‘Nothing in our report actually recommended anything’ the president is now proposing, a member of the presidential commission on SCOTUS tells The Free Press.
For decades there was a liberal majority on the court, and I don't recall the Republicans proposing radical changes to how the court is structured (please let me know if my memory is off). I know they complained but this goes far beyond complaining. It's clear they don't like the current makeup of the court - tough luck! Wait a few years, it'll change, and they'll be happy, and the Republicans won't be.
Oh we live in a nation of a propagandizing press. The media have lead all the useful idiots to believe decisions of the Supreme Court should be based on public opinion. When a court veers from reflecting that in its decisions, the Court needs to be modified.
It’s like an adult in a house of 10 kids saying they cannot each eat a quart of ice cream for dinner. While the decision may be right, it is not popular among the children.
Good luck getting the average useful idiot to understand the Court’s abortion decision. Or many others.
The public has lost trust in the supreme court, and it is eroding fast, IMO. Perhaps this specific legislation is unconstitutional and will be DOA—that’s fair commentary. But regardless of whether this can or should go anywhere—many people think the Supreme Court needs to change. Life tenure and judges having the optics of not being ethical does not lend itself to being a core pillar of a free and fair democracy. Something needs to change.
We do not exist in a fair and free democracy...by design. Many people have a poor opinion of the court because they are sound-bite driven low-information humans. Our ruling political class is supposed to be smarter than us clod hoppers out here and protect us from our mob mentality. They are currently not doing that. They are reactionary, petulant and tribal, and demonstrate--such as with these "reform" proposals--no willingness to tell us the hard truth about certain things. They wander around with their finger in the air instead of with it pointing in front of them. Optics doesn't matter at all, only performance, and as of right now, the Supreme Court is the ONLY branch of our tri-partite government willing to actually do its job and lead.
There are term limits in congress! That is why you vote every year, incumbents can always be voted out—that is missing from the supreme court.
And regarding insider trading, why do you have blinders for just Nancy? There is a huge list of elected officials from both parties that take advantage of insider knowledge.
18% of congress across BOTH parties appear to have potential conflicts in stock trading.
Your logic is flawed in two ways—one you’re singling out one person (and showing a right wing talking point) and secondly stock trading has no impact on the issues with the Supreme Court.
I don’t have to fix every other issue you have before we can talk about SCOTUS. They are unrelated.
"There are term limits in congress! That is why you vote every year, incumbents can always be voted out" I'm sorry but this is not really true any longer. Incumbents have an overwhelming money, name recognition, and support in modern times. All of the special interests that they have gathered give them unlimited money and help. Sure, on paper, they can be voted out but it only rarely happens anymore except when the incumbent really does something bad. Term limits are good enough for the President then they are good enough for Congress.
I am not against it. I just haven't thought about it as much. Congress has so many special interests involved and dark questionable money that it is a no brainer. I think the Supreme Court could be fixed with out it but term limits would fix it all. I will give it some more thought. I can say if you told me we just passes an amendment that gave the Supreme Court term limits, I would not fight you on it, but I need to think it through before I would support an amendment.
Biden should be careful what he wishes for. If colored outside the lines even once in the last three and a half years he can expect Trump stepping on him with the shoe that's on the other foot, or getting thrown under that bus that Harris was riding on.
But it is not unconstitutional to impeach a Supreme Court Justice, Ms. Kearns. And if the Supreme Court itself cannot control the wayward gifts and trips a few of its judges enjoy, as it appears, then Congress one day will have to do that for it. If the public sees the graft and perceives bias, then Congress, at some point, will follow.
"But it is not unconstitutional to impeach a Supreme Court Justice". Correct. The problem with what you said is Congress has not been doing their job for at least a couple of decade, especially it's oversight duties. That is why I constantly call for a term limit amendment for Congress. One of these years a person will run for President on that platform and they will win. I don't care which party they are from. I will most likely vote for that person because that to me is the key to fixing all of our long term problems in this country.
The Democrats are hysterical. They say, "Donald Trump is a threat to democracy," yet try to remove him from the ballot so voters can't vote for their chosen candidate, and attempt to jail their main opposition. Change a historic, civil rights law, without courts, voters or congress (Title IX) with a department Biden staffed, which attempts to mandate speech (pronouns) and change the legal definition of women, to include the religious, faith based belief of gender, making it the same thing in the law. They create a coup, and push out a man that was elected by the people, and coronate someone whom was not elected, but selected by the administrative state and the media. They sue to keep opposing off the ballot (RFK Jr.) Support U.N. human rights violations, allowing fully, intact males to be housed in female prisons. They prohibited vital health information on the Internet about vaccinations, spread mass propaganda and conspiracy theories demonizing opposition (Russia/Trump collusion, Project 2025) and now want amend the constitution! Just imagine if Donald Trump did ONE of these things! The democrats are a threat to democracy.
