SageRat Discussion re Proposed Changes to be Made to the Supreme Court

Politics & Elections
1

I’d also like to note that there should be a system put in place to ensure that justices can be nominated and approved in a timely manner.

For example (and only for example - I’m not presuming this to be a perfect or sole-existing solution):

General Statement: No person can be nominated twice.

Stage 1: Upon a justice’s seat becoming vacant, the President shall have no more than 1 month’s time to nominate any number of persons to fill the seat. On failure to submit at least one candidate, during this one month period, the duty to propose nominees shall fall to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Stage 2: After a nomination is sent to the Senate, they shall have no more than 1 month’s time to vote to accept or decline said nomination - with the assent of 60% of eligible Senators required for acceptance.

Stage 3: If, after 2 months, the seat is still vacant then each member of the Senate shall, secretly, write the name of a fellow Senator down, who they desire be excluded from the selection process. In descending order of the number of exclusion votes, Senators will be excluded from any further votes on any governmental appointments - in perpetuity - until 10% of eligible Senators have been selected for exclusion. When vote counts are equal among a group, they shall be removed by random process from within that group.

In addition to the previous, any previous person who has nominated or had the right to nominate justices shall be ineligible to nominate judges. Instead, this duty falls to all persons who have, to this point, been nominated and who have not been marked ineligible. Each such individual may now submit nominees of their own to the Senate.

This process shall repeat at Stage 2, with a fresh deadline of 2 months at which point stage 3 will be repeated.

2

Too complicated. Step 1 is unneeded. It is inconceivable that a president would fail to nominate a justice to fill a vacancy. Step 2 still allows for rubes like McConnell to sabotage a pick.

My idea: The Senate has 60 days to reject a nomination, If the pick is not rejected, it is to be considered approved.

Term limits are a nonstarter since they need an amendment, and the states that benefit from the current corrupt and fascist court outnumber those that are harmed.

3

In some time of war or crisis, I could envision some issue that prevents the process from moving forward.

And, in general, the idea that you don’t need a fallback is 90% of the cause of all bugs in software. Elegance makes people happy when they look at a set of rules, but it’s rarely the right answer. Dead code doesn’t hurt and, sometimes, it saves.

4

The problem with this solution is that it doesn’t actually solve the issue. You have a Liberal Executive and a MAGA Senate, and they simply shoot down every candidate for 4-8 years until a MAGA President is elected. Suddenly, they’re able to fill 2-4 seats, all at once.

5

If you have a MAGA Senate you’re fucked anyway. If there is a MAGA Senate then in your Step 3, the 10% removed would be Democrats. Secret ballots don’t help if they conspire in advance.

6

There are several issues that would need to be worked out with this proposal (how are unexpected vacancies filled, what if a President/Senate refuse to nominate/confirm a justice, etc.) but Biden is right to stick to the topline points and not get lost in the weeds. We are the only major democracy that appoints our highest court’s judges for life. The Supreme Court is the only body in our system of government to whom we say, “police yourselves, we’re sure it’ll be fine.” This proposal will introduce long-overdue accountability to a body that has always been deliberately anti-democratic, but that has lost the sense of duty and decorum that previously restrained it.

7
  1. It’s a secret vote so strategic voting relies on the compliance of everyone - which isn’t guaraneed.
  2. I can improve the logic, just give me a moment for a v2.
  3. The Democrats wouldn’t go out quietly. Assuming that they’re at any significant percentage of the Senate, they’ll successfully take out the most extreme members of the opposite side and, on each round, the remaining voters will be less partisan and less extreme. A rewrite just improves the efficiency.
8

Which is an admission that we need Amendments that fine tune everything.

If the current system is leading to deadlock, sure you could just remove the rules and make it easier for people to go hog wild and run rough-shod over sanity. But, you can also set up rules that promote sane and reasonable people, rules that disempower cranks, etc. For example:

https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-biden-calls-for-major-changes-to-the-supreme-court/1004954/14?u=sage_rat

It’s all just ink on paper. We shouldn’t change the rules cavalierly but it is all still just a set of rules for how to find representatives and force them to cooperate with one another. You can change anything that needs changing. But it needs to be with an eye towards making true fixes, not just saying, “Fuck it.” Tearing stuff up, and washing your hands of the issue - which is what we have been doing by lowering our standards and removing rules.

