Triple the SC Justices. The current number selected as they are now, on a rotating plan of renewal/term limits.
Another set voted on by the voters, also on a rotation.
Another set chosen by the SC itself by super majoroty selection.
Which jidges hear which cases is a subset selected at random.
Bingo. The biggest won the supreme Court ever got was the ability to pick and choose what they want to hear and when based on the idea that they only have so much time and so many justices.
Increase the justices and make any case seen by a random pool of justices so everything can be heard and you can’t shop for the justices you want to hear your case.
is this possible to do?
Term limits for Supreme Court justices is a good idea but increasing the number is not. More Supreme Court justices is more spending of taxpayers money. Supreme Court justices should serve 6 years. After 6 years, they would have to be reappointed and approved.
Gerrymandering could be stopped by having a computer program draw congressional districts or proportional representation. Democrats should propose and push for these ideas.
waste of taxpayers money
lol like that is the problem here
You want more justices so they hear more cases, it’s like 80% of cases requesting supreme Court review never see the Supreme Court because they say they don’t have the time and their caseload is too high.
More justices won’t hear more cases since all the justices hear the same cases. It might be slower since more justices would now be asking questions.
The reason term limits aren’t good for the SC is because the constitution shouldn’t be something that changes with the political spectrum. It also prevents them from receiving being targeted or retaliated against for their decisions. It’s supposed to be hard for them to change and redefine the law. What they’re doing now is an abomination. There’s nothing wrong with the way the SC is set up. It’s filled with facists is the problem.
If SCOTUS is filled with fascists, then something is wrong. The reason for term limits is to remove justices who are making bad rulings.
Which computer program?
One of theany AIs? All run by Techo Libertarian jackhole conservarives?
The US government would have companies bid for the districting program. The winning bid would be peer-reviewed and required to be used by all states.
Computer programs don’t inherently remove bias. If anything, they obfuscate it. We wouldn’t have less gerrymandering from a computer program, we’d have more. We could require absolutely open and transparent code and data, and that still wouldn’t be enough because the manipulations would be performed right in the open for everyone to see, but it would be ‘okay’ because it’s not illegal. Much like our current system allows for gerrymandering for political purposes, this wouldn’t address the issue, it would just make hiding and obfuscating the reasoning easier.
And as for electing supreme Court judges, if you thought presidential elections and political ads were bad now, it would be 100 times worse if we have to put up with political ads for judges on top of that. It would put more money in politics which is absolutely the wrong direction to go. We need a bigger, more representative supreme Court. We need more courts in general, and more judges to get through the cases that are already in the backlog. Your proposals would exacerbate our existing issues, not help us.
A computer program can’t be biased because it has no emotions. The only input it’s needed are the boundary of a state, the population, where they live, and the desired number of districts. The winning program would be peer-reviewed to ensure the integrity of the program.
No, the selection process would remain unchanged. The President selects and the Senate confirms. The difference in my proposal is the process repeats after six years for a particular justice.
More Supreme Court justices is more spending of taxpayers money.
fucking hilarious. we spend > 2.5 BILLION per DAY pretending to be the biggest asshole on the planet. a few more justices would amount to ‘functionally zero’, just like that argument.
A penny saved is a penny earned.
In other news, Republican Congress mandates all states to use Grok, “MechaHitler” to redraw congressional districts.
/s
Mechal-Hitler would have to pass peer-review.
Six years is too short a term. I think you want a longer term length, because you want change to happen, just not all at once. The real problem with the SCOTUS is that it’s all up to chance when a spot opens up, and since appointments are currently lifetime appointments if you get a judge on the court who is in their 40’s they could serve 40+ years. Republicans were able to engineer a Majority on the Court, in spite of only holding the Presidency for six years since 2008.
If we had term limits, though, then SCOTUS seats would come up for appointment regularly. The impact of filling one sudden vacancy isnt as great if each President was guaranteed to be able to nominate a few every term.
If the Court stays at 9, I would be in favor of 18 year terms. Or, we could increase to 13, and make the terms 13 years. Both scenarios with strict one-term limits. This makes it so a one-term President can’t nominate enough judges to totally remake a court, and if would take about a decade for the Court to really turn over to the point that it might make different rulings.
The problem with 18- and 13-year terms is that a bad justice would remain a long time. In my proposal, a justice can continue serving beyond 6 years if presidents keep selecting him and the Senate continues to confirm him.
The courts are overloaded. Increasing the number a of all levels of judges would be a good idea in general.
Outvoting corrupt insane people on the supreme court is just a bonus.
Taxpayers would have to pay these additional judges. The selection process beyond Supreme Court justices could be for a bipartisan committee of scholars to select a set number of qualified individuals to be judge. One of these would be randomly chosen.
