Should Dems push Sonia Sotomayor to retire at the end of this term?

[lucas80]

There are rumblings, especially in progressive circles, that Sotomayor should be encouraged to retire. She is 70 and has some chronic health issues. Senate Dems could slam through a nomination before the election as long as Sinema or Manchin approve of the nominee.
Personally I'm about to the point where we expand the court to 13 or so, and assign 9 justices to each case. Something to spread out the workload. And, term limit the justices to 18 years with strict ethical standards to keep Leonard Leo from buying them.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

There are rumblings, especially in progressive circles, that Sotomayor should be encouraged to retire. She is 70 and has some chronic health issues. Senate Dems could slam through a nomination before the election as long as Sinema or Manchin approve of the nominee.
Personally I'm about to the point where we expand the court to 13 or so, and assign 9 justices to each case. Something to spread out the workload. And, term limit the justices to 18 years with strict ethical standards to keep Leonard Leo from buying them.

There should be term limits for all judges.

The court does not need to be expanded. Supreme Court decisions should not depend on random assignments.

 

[sober_teacher]

There are rumblings, especially in progressive circles, that Sotomayor should be encouraged to retire. She is 70 and has some chronic health issues. Senate Dems could slam through a nomination before the election as long as Sinema or Manchin approve of the nominee.
Personally I'm about to the point where we expand the court to 13 or so, and assign 9 justices to each case. Something to spread out the workload. And, term limit the justices to 18 years with strict ethical standards to keep Leonard Leo from buying them.

Didn’t realize she was that old.

People forget but the reason we settled with 9 for the SC was at the time there were 9 federal districts. There’s 13 now. So I’m good with expanding to 13 for that reason and random draws for 9 to hear a specific case.

 

[lucas80]

There should be term limits for all judges.

The court does not need to be expanded. Supreme Court decisions should not depend on random assignments.

Spreading out cases might alleviate challenges designed to appeal to certain justices, and alleviate the peril of decisions based on the religious views of justices, or because the Federalist Society told them how to rule.

 

[DropitlikeitsHawk]

There are rumblings, especially in progressive circles, that Sotomayor should be encouraged to retire. She is 70 and has some chronic health issues. Senate Dems could slam through a nomination before the election as long as Sinema or Manchin approve of the nominee.
Personally I'm about to the point where we expand the court to 13 or so, and assign 9 justices to each case. Something to spread out the workload. And, term limit the justices to 18 years with strict ethical standards to keep Leonard Leo from buying them.

Progressives aka ultra libs.

 

[sober_teacher]

Spreading out cases might alleviate challenges designed to appeal to certain justices, and alleviate the peril of decisions based on the religious views of justices, or because the Federalist Society told them how to rule.

It would also allow them to hear more cases.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

There are rumblings, especially in progressive circles, that Sotomayor should be encouraged to retire. She is 70 and has some chronic health issues. Senate Dems could slam through a nomination before the election as long as Sinema or Manchin approve of the nominee.
Personally I'm about to the point where we expand the court to 13 or so, and assign 9 justices to each case. Something to spread out the workload. And, term limit the justices to 18 years with strict ethical standards to keep Leonard Leo from buying them.

Nope. 9 is fine.


I’d be for age limits.

 

[Jan Itor]

Nope. 9 is fine.


I’d be for age limits.

If the situation was completely reversed and republicans were taking about expanding to 13, the same ones advocating for expansion would be screaming bloody murder. Any of them say differently would be lying.

 

[sober_teacher]

Nope. 9 is fine.


I’d be for age limits.

If the situation was completely reversed and republicans were taking about expanding to 13, the same ones advocating for expansion would be screaming bloody murder. Any of them say differently would be lying.

The argument for court expansion is simple - we have 13 Federal Court Districts, we should have 1 Justice responsible for each. Would also help appeal process along - fewer cases per justice to review.

The counter to your argument tho is that conservatives hold a 6-3 majority and likely will for the next 20 years given the ages of the various justices.

Respectfully, I'd argue that sort of imbalance is not good for the country.

 

[Jan Itor]

The argument for court expansion is simple - we have 13 Federal Court Districts, we should have 1 Justice responsible for each. Would also help appeal process along - fewer cases per justice to review.

The counter to your argument tho is that conservatives hold a 6-3 majority and likely will for the next 20 years given the ages of the various justices.

Respectfully, I'd argue that sort of imbalance is not good for the country.

I don’t disagree, but I stand by my statement.

 

[pjhawk]

If the situation was completely reversed and republicans were taking about expanding to 13, the same ones advocating for expansion would be screaming bloody murder. Any of them say differently would be lying.

Another FANTASY bOtH SiDeS!

Look at those fantasy libturds in my brain braying away! Take that real life libturds!

