Jonathan Turley: up the Supreme Court to 19 judges

[Col. Crackpot]

My issue with that is that it is dangerous because it sets a precedent for tit for tat increases. Imagine every time a party controls both the White house and the Senate they appoint half a dozen justices to tip the balance in their favor. You may think it's a good idea now, but what about in 5 or 10 years and the Republicans are in control again?

[FSTargetDrone]

They can start by eliminating the lifetime appointments with the existing arrangement.

[blahface]

I'd prefer to see an amendment in which there are 15 justice each serving one 20 year term while congress and the President alternate in choosing the new justice.

First year: Senate divides up into 4 caucuses. The President and each caucus may nominate a justice. The President and every senator rank the nominees and use the Condorcet method to vote on and elect the next justice. The President's vote is worth 8% and the senate's total vote is worth 92%.

Second Year: The HOR splits up into 4 caucuses and elects a justice using the Condorcet method.

Third Year: The senate splits up into 4 caucuses and elects a justice using the Condorcet method.

Fourth year: Off year; no new justice is selected.

[General Zod]

Then again you don't necessarily want high turnover either. If they're concerned about being removed for making the wrong decision about a divisive case then an honest ruling could be hamstringed and the high court turns into an even worse game of politics.

[Simon_Jester]

High turnover is probably bad. Judicial terms should be either fixed or for-life. For-life is arguably better because it means that a new Congress can't immediately replace a large fraction of the court. For a trend in the legislature to affect the composition of the Court significantly, it has to last a long time.

My issue with that is that it is dangerous because it sets a precedent for tit for tat increases. Imagine every time a party controls both the White house and the Senate they appoint half a dozen justices to tip the balance in their favor. You may think it's a good idea now, but what about in 5 or 10 years and the Republicans are in control again?

Eventually it stops when the Court becomes unmanageably large and justices start offering to retire on the condition that they not be replaced?

Or if we want to do it the smart way... we could have an actual, formalized structure by which we appoint two extra judges every other year for ten years starting in, say, 2014 so that it's not a foregone conclusion which party gets to appoint the extras?

Because I read Turley's article in the Post, and that's pretty much what he suggests.



I do think there's something to his objections. The current size of the court is a historical accident, and the enormous number of important 5-4 decisions it's made (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission comes to mind) make it very questionable whether it's a good idea. When the court consists of three or four people who predictably vote "Republican" on all issues, three or four who predictably vote "Democrat" on all issues, and one to three in the middle whose opinion is unpredictable... something is just plain wrong with the system.

Some kind of structural reform is called for. The real problem is the same one we have with almost everything else in the US government- structural reform is hard. The parties are too busy squabbling over the immediate future, and too many people in positions of power are abdicating their responsibility for the big picture.

[Mr Bean]

In that case why not 21 Justices for 21 years, re-appointments are not allowed but removal is allowed and whoever appointed serves out what's left of the term. Supreme Court Justices are required first business for the new session and are selected the year the spot opens up (IE if Judge X term ends December 31st 2020 then nominations begin January 14th 2019) and making it required first business means that the Senate can pass no laws or vote on no new business until the Supreme is selected.

We can grandfather in the current system by naming the current Justices to their new term limits and filling in as required. There are plenty of people who'd do a three year Supreme Court position as being on the Court at all is a massive ego booster.

Why 21 and not 19? 10-10 and 1, round numbers! And it lets me refer to it as the Blackjack method.

[Simon_Jester]

Why are term limits desirable here?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Why are term limits desirable here?

They're not. Keeping them for life is a good thing, as their judicial experience is highly valuable. You dont need term limits when there are 19 or 20 of them, because with that number you have an old person croaking on a semi-regular basis. There is no utility in a term limit.

That said, I think the president should still make the appointments, with the senate confirming. Allowing congress to do the selection turns the process into a bigger political football than it already is. However, there should definitely be an apolitical quality control mechanism to prevent nepotism and puppetry. Say, legislate in a short list being made by the Bar Association. Then again that is my merit/technocrat coming out to say hello.