28 thoughts on “Packing The Supreme Court”

  1. Repealing the 17th would be a good task for a Convention of the States.

    As would a new Constitutional amendment barring any Senator from ever becoming President, under any circumstances. (You’d have to rewrite the Presidential Succession Act to skip the President Pro Tem of the Senate. No one would care if Patrick Leahy gets skipped over.)

    You want to be a Senator? Great. Be the best Senator you can be, for as long as you can get reelected. You can’t EVER run for, be appointed to, or in any other way become President.

      1. I am not a big fan of term limits.

        Bureaucrats tend to take the National Guard attitude towards their active duty advisors towards the elected official – ‘He/She will leave soon. We can wait it out.’

        It leaves the unelected bureaucrats to build and enforce long term policies.

        1. Thats because civil service rules allow bureaucracy. Make them all at-will employees.

          Enforce the anti-delegation doctrine.

    2. Oh, and set the size of the court at some fixed number (9? 11? 7?) and term limits on them, as well – 17 years sounds good.

      While we’re on the federal judiciary, do away with the mythical ‘senior status’. If you’re not pulling a full load, you are not ‘good behavior’. And while we’re at it, get rid of judicial immunity at all levels.

      1. The “good behavior” criterion for continued service in the judiciary should be given some teeth in any Constitutional amendment. The Senate could simply be empowered to withdraw its Consent for any federal judge a) usurping the power of the legislature by legislating from the bench, or b) committing acts of political activism by issuing findings consistently at odds with the law. (Justice Kagan would be out of the door immediately due to the latter.) Withdrawal of consent would be simpler than impeachment. I’m not sure it would even require a Constitutional amendment.

    3. Most of those guys have never run anything bigger than a senator’s office staff, and yet they think that they are overqualified to become President. (Some can’t even do that, leaving all the details to their “chief of staff”.)

      A perfect example of that is President Brandon*.

      1. Never vote for anyone who’s signature has not appeared on the front side of a paycheck

        1. In most cases, I’d settle for a signature on the backside of a non-governmental paycheck

  2. The problem with a “Convention of the States” is that the so-called Progressive Left has shown that it is very good at hijacking such gatherings. And the first Constitutional Convention shows what can happen when the delegates take it upon themselves to overstep the bounds set for them in the call for the convention.

    Fortunately, and output from such a convention still has to be ratified by three-quarters of the states. As such, it might be a way to force the Progressive Left to put up or shut up on what they want to imposed upon the country.

    (And yes, the Supreme Court should have its membership increased, members should be subjected to term limits, and any vacancies during a term stay that way until the term ends. That way no President gets to pack the court thanks to a few James Hodgkinsons taking it upon themselves to clearing the way. )

    1. I used to worry about that. But the convention can be called to address specific issues – not a free for all.

      And any changes still have to be vetted by 3/4 of the states.

  3. I like the idea ONLY if the 50 extra justices were approved by the individual state legislatures, the US Senate/House should have ZERO say in the matter.

  4. Assuming said “Convention of the States” a perhaps more likely to pass scenario is to allow States to have re-call elections for their respective Senators. Both by ballot initiative or by state legislative action. Similar to what some states (like Calif.) currently allow for their governors. Also give states the power if they so choose to impose term limits on said Senators. Some States some years back tried something like that, imposing de-facto term limits by limiting the number of times a candidate was eligible to appear on said states ballot. But the law was successfully challenged and thrown out by SCOTUS; notably Clarence Thomas dissented the majority decision.

  5. As far as the federal courts, I would probably go with changing life long appointments to a single say 12 yr (2X time Senate) term. Also fix the number of judicial appointments at current number (especially SCOTUS) requiring a 60 vote or maybe even 2/3 vote to create new positions. And a Constitutional amendment required for adding new States (or permitting current ones to succeed) while we are at it.

  6. I’m opposed to the ideas presented in this article. Reads to me as if he wants essentially to abolish the Supreme Court and replace it with the Senate. And why allow any President to pack the Senate with 9 undeserved seats? Also not sure I’m of a fan of repealing the 17th. Seems to me this just seals in concrete the machine nominated and elected members of the Senate in the Blue States. No. However term limits yes. But I’d be fairly generous here. 4 terms in both House and Senate. For a deep state person that means they’d potentially have to go 24 years to wait out a Senator. I don’t think that’s a feasible strategy.

  7. …And if one wanted to be really radical for our hypothetical convention of the States why not allow the possibility of a recall election for POTUS itself? Imagine state legislatures being able to call for that? Something like the British vote of no confidence…that has interesting possibilities.

    1. OK, some super-majority of the states to recall the president…and while we are at it, all votes for anything in Congress must be a supermajority – 60%, 66%, 75%? If it’s not a good enough idea for a substantial number of both (all) parties to sign on, it’s not a good idea.

      1. Make it 66% required to pass any new law but 50% to repeal any law. All laws expire in 10 years and must be voted on again to be retained on the books. And a Constitutional Amendment forbidding auto-renewal of any law.

        Mmmm… that could keep them so busy just renewing laws that they’d have no time for anything else, winner winner chicken dinner!

          1. I prefer chicken breast meat and a single drumstick. Mashed potatoes, cucumber salad and a Coke Zero with a slice of lime.

          2. Sure, why not? If it is an existing law that is working well 66% voting aye should be easy.

  8. “Boris Johnson stepped down as leader of the Conservative Party on Thursday, making way for a new prime minister, following an avalanche of resignations by members of his party that eroded his authority and paralyzed the British government.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/07/07/uk-boris-johnson-resignation/

    How come we don’t have that with our problem (Biden)? Because the Brits have a the vote of no confidence tool, we don’t.

    “There will be no general election. Instead, the next leader of Britain will be chosen in a vote by dues paying members of the Conservative Party, which will remain in power.”

    Again interesting concept; if you are perceived as sucking badly enough at your job you can actually be pressured to resign (effectively fired) by said threat of no confidence. And your also not apparently forced to settle for your no. two (Harris) who sucks worse. Pity we can’t adapt that for our president and other elected representatives (Congress).

  9. I’m for more clarity on ANY funds or business activities of our government officials, elected or otherwise. Stop all the Chinese or Soros money corrupting everyone. Make sure they are working for US! Know when they are NOT (most of the time now).

  10. I would encourage any politician who describes the root of any current problem as “structural” and or “systemic” to put forward an amendment that re-structures the system.

    The resulting discussion would, I hope and expect, reveal that the problems are usually NEITHER structural nor systemic, but from either human nature (which is not subject to amendment) or from departure from the existing structures (as Roe found a presumably 9th amendment un-enumerated “constitutional right” to abortion among the emanations and penumbras of the system of federal powers, while restricting the 10th amendment duties of states to address conflicts among that “right” and free exercise, free speech, etc.

    I’m disgusted with the many “activists” who complain about the taste of the cake who have entirely ignored the recipe.

Comments are closed.