Dave Weigel: If you want to turn SCOTUS into a weak House of Lords, that's its own thing. If you want a liberal SCOTUS you elect Dem presidents until Thomas and Alito die.

Dems were one Comey letter away from a 5-4 liberal court!

“democrats have to win every election forever” is not a sustainable solution and it is quite literally the one we are facing unless we break the power of this court

If you want to turn SCOTUS into a weak House of Lords, that's its own thing. If you want a liberal SCOTUS you elect Dem presidents until Thomas and Alito die.

Optional retirement makes this hard to pull off (you can’t risk losing a single election), so the answer is to make it illegal for justices to ever retire. The Drop Dead On The Bench act

Canada had a mandatory retirement age of 75 for our Supreme Court. Though we did just kick one off for getting drunk at a resort & sexually harassing some women, for which a guy kicked his ass.

wut. that's like required behavior for ours

In America, we go with judges who have broken the most laws since it means they probably know the most laws.

And remember, you have to win those elections without ever having anything to show for it or campaign on, because no Democratic president will ever be allowed to enact meaningful laws or policies with this court.

Or there should be some retirements in the Blade Runner sense. God-King Biden could make it happen before the holiday

There is a faster solution but it’s illegal for me to say it.

We need to also make it illegal for them to die. Can't take chances herre

Yeah the 'expand the court by N + 1 extra justices every time a new president is elected' plan is flat out superior. Not only does it immediately guarantee good rulings half the time, instead of 30 years of inanity, but it's main flaw - you have to keep winning, always - is the same flaw!

Constitution does not include any provision for judges to retire, states they have to serve while having good behavior. Allowing judges to retire is a violation of the letter and sure let's say the spirit of the law.

I like that this implies you can involuntarily nominate someone to remove them from other roles.

like sending a troublesome aristocrat into the priesthood

They server during "good behaviour" so I say they should be required to do something considered bad behaviour if they want to resign

Justices should actually be impartial. Revoke American citizenship and have them make all rulings from a remote island community in Nova Scotia

The good news is they’ve ruled that the president ordering air strikes on their houses is fine as long as it’s an official act.

Seems like you’re describing a very stupidly structured system that is desperately in need of drastic reform.

Gotta win the Senate too. Open SCOTUS seats don't necessarily get filled anymore.

Dem Presidents AND Dem Senate control for the next 25 years isn't a plan

We should have one branch of government be incredibly silly, as a treat

The most perfect form of government

Is expecting that kind of sustained success in a system that has a heavy pendulum pattern to elections remotely realistic though?

You need 66 dem senators too, since they won’t do anything with the filibuster and the merrick garland situation proved republicans can block anyone pretty much indefinitely.

I seem to recall we had a Dem president and still weren't allowed to have him appoint a justice during his tenure.

Dave stop posting clown style. There are no more rules

"Weak House of Lords" is the correct response. SCOTUS has no enforcement mechanism, and we should not pretend they do.

The actuarial tables give them 10-11 years, so keep up the pressure on the ethics stuff. Make sure their wives are angry. Pump up the blood pressure. If you serve them at a restaurant, bring out giant plates of fried food on the house.

I pick weak ass House of Lords court given the general awfullness of the court since it’s inception

“Yes sir may have another” is quite the status quo to keep! Nice.

SCOTUS already has overreached a lot. They have no codified power to e.g. make up fake immunities for cops, prosecutors or presidents. They made that power up, too

let’s do its own thing

Doesn't congress have something to do with this process, or are we assuming those elections move in lockstep?

The oldest justice is 75. When was the last time the Democrats won four elections in a row? Do you really think this is your best bet?

Post