF Atlas Shrugged

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
3,047
2,551
620
Strong disagree. Tug of wars over the size.of the bench are not gonna go anywhere good. The smart approach is to institute reforms to make each appointment less consequential.

I propose the following:

1) Term limits. 18 or 22 years. Something long term but that most appointees will probably love through, and eliminates some of the games.

2) Have the SC consist of of a rotating bench from the entire appellate circuit. 40 or so total justices, but only 9 at any given time. This way nominations are much more common, and less of a life and death struggle.

3) The Senate has 90 days to vote on confirmation, after which they forfeit their right to advise on the matter. No McConnell games of blocking the vote from coming to floor. It's your job to vote, do it or the president gets to appoint directly.


I think all of that is a pretty reasonable, non-partisan solution that will prevent this from devolving into a partisan tug of war to pack the court.
 
Last edited:

dkny1121

Member
Mar 23, 2018
600
1,156
460
Should ACB be confirmed and the Democrats gain the Presidency and control of the Senate, strong consideration should be given to shrinking the SC to 7 justices.

ACB and Kavanaugh get booted. This penalizes behavior that is unprecendented and objectively dishonorable. Because it's not a naked attempt to forcibly hand control of the SC to liberals and restores the balance to a much more reasonable 4-3, there may even be bipartisan support for this. Though Gorsuch stays and Dems/libs don't get the majority, we have proof that this isn't the end of the world.


In concert, undoing Reid 2013 and McConnell 2017 and restoring the filibuster for federal and SC appointments is likely the right move to once again encourage bipartisan picks. (We'll still have to look out for the brand of blatant and baseless obstruction Obama suffered through.)

Shrinking the court isn't unprecedented, and has been considered as recently as during the last administration.

Nah, filling Surpreme Court is more powerful then even the presidency. Enjoy roe vs Wade getting overturned hehe
 

Turnt

Member
Jul 21, 2018
662
1,116
370
To me it seems like it's one of those systems that's best left alone. If it's reshaped then whichever political party is in power at the time will do so in a way that benefits them.
 
Last edited:

HoodWinked

Member
Jun 30, 2010
6,007
1,328
960
Earth
it doesn't work that way, if they were to reduce the court size it would have to be by procedure like the next justice to retire the seat would then be removed. Breyer is the oldest so that wouldn't be that helpful for democrats.

would go from 6-3 to 6-2.
 

shoplifter

Member
Jun 7, 2004
6,566
768
1,700
ohio
^^ That's really the only way you could do it, and it would still result in the oldest serving justices hanging around forever if their preferred party for a their replacement isn't in power.


This only way you can change the court and not be completely bullshit is to allow both democrats and republicans to fill the new seats. Expand it by 4 or 8 and give each party 2/4 vacancies to fill.
Nothing should ever be done or enshrined in law by party, ever. There's no guarantee that either party will be around in 30 years (likely, yes) in their current forms, and there's always the possibility that another party will rise up to replace one of them.
 
Last edited:

Raven117

Member
Oct 5, 2015
5,418
1,832
545
Mash, I’m sorry but you are wrong. The Democrats mismanaged the Court and their picks. Honestly, RGB not stepping down while during the Obama administration is a huge issue. Obama got two picks and could have had 3.

Quit trying to blame this on the Republicans. They played the long game for over 30 years on this. Got lucky (for them).

Blame RGB and blame Harry Reid (getting rid of the filibuster was insane for judicial picks... Pandora’s box was open).

And it will change again. Justices retire, sentiments change. That’s just how it is. It will break to the more “left” side just as it has in the past.

Packing the court will be an absolute disaster. It’s breathtaking to me some idiots even think this is a good idea. It would decimate a branch of government, and worse, erode the rule of law in this country. Moreover, all that will happen is that the Republicans will expand the court again and fuck the democrats over with it.