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Didn’t realize she was that old.

People forget but the reason we settled with 9 for the SC was at the time there were 9 federal districts. There’s 13 now. So I’m good with expanding to 13 for that reason and random draws for 9 to hear a specific case.

If we did that I would argue that the only way it would be accepted is if we added 1 per presidential term for the next 16 years.

R's are not gonna want Biden to appoint 4 justices and D's are not going to want the R's to appoint 4 justices if they take back the WH.

 

[Jan Itor]

Another FANTASY bOtH SiDeS!

Look at those fantasy libturds in my brain braying away! Take that real life libturds!

You’d be one of those liars.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Age limit of 70 - grandfathered in

Limits on # of years on Court of 18 - grandfathered

Have 3 Justices coming off the Court every 6 years

 

[sober_teacher]

Age limit of 70 - grandfathered in

Limits on # of years on Court of 18 - grandfathered

Have 3 Justices coming off the Court every 6 years

Require senate to vote on a nominee unless with 30 days of a presidential election.

 

[lucas80]

I don’t disagree, but I stand by my statement.

BoTH sIDeS!!!
Expanding the court and easing the workload makes sense. It isn’t the 1790s anymore.

 

[sober_teacher]

I don’t disagree, but I stand by my statement.

Your scenario is a hypothetical however and we’ll never know. Republicans got at least one SCOTUS judge that based on their own arguments they should not have.

 

[Jan Itor]

If we did that I would argue that the only way it would be accepted is if we added 1 per presidential term for the next 16 years.

R's are not gonna want Biden to appoint 4 justices and D's are

BoTH sIDeS!!!
Expanding the court and easing the workload makes sense. It isn’t the 1790s anymore.

So if SCOTUS was made up of 6 liberals and 3 conservatives, and Republicans controlled the Senate and WH, and decided it was time to expand the court to 13, you’d be okay with that?

 

[Jan Itor]

Your scenario is a hypothetical however and we’ll never know. Republicans got at least one SCOTUS judge that based on their own arguments they should not have.

Hypothetical or not, the outcome would not be in doubt based on the intense hatred across aisles and voters.

 

[sober_teacher]

Hypothetical or not, the outcome would not be in doubt based on the intense hatred across aisles and voters.

You’re basing your argument on where we are now….because of what republicans have already done. That is in large a reason why we are where we are at now.

 

[TJ8869]

The argument for court expansion is simple - we have 13 Federal Court Districts, we should have 1 Justice responsible for each.

Sigh.

DailyKos or Democratic Underground or wherever you got that talking point didn’t give you the full story.

The practice of adding a Supreme Court justice each time a new circuit court was established was used in the 19th century, when we had no separate federal appellate court system and Supreme Court justices were also assigned to serve on a circuit court in addition to their SCOTUS responsibilities.

Those circuit courts were abolished by the Judicial Code of 1911 and their jurisdiction was transferred to the US District Courts. There are 94 US District Courts today. Should we have 94 Supreme Court justices to mirror that number?

The 13 court districts to which you’re referring are the 13 circuit courts of appeals, which were established primarily for the purpose of easing the Supreme Court’s caseload by the Evarts Act of 1891. These court districts that you claim should match the number of Supreme Court justices didn’t even exist yet when the current number of 9 was settled upon in 1869.

 

[Jan Itor]

You’re basing your argument on where we are now….because of what republicans have already done. That is in large a reason why we are where we are at now.

I’m basing my argument on the history of the posters on this board.

 

[sober_teacher]

I’m basing my argument on the history of the posters on this board.

Which was shaped by the events I mentioned.

 

[sober_teacher]

Sigh.

DailyKos or Democratic Underground or wherever you got that talking point didn’t give you the full story.

The practice of adding a Supreme Court justice each time a new circuit court was established was used in the 19th century, when we had no separate federal appellate court system and Supreme Court justices were also assigned to serve on a circuit court in addition to their SCOTUS responsibilities.

Those circuit courts were abolished by the Judicial Code of 1911 and their jurisdiction was transferred to the US District Courts. There are 94 US District Courts today. Should we have 94 Supreme Court justices to mirror that number?

The 13 court districts to which you’re referring are the 13 circuit courts of appeals, which were established primarily for the purpose of easing the Supreme Court’s caseload by the Evarts Act of 1891. These court districts that you claim should match the number of Supreme Court justices didn’t even exist yet when the current number of 9 was settled upon in 1869.

Thanks for the clarification. I knew I was probably using the wrong name but couldn’t think of what it was.

 

[TJ8869]

Thanks for the clarification. I knew I was probably using the wrong name but couldn’t think of what it was.

I hope you realize that my clarification was significantly more than just nomenclature. The very basis of your argument is flawed.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Respectfully, I'd argue that sort of imbalance is not good for the country.