Everyone that's not a raging idiot can see this is clearly just an issue they want to make political so they actually have something to run on for the next few months (because their actual policies are trash). Unfortunately, a good chunk of the country are raging idiots....
Diane Feinstein 90, Charles Grassley 89, Maxine Waters 85, Steny Hoyer 84, Nancy Pelosi 83. James Clyburn 83, Bernie Sanders 82, Mitch McConnell 81 and at least twelve others over 80, not to mention those in Congress are serving for more than 30 years, , P Leahy 47, M. McConnell 37, S. Hoyer 40, C. Schumer 44, D. Durbin 41, all tolled there are more than 120 members who have served more than 36 years. But by all means, let's term limit the Supreme Court Justices! The Justices seem to be the only members of government who know when it's time to retire, all be it when a member of their Party is in the White House, but still. The gall of Biden, who himself has been sucking off the teat of the American taxpayer for more than 50 years is unbelievable. More than 68% of the American people think that Congress should be term limited, but since Congress needs to vote on term limits for themselves, well, you know, don't hold your breath. Congress no longer serves the people, Congress serves it's own best interests and that is to continually feed the beast, both the Democrats and Republicans are corrupt to their core.
I think the percentage of Supreme Court Justices who die in office is much greater than members of Congress who do (and that number is not zero). Justices do not "know when to retire," they generally hang onto power as long as they're allowed to just like most humans.
Term limits in Congress are intriguing to me, but then again, we vote every 2-6 years for our members of Congress. Yes incumbents win a lot, but not all the time, and at least there's a process for removing a non-performer. I'm less certain Congress needs these limits. The SC definitely does.
There was a time I would agree, that elections are the remedy to the corruption that permeates Congress, I've changed my mind. Just the fact that we have so many octogenarians "serving" for decades, speaks to the broken system we are living under. The money that flows into the campaigns of long-term Senators and Congressmen lends itself to corruption. Any challenger without competitive financial backing doesn't stand a chance of winning. And what do they need to promise in order to get that financial backing? Again I say, the corruption is bone deep and the cure needs to be self-inflicted, I don't see it happening. As to the SC, many may die in office, but that is the system the Founders envisioned to ensure that pressures from the Left or the Right would hold no sway. It has worked fine for well over 200 years and Conservatives had to live with The Warren Court for decades, Liberals will have to deal with the Robert's Court. The pendulum has swung.
Honestly, I can't argue with your points about Congress. I'm very open to discussions around term limits there. I'm just not certain about them.
For the SC, I truly think 18 years is a sufficient term length to insulate judges against outside pressure (I say as much in another comment below), especially as term limits remove the incentive to select younger and less experienced judges purely for their ages.
Yes, the pendulum can swing, and both sides of the political spectrum will survive either way. But that doesn't convince me that term limits, paired with predictable, regular appointments, wouldn't be a vastly superior system for the SC. It's just a weird system that doesn't work well anymore. It creates bad incentives and feels almost random, like a lottery, which is not how I want my courts to feel.
Here's a quote from Wikipedia, citing a WSJ article, that frames a strong argument for times having changed since the days of the founders:
"From 1789 until 1970, justices served an average of 14.9 years. Those who have stepped down since 1970 have served an average of 25.6 years. The retirement age had jumped from an average of 68 pre-1970 to 79 for justices retiring post-1970. Between 1789 and 1970 there was a vacancy on the court once every 1.91 years. In the next 34 years since the two appointments in 1971, there was a vacancy on average only once every 3.75 years. The typical one-term president has had one appointment opportunity instead of two.[133]"
This is what I agree with for term limits, very well put. Term/Age limits, insider trading, or at least to be affected by the same laws they want to pass.
These proposals are electioneering, not an agenda. Democrats want their base energized by the idea that "evil right-wing forces" (like the Constitution) are thwarting their magnificent plans.
For decades there was a liberal majority on the court, and I don't recall the Republicans proposing radical changes to how the court is structured (please let me know if my memory is off). I know they complained but this goes far beyond complaining. It's clear they don't like the current makeup of the court - tough luck! Wait a few years, it'll change, and they'll be happy, and the Republicans won't be.
Welcome to TFP, Maddie! I loved you on The Editors and heard your voice as I read this. So happy you’re here. 😊
I guess the Democrats have concluded that none of their supporters will rid them of these troublesome judges, so some other remedy must be found.
Oh we live in a nation of a propagandizing press. The media have lead all the useful idiots to believe decisions of the Supreme Court should be based on public opinion. When a court veers from reflecting that in its decisions, the Court needs to be modified.