Focus on winning elections. That’s how democrats will get the justices they like on the court.
 

epicnemesis

Member
May 9, 2008
1,260
2,044
1,175
Justice until death is a silly thing, but a term limit/forced age of retirement makes elections circle around a judge decision (a decision that should be impartial)

What we need to do is increase the number of senate votes back up to a minimum of 60. Supreme Court nominations should never be split along party lines. Since Bork, these hearings have become more and more partisan and ugly. The senate is the party responsible for the politicization of these justices. They need to get back to approving justices based on qualifications and less on who the president is.

This is true for the Garland situation as well. The whole process has been tainted for around 40 years.
 

SF Atlas Shrugged

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
3,047
2,551
620
What we need to do is increase the number of senate votes back up to a minimum of 60. Supreme Court nominations should never be split along party lines. Since Bork, these hearings have become more and more partisan and ugly. The senate is the party responsible for the politicization of these justices. They need to get back to approving justices based on qualifications and less on who the president is.
Problem with this is you just end up with the opposition blocking every nomination and letting seats go unfilled until someone gets a supermajority.

There's a reason the filibuster was ended. Bipartisan cooperation is breaking down and I don't see that getting fixed any time soon.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
28,116
66,671
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
Problem with this is you just end up with the opposition blocking every nomination and letting seats go unfilled until someone gets a supermajority.

There's a reason the filibuster was ended. Bipartisan cooperation is breaking down and I don't see that getting fixed any time soon.
Well that's the thing: requiring a supermajority was a pragmatic penalty against the nominators. Pick someone too wild and they will (rightly) be resisted. Stick with that person until the bitter end and you may lose that seat to the next president.

When elected officials refuse to engage in "bipartisan cooperation", the last thing we should be doing is removing the safeguards that incentivize bipartisan cooperation and penalize those who dig in their heels.
 

epicnemesis

Member
May 9, 2008
1,260
2,044
1,175
Problem with this is you just end up with the opposition blocking every nomination and letting seats go unfilled until someone gets a supermajority.

There's a reason the filibuster was ended. Bipartisan cooperation is breaking down and I don't see that getting fixed any time soon.
That’s one way of looking at it, and a definite possibility. The other way, which is the way I hope it would manifest, is that the president knows that a pick would have to have bipartisan support, and would have to pick his justice accordingly.
 

Raven117

Member
Oct 5, 2015
5,418
1,832
545
Problem with this is you just end up with the opposition blocking every nomination and letting seats go unfilled until someone gets a supermajority.

There's a reason the filibuster was ended. Bipartisan cooperation is breaking down and I don't see that getting fixed any time soon.
How defeatist.

No, the filibuster is there to absolutely garner compromise. We are in a very tense situation right now. But eventually, sentiments will turn and we will vote for people who will compromise and make deals.

Things ebb and flow. Right now we are flowing to partisanship. It will swing back. Like it always does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

SF Atlas Shrugged

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
3,047
2,551
620
How defeatist.

No, the filibuster is there to absolutely garner compromise. We are in a very tense situation right now. But eventually, sentiments will turn and we will vote for people who will compromise and make deals.

Things ebb and flow. Right now we are flowing to partisanship. It will swing back. Like it always does.
I don't see the current trends toward partisanship as a product of our politics, but how we get our information and how our brains validate information. It's in some ways a technology problem. I do hope we figure it out, but I think it might be a while.
 
Last edited:

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
17,270
32,966
870
39
lol no. we have 3 branches of gov't for a reason. i suggest you do some reading.

face the fact that you lost and take your L.

nothing worse than a sore loser who accuses you of cheating and demands you change the rules of the game

ironic tho, the Dems, wanting to go back to how things last were in the 1860s...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

ExpandKong

Barlog's Bestie
Jan 9, 2018
3,827
9,873
725
How about y'all just quit your screeching for ten goddamn minutes, it's been four years now I'm tired of it.

EDIT FOR MORE: Seriously, fuck y'all asking for a compromise for a system that's worked for generations because your candidate didn't win four years ago. Nothing illegal has happened and maybe if you weren't so goddamn certain Clinton was gonna win then RBG would've stepped down at a time when Obama could've been the one to replace her.

"Abolish the electoral college," "expand the Supreme Court," "make DC and PR states," "here's the biggest push for mail-in voting ever even though experts say voting in person is totally safe." Y'all got beat fair and square in 2016 and you've been pushing to change the rules ever since, the republic be damned.