I’d argue D’s jacking it to 13 would not be good for the country.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

I’d argue D’s jacking it to 13 would not be good for the country.

Can’t be worse than the Senate applying then not applying the “no confirmations before a presidential election” “rule.”

But I’m not in favor of the expansion because it’s the kind of thing the GOP would do.

 

[CLUB215]

The argument for court expansion is simple - we have 13 Federal Court Districts, we should have 1 Justice responsible for each. Would also help appeal process along - fewer cases per justice to review.

The counter to your argument tho is that conservatives hold a 6-3 majority and likely will for the next 20 years given the ages of the various justices.

Respectfully, I'd argue that sort of imbalance is not good for the country.

Especially when three came from a president who lost the popular vote. Not very representative

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

So if SCOTUS was made up of 6 liberals and 3 conservatives, and Republicans controlled the Senate and WH, and decided it was time to expand the court to 13, you’d be okay with that?

Again it depends on how it's done. As I said if it's done you can't just let one POTUS select them all, it would have to be a deal where we add one per term for the next 4 terms.

And quite frankly given the underhanded way we ended up with this court, it could use a little balance put back into it. R's didn't get this court by winning more elections. They got this court by denying a confirmation hearing almost a year away from an election when a dem was president claiming it is too close to the election. something that no senate has ever done, then a week away from an election those same people confirmed their own person.

So quite frankly conservatives should not complain about underhanded tactics when it comes to the court. The R's have been using them a lot to prevent dem nominees from circuit courts up from even being voted on.

At the very least there should be an up and down vote on every nominee.

 

[SA_Hawk]

Maybe we should eliminate districts from 13 to 9 and reduce the size of government.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

But I’m not in favor of the expansion because it’s the kind of thing the GOP would do.

I don't remember the GOP proposing to expand the court when it was a D appointed majority.

 

[SA_Hawk]

Again it depends on how it's done. As I said if it's done you can't just let one POTUS select them all, it would have to be a deal where we add one per term for the next 4 terms.

And quite frankly given the underhanded way we ended up with this court, it could use a little balance put back into it. R's didn't get this court by winning more elections. They got this court by denying a confirmation hearing almost a year away from an election when a dem was president claiming it is too close to the election. something that no senate has ever done, then a week away from an election those same people confirmed their own person.

So quite frankly conservatives should not complain about underhanded tactics when it comes to the court. The R's have been using them a lot to prevent dem nominees from circuit courts up from even being voted on.

At the very least there should be an up and down vote on every nominee.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh fake rape hearings not underhanded tactics?

 

[WDSMHAWK]

Justice Brett Kavanaugh fake rape hearings not underhanded tactics?

Lol at defending that rapist. If Republicans had any sort of moral conscience he wouldn't have been seated.

 

[FAUlty Gator]

We make police dogs retire at a certain age. We have age requirements in the constitution for the other two branches. Should be an easy amendment to add. You must be 45-75 to be a SCOTUS judge.

When you hit 75, you get a golden parachute to make up for what you could have made being a scummy lawyer.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

I don't remember the GOP proposing to expand the court when it was a D appointed majority.

You don’t remember because the last time the Court had a D appointed majority was 53 years ago when both parties acted like adults, Justices were confirmed with 98-2 type votes, and the Senate didn’t just refuse to act on a nomination for almost a year.

And the GOP didn’t just propose to expand the Court - it did so in the late 1800’s, expanding to 10 to help Lincoln.

 

[B1GDeal]

I don't mind 13, but it would be completely unfair to have one select them all. I mean, look how people felt about Trump's selections. I don't think dragging it out is wise either though. Maybe a committee or something could be assembled to give a somewhat even selection to have the court balanced.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

BoTH sIDeS!!!
Expanding the court and easing the workload makes sense. It isn’t the 1790s anymore.

So now it's about libs just wanting to ease the workload...

 

[OILCHECKER]

There should be term limits for all judges.

The court does not need to be expanded. Supreme Court decisions should not depend on random assignments.

Don't they already depend on random assignments?

 

[TJ8869]

And the GOP didn’t just propose to expand the Court - it did so in the late 1800’s, expanding to 10 to help Lincoln.

This is peak HORT - partisan trash talking about something that happened 160 years ago.

The two primary reasons for the Tenth Circuit Act were to address the needs created by adding the states of California and Oregon and also to help give Lincoln an anti-slavery majority in the aftermath of Dred Scott.

And for the record, the justice appointed by Lincoln was a Democrat.

 

[ThorneStockton]

Maybe we should eliminate districts from 13 to 9 and reduce the size of government.

Maybe we should eliminate states from 50 to 35 and reduce the size of government.