It’s like an adult in a house of 10 kids saying they cannot each eat a quart of ice cream for dinner. While the decision may be right, it is not popular among the children.
Good luck getting the average useful idiot to understand the Court’s abortion decision. Or many others.
So much fury in the comments.
The public has lost trust in the supreme court, and it is eroding fast, IMO. Perhaps this specific legislation is unconstitutional and will be DOA—that’s fair commentary. But regardless of whether this can or should go anywhere—many people think the Supreme Court needs to change. Life tenure and judges having the optics of not being ethical does not lend itself to being a core pillar of a free and fair democracy. Something needs to change.
We do not exist in a fair and free democracy...by design. Many people have a poor opinion of the court because they are sound-bite driven low-information humans. Our ruling political class is supposed to be smarter than us clod hoppers out here and protect us from our mob mentality. They are currently not doing that. They are reactionary, petulant and tribal, and demonstrate--such as with these "reform" proposals--no willingness to tell us the hard truth about certain things. They wander around with their finger in the air instead of with it pointing in front of them. Optics doesn't matter at all, only performance, and as of right now, the Supreme Court is the ONLY branch of our tri-partite government willing to actually do its job and lead.
There are term limits in congress! That is why you vote every year, incumbents can always be voted out—that is missing from the supreme court.
And regarding insider trading, why do you have blinders for just Nancy? There is a huge list of elected officials from both parties that take advantage of insider knowledge.
18% of congress across BOTH parties appear to have potential conflicts in stock trading.
Your logic is flawed in two ways—one you’re singling out one person (and showing a right wing talking point) and secondly stock trading has no impact on the issues with the Supreme Court.
I don’t have to fix every other issue you have before we can talk about SCOTUS. They are unrelated.
"There are term limits in congress! That is why you vote every year, incumbents can always be voted out" I'm sorry but this is not really true any longer. Incumbents have an overwhelming money, name recognition, and support in modern times. All of the special interests that they have gathered give them unlimited money and help. Sure, on paper, they can be voted out but it only rarely happens anymore except when the incumbent really does something bad. Term limits are good enough for the President then they are good enough for Congress.
Agreed. Now that we agree on congress term limits, can we agree the supreme court needs them at least as much?
A president who has term limits has decades of impact if they appoint a judge with infinite tenure.
I am not against it. I just haven't thought about it as much. Congress has so many special interests involved and dark questionable money that it is a no brainer. I think the Supreme Court could be fixed with out it but term limits would fix it all. I will give it some more thought. I can say if you told me we just passes an amendment that gave the Supreme Court term limits, I would not fight you on it, but I need to think it through before I would support an amendment.
Par for the course for this crowd, I'm afraid.
Biden should be careful what he wishes for. If colored outside the lines even once in the last three and a half years he can expect Trump stepping on him with the shoe that's on the other foot, or getting thrown under that bus that Harris was riding on.
Trump is not above the law.
But apparently the Dems are.
But it is not unconstitutional to impeach a Supreme Court Justice, Ms. Kearns. And if the Supreme Court itself cannot control the wayward gifts and trips a few of its judges enjoy, as it appears, then Congress one day will have to do that for it. If the public sees the graft and perceives bias, then Congress, at some point, will follow.
"But it is not unconstitutional to impeach a Supreme Court Justice". Correct. The problem with what you said is Congress has not been doing their job for at least a couple of decade, especially it's oversight duties. That is why I constantly call for a term limit amendment for Congress. One of these years a person will run for President on that platform and they will win. I don't care which party they are from. I will most likely vote for that person because that to me is the key to fixing all of our long term problems in this country.
Yes, upstanding souls in Congress like Bob, Gold Bar, Menendez, will protect the sanctity of the Supreme Court.
And he was actually convicted! Imagine that, a supposedly weaponized Justice Dep’t went after a corrupt Democrat and won.
They kind of had to. It was pretty blatant lol.
Yes, it was
:)
Lee hahahahanha _ I mean hahahahaha - seriously did you read the article?
No, I didn't. What did it say?
When did something being unconstitutional ever stop the Democrats?
Too close to the coup
The party of "norms." Not.