You're not revolutionaries. You're not "with the resistance!" You're children, thrashing on your backs in a grocery store aisle, kicking and screaming, snot bubbling out of your nostrils and into your open mouths. You're embarrassing yourselves and you're embarrassing America.
 
Last edited:

Raven117

Member
Oct 5, 2015
5,418
1,832
545
I don't see the current trends toward partisanship as a product of our politics, but how we get our information and how our brains validate information. It's in some ways a technology problem. I do hope we figure it out, but I think it might be a while.
Ah could not agree more. Ive said things similar. Its a product of a lot of things that got away from us. Communication being the huge one. Our leaders have to fix this (or really, we need to vote for people who will). Its wrecking how people actually communicate ideas to one another. Communication is more than words, likes, blue check marks. Its about connecting to one another. In the end, I think the "social" network is an incredibly ironic misnomer.

Its imperative that figure out how the communication revolution has (1) affected our society, and more importantly (2) how to put it in perspective to fix it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TKOFromTokyo

Torrent of Pork

Gold Member
Aug 29, 2018
3,468
6,995
590
35
Bartow, Florida, USA
How about y'all just quit your screeching for ten goddamn minutes, it's been four years now I'm tired of it.

EDIT FOR MORE: Seriously, fuck y'all asking for a compromise for a system that's worked for generations because your candidate didn't win four years ago. Nothing illegal has happened and maybe if you weren't so goddamn certain Clinton was gonna win then RBG would've stepped down at a time when Obama could've been the one to replace her.

"Abolish the electoral college," "expand the Supreme Court," "make DC and PR states," "here's the biggest push for mail-in voting ever even though experts say voting in person is totally safe." Y'all got beat fair and square in 2016 and you've been pushing to change the rules ever since, the republic be damned.

You're not revolutionaries. You're not "with the resistance!" You're children, thrashing on your backs in a grocery store aisle, kicking and screaming, snot bubbling out of your nostrils and into your open mouths. You're embarrassing yourselves and you're embarrassing America.
Trump has not only kicked the ant nest, he's let everybody with eyes to see know that the ant nest has undermined the foundation.
 

Yoda

Member
Jun 17, 2011
3,694
753
825
Term limits would be enough, there is no reason the judges need to serve for life, there are plenty of talented judges in the country who could do the job.
 

Weiji

Member
Jul 20, 2018
1,274
2,085
425
“We need things to be fair!” says person who kept changing the rules and lost anyway.

Democrats killed the filibuster which allowed for this situation that then fucked them over. RBG chose identity politics over strategic procedural retirement.

No one cheated you, you played the game badly and you lost as a result of your own actions. Reflect on your dumb fuckery rather then asking the same people you’ve been calling Nazis for ten years to “do you a solid.”
 

finowns

Member
May 10, 2009
4,338
2,601
1,030
They shouldn’t mess with the Supreme Court at all. It of course isn’t perfect but change isn’t always for the better. It works and has a modicum of respect and dignity.
 

Riven326

Would place his sister in the spank bank.
Mar 25, 2019
5,394
10,556
745
United States
Should ACB be confirmed and the Democrats gain the Presidency and control of the Senate, strong consideration should be given to shrinking the SC to 7 justices.

ACB and Kavanaugh get booted. This penalizes behavior that is unprecendented and objectively dishonorable. Because it's not a naked attempt to forcibly hand control of the SC to liberals and restores the balance to a much more reasonable 4-3, there may even be bipartisan support for this. Though Gorsuch stays and Dems/libs don't get the majority, we have proof that this isn't the end of the world.


In concert, undoing Reid 2013 and McConnell 2017 and restoring the filibuster for federal and SC appointments is likely the right move to once again encourage bipartisan picks. (We'll still have to look out for the brand of blatant and baseless obstruction Obama suffered through.)

Shrinking the court isn't unprecedented, and has been considered as recently as during the last administration.

Nein.
 
Dec 15, 2011
9,739
27,651
1,165
“We need things to be fair!” says person who kept changing the rules and lost anyway.