9

Yes, we should fix the problems. Most of the problems, are beyond the reach of our ability to fix them (they’d require an amendment, which is politically basically impossible). But requiring a 60% supermajority was one of the problems, and that one, we were able to fix.

10

Version 2 of the filtering process:

General Statement: A Senator can be penalized by having their right to participate in governmental selection processes revoked. They cannot vote on nominated appointees and they cannot nominate any person for any role. They cannot chair any committee in the Senate. This punishment shall be termed “humbling” for the purpose of this Amendment, which occurs after being “humbled”. A humbled Senator may never be cured and retains this state in perpetuity.

Stage 2 (modification): If, after 2 months, the seat is still vacant then the Senate shall be divided into 3 groups:

  • Those who have voted both FOR and AGAINST nominees.
  • Those who have voted only FOR nominees.
  • Those who have voted only AGAINST nominees.

Should there be NO Senators among the first group then, first, the FOR group will be allowed to select for humbling as many AGAINST voters as is necessary to bring the two groups to an equal count. Following this, each remaining eligible Senator shall, secretly, write the name of a fellow Senator down, who they desire to be humbled. In descending order of the number of votes, Senators will be punished by humbling until 10% of eligible Senators have been removed (including those removed to balance the groups). When vote counts are equal across many, they shall be removed by random process from within that group.

If there are ONLY Senators in the first group, and none in the second or third, then 10% of all un-humbled Senators will be humbled, randomly. (Yes, this is exceedingly unlikely.)

If there are Senators in all three groups then the mixed group shall vote to remove from the AGAINST group until both the FOR and AGAINST groups are of equal size.

11

We are talking about Amendments - that’s what the thread is about - and, if an Amendment is necessary, and you’re electing people who would not take them up for consideration, when they are necessary, then that’s a voter issue not a politician issue.

This is you deciding, not politics. Because you choose who you will give a vote to. You don’t have to vote for any individual in any vote. It can be blank circles all the way down except that one guy who will fix this fucker.

12

Isn’t it a voter issue if people vote every 2 years for a different ideological tilt on the supreme court resulting in inconsistent rulings? Or a voter issue if people vote for politicians who leave important seats vacant rather than trying for compromise appointments?

13

It’s a voter issue if they think that we have no choice of who are politicians are.

And it’s a voter issue if they vote against anti-corruption measures.

14

The chances of voters getting an amendment going with the support of Congress is about equal to winning Powerball and Mega Millions in the same week.

15

That’s up to you. If you believe it to be true, then it will be true. If you decide to stop believing that, then it becomes untrue.

16

OK, but you think people have a choice, so we shouldn’t need institutional safeguards like a 60 vote threshold to prevent ping-ponging the supreme court as long as the voters are able to choose politicians who won’t do that.

17

When belief runs face-first into reality the nose of belief ends up bloody.

18

And two jacks are a half fizzbin.

19

Politicians don’t break into the Senate and set up shop.

The reality is, we send them there, because we assented to their occupation.

And we decide that, based on a shared understanding of what is and isn’t important.

If we all decide for nihilism then, yes, a nihilistic outcome is as good as “reality”. We’re going to just take a fork and jab it into our own eye because, clearly, that’s just the reality of the world.

Or, you know, we could stop talking ourselves into nihilism and telling people that NO, you have to actually be good and make good choices, and not give the vote to people who don’t deserve it.

In theory, workers are powerless to their boss. And then people realized, “Hey, they depend on us. We can team together and push back.” Unions were created.

You and I and every other voter can get our shit in gear and stop sharing and spreading a mutual political depression. Or not.

But it is up to us. The only thing in the way is a willingness to stop saying and endorsing dumb shit like that it’s all hopeless.

20

You can motivate people into doing things en masse - be it for Democracy, Communism, to overthrow a Tyranny, or buy Taylor Swift tickets. That’s all really just a matter of advertising and peer pressure. You can move people to do great or horrible things as a group.

Long term, you can’t rely on that (and, even, need to fear that it will go the wrong direction). You need systems that select and force things to be good. If that system reveals a negative reinforcement cycle, then you need to patch the system. And if the system has gone without patching for so long that it can’t modify itself then you need to go back to the people and try to create a movement.