The whole point of the nuclear option is to force extream nominees through to the courts.
David L Jorling - 4 years ago
If packing the court becomes the norm, the number of judges would then increase everytime power switches from one party to the other. Pretty soon we could have 50 SC justices, or more. We would then likely need a super supreme court to resolve conflicts of the 50 or so justices unless all 50 are hearing the same case at the same time. Opinions are too long now as it is. Just wait until all the new ones weigh in.
I do favor term limits, however, which I think is a better answer. My proposal would be to limit the terms to 9 years, meaning a new justice would be appointed every year. This should be done by constitutional amendment so the Congress can't screw with it. It would be insitituted based on seniority. That is, I think Thomas is now the longest serving justice, so he would be first out, then followed one justice every year based on lenght of service. Thought should also be given to having the House be the chamber that gives its advice and consent. The House is more reflective of the country, not the Senate.
JMark - 4 years ago
We have to expand the court. It was the Republicans who started it with refusing to vote on Garland. It’s the only equitable outcome.
I also believe it was ill advised to change the confirmation vote to majority from 60. With 60 we had less chance of getting an extremist, one way or the other.
The whole point of the nuclear option is to force extream nominees through to the courts.
If packing the court becomes the norm, the number of judges would then increase everytime power switches from one party to the other. Pretty soon we could have 50 SC justices, or more. We would then likely need a super supreme court to resolve conflicts of the 50 or so justices unless all 50 are hearing the same case at the same time. Opinions are too long now as it is. Just wait until all the new ones weigh in.
I do favor term limits, however, which I think is a better answer. My proposal would be to limit the terms to 9 years, meaning a new justice would be appointed every year. This should be done by constitutional amendment so the Congress can't screw with it. It would be insitituted based on seniority. That is, I think Thomas is now the longest serving justice, so he would be first out, then followed one justice every year based on lenght of service. Thought should also be given to having the House be the chamber that gives its advice and consent. The House is more reflective of the country, not the Senate.
We have to expand the court. It was the Republicans who started it with refusing to vote on Garland. It’s the only equitable outcome.
I also believe it was ill advised to change the confirmation vote to majority from 60. With 60 we had less chance of getting an extremist, one way or the other.