Great piece. We need some better guard rails than those provided in the Constitution. I agree with Don. I would say retroactive term limits (12 years?) would do the job.
"the only way to do this is Supreme Court expansion": A simple expansion is not a permanent solution and would provoke a simple tit-for-tat response when the balance of the Congress changed. Also, the FDR precedent works against it.
Article III of the Constitution states that Justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”. “During good Behaviour” suggests a method of removal distinct from impeachment defined in Article II, Section 4 to require: “Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”, but the failure of President Jefferson’s attempt in 1805 to remove Associate Justice Samuel Chase (not to be confused with later Chief Justice Salmon Chase) for blatant partisanship seems to have created the precedent that the removal of a Justice is constitutionally identical to the removal of any Federal official: by impeachment and conviction as defined in Article II. This text, at first hand, seems to imply that setting term limits on the Supreme Court would require a Constitutional Amendment. But several writers have recently pointed out that “hold their Offices” does not explicitly mean being voting members of the Court. Congress might pass legislation that after 18 years of Court service, a Justice would transition from active status to an emeritus status, where they would perform supporting judicial duties and occasionally vote as the temporary replacement for a recusing active Justice. Maintaining the level of nine voting Justices would be done by appointing one new Justice in each two year Congressional term. This path would avoid the problems with simple “Court packing”.
Open to the debate. But all these ideas meet the simple problem that they'll all be called court packing, and the current court can have some veto. The issue isn't legality or one simple trick. It's overwhelming political pressure to end abortion bans. Whatever captures the public will is the right answer. Expansion is simpler and more likely to do that. And let them try to tit-for-tat.
Monthly contribution done!
Bless ya!
Great piece. We need some better guard rails than those provided in the Constitution. I agree with Don. I would say retroactive term limits (12 years?) would do the job.
"the only way to do this is Supreme Court expansion": A simple expansion is not a permanent solution and would provoke a simple tit-for-tat response when the balance of the Congress changed. Also, the FDR precedent works against it.
Article III of the Constitution states that Justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”. “During good Behaviour” suggests a method of removal distinct from impeachment defined in Article II, Section 4 to require: “Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”, but the failure of President Jefferson’s attempt in 1805 to remove Associate Justice Samuel Chase (not to be confused with later Chief Justice Salmon Chase) for blatant partisanship seems to have created the precedent that the removal of a Justice is constitutionally identical to the removal of any Federal official: by impeachment and conviction as defined in Article II. This text, at first hand, seems to imply that setting term limits on the Supreme Court would require a Constitutional Amendment. But several writers have recently pointed out that “hold their Offices” does not explicitly mean being voting members of the Court. Congress might pass legislation that after 18 years of Court service, a Justice would transition from active status to an emeritus status, where they would perform supporting judicial duties and occasionally vote as the temporary replacement for a recusing active Justice. Maintaining the level of nine voting Justices would be done by appointing one new Justice in each two year Congressional term. This path would avoid the problems with simple “Court packing”.
Open to the debate. But all these ideas meet the simple problem that they'll all be called court packing, and the current court can have some veto. The issue isn't legality or one simple trick. It's overwhelming political pressure to end abortion bans. Whatever captures the public will is the right answer. Expansion is simpler and more likely to do that. And let them try to tit-for-tat.