America has a Supreme Court problem. Here's what the United States can learn from two island nations, Comoros and Fiji, about how to solve it with consociationalism and centripetalism.
Some great solutions for sure, Brian. However, when our Justices themselves, break the rules …. And clearly face no consequences, there is a far larger problem.
Terrific piece, as usual. I’m going to work on manifesting it into reality, as I have zero power beyond my meager spiritual offerings to make it so. But I do think we all feel the pressure of unsustainability building. Even the GOP, as evidenced by Mitch’s disingenuous op-ed that attempts to foreground moderate outcomes, understands the dangerous, toxic brew they’ve concocted has potential to blow up in their faces. Cold comfort, but a chink in his glib armor, nonetheless.
I like the recusal idea. Another would be term limits, but that runs up against the lifetime requirement of the Constitution. Thus I like FDR's approach to term limits. His proposal (shot down because do many people back then actually respected the Supreme Court) was a retirement age. When a justice reached it, he could retire or stay on (satisfying the "lifetime" requirement) BUT if s/he stayed on the current president could then nominate an additional justice. That might result in a president still nominating an ideologue, but some of your other reforms could help prevent that. I like this as an approach to expanding the court because it wouldn't result in a "tit for tat" expansion as the presidency changed parties. All the new president could look for would be retirement to create a spot for expansion.
Another approach which would lessen the "big money" effect on justices would be to make the kinds of "gifts" Thomas has received not just "need to report" but actually illegal, with narrow exceptions based on a monetary limit. Same rules and exceptions as now exist for reporting, but instead applying to illegality. To make it clear that it is unacceptable, the law should DEFINE such behavior as a "high crime or misdemeanor" to make it clear that violation is an impeachable offense. And then move to impeach. The justices could avoid impeachment easily--just don't take the gifts.
I like articles with solutions in addition to information or slant on the topic. So thanks for the inventive and badly needed suggestions for reform.
I have been curious, however if there is not a more immediate way to challenge the majority. My curiosity is about the vote on certiorari petitions before the court. It seems clear to me, for instance, that Dobbs should never have been chosen for review. The basis of the Missouri law was an all encompassing definition of the term "unborn child". The definition was absurd on it's face and it seems to me that the case may have been chosen (make that cherry-picked) in-part to legitimize a polarizing, emotional, shaming, political, nonsensical, non-medical, possibly religious but certainly unscientific term. Because this and other cases seem to be cherry-picked for their political statements rather than their legal substance I wonder if there isn't an expert who could dig into how these cases were chosen. If that process was corruptible and corrupted anywhere along its course there may be a more timely method of challenging the majority decision.
The caveat here is that I have no knowledge or insight about the corruptibility of the selection process but its just curious to me that there weren't more suitable cases to review. You know, if you think you see something, say something.
also, THANK YOU for the figures on the "activism" of the Warren Court. Very useful for countering that GOP claim that the current activism is the same thing.
Thank you for this article. We need to balance the court in order to reduce the polarization. We cannot function if the judiciary is seen as biased.
Some great solutions for sure, Brian. However, when our Justices themselves, break the rules …. And clearly face no consequences, there is a far larger problem.
Terrific piece, as usual. I’m going to work on manifesting it into reality, as I have zero power beyond my meager spiritual offerings to make it so. But I do think we all feel the pressure of unsustainability building. Even the GOP, as evidenced by Mitch’s disingenuous op-ed that attempts to foreground moderate outcomes, understands the dangerous, toxic brew they’ve concocted has potential to blow up in their faces. Cold comfort, but a chink in his glib armor, nonetheless.
I like the recusal idea. Another would be term limits, but that runs up against the lifetime requirement of the Constitution. Thus I like FDR's approach to term limits. His proposal (shot down because do many people back then actually respected the Supreme Court) was a retirement age. When a justice reached it, he could retire or stay on (satisfying the "lifetime" requirement) BUT if s/he stayed on the current president could then nominate an additional justice. That might result in a president still nominating an ideologue, but some of your other reforms could help prevent that. I like this as an approach to expanding the court because it wouldn't result in a "tit for tat" expansion as the presidency changed parties. All the new president could look for would be retirement to create a spot for expansion.
Another approach which would lessen the "big money" effect on justices would be to make the kinds of "gifts" Thomas has received not just "need to report" but actually illegal, with narrow exceptions based on a monetary limit. Same rules and exceptions as now exist for reporting, but instead applying to illegality. To make it clear that it is unacceptable, the law should DEFINE such behavior as a "high crime or misdemeanor" to make it clear that violation is an impeachable offense. And then move to impeach. The justices could avoid impeachment easily--just don't take the gifts.
I like articles with solutions in addition to information or slant on the topic. So thanks for the inventive and badly needed suggestions for reform.
I have been curious, however if there is not a more immediate way to challenge the majority. My curiosity is about the vote on certiorari petitions before the court. It seems clear to me, for instance, that Dobbs should never have been chosen for review. The basis of the Missouri law was an all encompassing definition of the term "unborn child". The definition was absurd on it's face and it seems to me that the case may have been chosen (make that cherry-picked) in-part to legitimize a polarizing, emotional, shaming, political, nonsensical, non-medical, possibly religious but certainly unscientific term. Because this and other cases seem to be cherry-picked for their political statements rather than their legal substance I wonder if there isn't an expert who could dig into how these cases were chosen. If that process was corruptible and corrupted anywhere along its course there may be a more timely method of challenging the majority decision.
The caveat here is that I have no knowledge or insight about the corruptibility of the selection process but its just curious to me that there weren't more suitable cases to review. You know, if you think you see something, say something.
also, THANK YOU for the figures on the "activism" of the Warren Court. Very useful for countering that GOP claim that the current activism is the same thing.