The Democrats are hysterical. They say, "Donald Trump is a threat to democracy," yet try to remove him from the ballot so voters can't vote for their chosen candidate, and attempt to jail their main opposition. Change a historic, civil rights law, without courts, voters or congress (Title IX) with a department Biden staffed, which attempts to mandate speech (pronouns) and change the legal definition of women, to include the religious, faith based belief of gender, making it the same thing in the law. They create a coup, and push out a man that was elected by the people, and coronate someone whom was not elected, but selected by the administrative state and the media. They sue to keep opposing off the ballot (RFK Jr.) Support U.N. human rights violations, allowing fully, intact males to be housed in female prisons. They prohibited vital health information on the Internet about vaccinations, spread mass propaganda and conspiracy theories demonizing opposition (Russia/Trump collusion, Project 2025) and now want amend the constitution! Just imagine if Donald Trump did ONE of these things! The democrats are a threat to democracy.
The projection is strong with the progs.
Everyone that's not a raging idiot can see this is clearly just an issue they want to make political so they actually have something to run on for the next few months (because their actual policies are trash). Unfortunately, a good chunk of the country are raging idiots....
That's not true. They're not all raging idiots. Some of them are contented idiots.
They are and greatly misinformed.
It will be this as their platform
SCOTUS reform
Abortion
Student loans
Trump is Hitler
Kamala is the female Obama-Kabama
And pot in every pipe (apologies to Henry IV)
Diane Feinstein 90, Charles Grassley 89, Maxine Waters 85, Steny Hoyer 84, Nancy Pelosi 83. James Clyburn 83, Bernie Sanders 82, Mitch McConnell 81 and at least twelve others over 80, not to mention those in Congress are serving for more than 30 years, , P Leahy 47, M. McConnell 37, S. Hoyer 40, C. Schumer 44, D. Durbin 41, all tolled there are more than 120 members who have served more than 36 years. But by all means, let's term limit the Supreme Court Justices! The Justices seem to be the only members of government who know when it's time to retire, all be it when a member of their Party is in the White House, but still. The gall of Biden, who himself has been sucking off the teat of the American taxpayer for more than 50 years is unbelievable. More than 68% of the American people think that Congress should be term limited, but since Congress needs to vote on term limits for themselves, well, you know, don't hold your breath. Congress no longer serves the people, Congress serves it's own best interests and that is to continually feed the beast, both the Democrats and Republicans are corrupt to their core.
I think the percentage of Supreme Court Justices who die in office is much greater than members of Congress who do (and that number is not zero). Justices do not "know when to retire," they generally hang onto power as long as they're allowed to just like most humans.
Term limits in Congress are intriguing to me, but then again, we vote every 2-6 years for our members of Congress. Yes incumbents win a lot, but not all the time, and at least there's a process for removing a non-performer. I'm less certain Congress needs these limits. The SC definitely does.
Congress absolutely needs term limits.
There was a time I would agree, that elections are the remedy to the corruption that permeates Congress, I've changed my mind. Just the fact that we have so many octogenarians "serving" for decades, speaks to the broken system we are living under. The money that flows into the campaigns of long-term Senators and Congressmen lends itself to corruption. Any challenger without competitive financial backing doesn't stand a chance of winning. And what do they need to promise in order to get that financial backing? Again I say, the corruption is bone deep and the cure needs to be self-inflicted, I don't see it happening. As to the SC, many may die in office, but that is the system the Founders envisioned to ensure that pressures from the Left or the Right would hold no sway. It has worked fine for well over 200 years and Conservatives had to live with The Warren Court for decades, Liberals will have to deal with the Robert's Court. The pendulum has swung.
Honestly, I can't argue with your points about Congress. I'm very open to discussions around term limits there. I'm just not certain about them.
For the SC, I truly think 18 years is a sufficient term length to insulate judges against outside pressure (I say as much in another comment below), especially as term limits remove the incentive to select younger and less experienced judges purely for their ages.
Yes, the pendulum can swing, and both sides of the political spectrum will survive either way. But that doesn't convince me that term limits, paired with predictable, regular appointments, wouldn't be a vastly superior system for the SC. It's just a weird system that doesn't work well anymore. It creates bad incentives and feels almost random, like a lottery, which is not how I want my courts to feel.
Here's a quote from Wikipedia, citing a WSJ article, that frames a strong argument for times having changed since the days of the founders:
"From 1789 until 1970, justices served an average of 14.9 years. Those who have stepped down since 1970 have served an average of 25.6 years. The retirement age had jumped from an average of 68 pre-1970 to 79 for justices retiring post-1970. Between 1789 and 1970 there was a vacancy on the court once every 1.91 years. In the next 34 years since the two appointments in 1971, there was a vacancy on average only once every 3.75 years. The typical one-term president has had one appointment opportunity instead of two.[133]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
100% agree!!!
This is what I agree with for term limits, very well put. Term/Age limits, insider trading, or at least to be affected by the same laws they want to pass.
These proposals are electioneering, not an agenda. Democrats want their base energized by the idea that "evil right-wing forces" (like the Constitution) are thwarting their magnificent plans.