Democrats killed the filibuster which allowed for this situation that then fucked them over. RBG chose identity politics over strategic procedural retirement.

No one cheated you, you played the game badly and you lost as a result of your own actions. Reflect on your dumb fuckery rather then asking the same people you’ve been calling Nazis for ten years to “do you a solid.”
 

Bolivar687

Member
Jun 13, 2014
6,824
6,950
800
USA
This crisis was entirely manufactured by the political left and our professional class. If they had done the hard work to lobby and advocate for abortion and gay marriage and enact them via legislation instead of creating new law from the bench, we would not be in this situation right now. When you intentionally convert the judicial branch into a theocratic council of high priests, you better be emotionally prepared for when you lose control of that body through the ordinary operation of the rules.

Point blank: there is no Republican equivalent for what the Democrats did to Robert Borke, Clarence Thomas, or Brett Kavanaugh, or even the opposition to Samuel Alito. When Democrats controlled the Senate, there was bipartisan support from Republicans for Obama's nominees. What happened to Merrick Garland was entirely the prerogative of the Senate leadership. They did not call him a rapist. They did not try to end his career. They did not solicit death threats to his wife and daughters to coerce him into withdrawing is nomination. They simply invoked the uncontroversial authority bestowed upon them by the electorate under the United States Constitution.

You cannot go back to bipartisanship when it's only one party who lock-step opposes the other's nominees whenever they are out of power. You cannot claim to care about the integrity of the court or judicial independence when the Democrats were on camera this week demanding ACB deliver policy outcomes. This is not normal, and we cannot return to normalcy until the Democrats stop the hostage negotiations they've been roleplaying for the past 30+ years.
 

Cato

China delenda est
Oct 27, 2017
5,089
7,986
700
Moore Park Beach
Strong disagree. Tug of wars over the size.of the bench are not gonna go anywhere good. The smart approach is to institute reforms to make each appointment less consequential.

I propose the following:

1) Term limits. 18 or 22 years. Something long term but that most appointees will probably love through, and eliminates some of the games.

2) Have the SC consist of of a rotating bench from the entire appellate circuit. 40 or so total justices, but only 9 at any given time. This way nominations are much more common, and less of a life and death struggle.

3) The Senate has 90 days to vote on confirmation, after which they forfeit their right to advise on the matter. No McConnell games of blocking the vote from coming to floor. It's your job to vote, do it or the president gets to appoint directly.


I think all of that is a pretty reasonable, non-partisan solution that will prevent this from devolving into a partisan tug of war to pack the court.
1, Maybe. as long as there is no re-election path. It is a one time stint and no possibility of activism/politics to get re-elected.
The value here is that they are NOT facing the prospect of re-election and are thus immune to the demands of the crazy mob of the day.

2, Hard NO. This is not a twitter popularity contest.

3, Hard NO. one or two weeks is enough to determine if someone is a hardcore rapist and nazi.
This only enables the crazy fuckers more time to smear someone innocent.
 

Patriots7

Member
Jul 15, 2008
3,190
458
1,065
The only compromise I see is a 72y/o age limit and a constitutional amendment keeping them at 9.
Would give Biden the nomination of Alito, Thomas and Breyer replacements.

I’d be cool with this.


Much like the electoral college was never a problem until November 9th 2016, the Supreme Court all of a sudden needs these tweaks.
Calls for electoral college reform did not exist before November 2016? That’s funny, in what a blatant lie that is.
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: Sign and -Arcadia-

Kreios

Member
Oct 5, 2010
3,048
2,207
1,125
U.S.
The way ACB and Kavanaugh have been treated is horrendous. Instead of taking their losses and finding compromise, Democrats made enemies out of the supreme court like a bunch of morons. You reap what you sow

Both parties should agree to set it at 9 and be done with it
 
Last edited:

SF Atlas Shrugged

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
3,047
2,551
620
1, Maybe. as long as there is no re-election path. It is a one time stint and no possibility of activism/politics to get re-elected.
The value here is that they are NOT facing the prospect of re-election and are thus immune to the demands of the crazy mob of the day.
You just bump them down to a lower court after the term so it's still a lifetime appointment.

2, Hard NO. This is not a twitter popularity contest.
Not sure what you mean by this. Rotating would just be automatic every so many months.

3, Hard NO. one or two weeks is enough to determine if someone is a hardcore rapist and nazi.
What I'm talking about here is not extending the amount of time, but giving a drop dead date to actually bring it to the floor. Avoiding games where we leave seats empty for years until someone controls the Senate and presidency at the same time.
 
Last edited:

Whataborman

Member
Apr 19, 2018
1,149
2,030
460
The only compromise I see is a 72y/o age limit and a constitutional amendment keeping them at 9.

This.

Although I'd probably raise the age limit to 75 or, more realistically, 80. People are living longer, healthier lives. 72 isn't that old.

I'd also support a constitutional amendment requiring everyone over the age of 65 that is elected or appointed to undergo a yearly cognative evaluation.
 

SF Atlas Shrugged

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
3,047
2,551
620
The only compromise I see is a 72y/o age limit and a constitutional amendment keeping them at 9.
There will never be another constitutional amendment passed. It requires the kind of consensus that simply does not exist in modern American politics.
 

Whataborman

Member
Apr 19, 2018
1,149
2,030
460
There will never be another constitutional amendment passed. It requires the kind of consensus that simply does not exist in modern American politics.
Once again shit just dribbles out of your mouth, proving that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

You really might be the stupidest person posting here.

Constitutional amendments are still perfectly viable, given that it is something that creates a consensus among the public and there's the political will to pass it. We'll never see another amendment like prohibilition again, but common sense, middle ground amendments are still viable, despite possibly taking longer to pass than they previously would have.

The problem with idiots like you is that you can only think in terms of extremist views, and those sort of amendments will never pass.
 

SF Atlas Shrugged

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
3,047
2,551
620
Once again shit just dribbles out of your mouth, proving that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

You really might be the stupidest person posting here.

Constitutional amendments are still perfectly viable, given that it is something that creates a consensus among the public and there's the political will to pass it. We'll never see another amendment like prohibilition again, but common sense, middle ground amendments are still viable, despite possibly taking longer to pass than they previously would have.

The problem with idiots like you is that you can only think in terms of extremist views, and those sort of amendments will never pass.
I mean the hyperpartisan era of politics could fade in time and I hope it does, but what issue do you think could possibly unite a majority in 2/3 of states? It's such a high bar. I mean even then amendment to clarify that women have equal rights to men couldn't pass and that was before the partisan divide had even gotten that bad.

I just can't see it happening.
 
Last edited:

Whataborman

Member
Apr 19, 2018
1,149
2,030
460
but what issue do you think could possibly unite a majority in 2/3 of states?
Marijuana legalization.

The will is there in every state, even traditionally conservative ones and there would certainly be enough money behind it.

I personally wouldn't vote for it because I think legalization should remain a state issue, but I can see a nationwide amendment passing.

We're also not that far off from an Article V Convention of the States either, although I don't think the people pushing it realize the Pandora's Box they would be opening if we had one.
 

SF Atlas Shrugged

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
3,047
2,551
620
Marijuana legalization.

The will is there in every state, even traditionally conservative ones and there would certainly be enough money behind it.

I personally wouldn't vote for it because I think legalization should remain a state issue, but I can see a nationwide amendment passing.

We're also not that far off from an Article V Convention of the States either, although I don't think the people pushing it realize the Pandora's Box they would be opening if we had one.
I think you could pass marijuana legalization in 2/3 of states eventually but I don't think you could get an amendment guaranteeing it through. You probably couldn't even get half the Senate to vote to remove it from schedule 1 or else they would have by now.

And I think if the president takes a position, half the country is automatically against it.
 

Whataborman

Member
Apr 19, 2018
1,149
2,030
460
I think you could pass marijuana legalization in 2/3 of states eventually but I don't think you could get an amendment guaranteeing it through. You probably couldn't even get half the Senate to vote to remove it from schedule 1 or else they would have by now.
See my response above.

You think that because you may be one of the stupidest posters on NeoGaf.