- cross-posted to:
- usnews
- cross-posted to:
- usnews
President Joe Biden promised Black voters Wednesday that he would appoint progressives to the US Supreme Court if elected to a second term, suggesting he expects vacancies on the high court over the next four years.
“The next president, they’re going to be able to appoint a couple justices, and I’ll be damned — if in fact we’re able to change some of the justices when they retire and put in really progressive judges like we’ve always had, tell me that won’t change your life,” he said during a campaign rally in Philadelphia.
It was as explicit a warning as Biden could offer about the stakes of the upcoming election, and a clear reminder that some of the nine justices have entered their seventies.
Clarence Thomas is 75 and Samuel Alito is 74; both are conservative and appointed by Republican presidents. Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal who was nominated by President Barack Obama, turns 70 next month.
He should pull an FDR and try to get the court expanded to 12.
11 or 13. You don’t do even numbers on the SC so there aren’t voting ties.
13 makes the most sense. There are 13 circuits, why not 13 Supreme Court justices?
…and the district judges themselves elect/appoint their representatives to SCotUS. Get political appointees out of the top bench, I’ll take an unelected meritocracy over cronyism and patronage any day.
I like that Idea. It doesn’t entirely solve the problem of political appointees since the lower court judges are themselves appointed, but it does provide a layer of abstraction to where the judge isn’t directly beholden to a party, in theory.
It’s not like Trump appointed hundreds of judges… right?
It would at least (in theory) kick the politicization of judges to the circuit level and promote the same borderline majority opinions there instead - but make accession to SCotUS a supermajority. Hopefully then the only ones they can agree on are outstanding jurists.
Or if it does fall prey to partisan agendas, then it makes the ideological bent of SCotUS stable-ish.
I…huh. Never thought of this tbh.
Yeah agreed. I never quite understood FDRs thinking on putting an even number of people in the court. We have so many 5-4 decisions now an even court would be chaos.
Force a definitive decision, instead of precedent that keeps getting overturned?
Tennis woks kinda like that.
Can’t they recuse or abstain from voting though?
They can, but as we can see from Thomas and Alito, they don’t.
Yes. But that rarely happens (usually just because of health issues). There are very few decisions that have been made where all the members didn’t weigh in. When even votes have happened the lower court ruling will stand as is. Which is particularly bad when you have places like the 5th circuit trying their best to fascism.
12 with ties being decided by a season of survivor.
13 is a better number, it matches the number of Federal Appelate Courts.
If Democrats manage to take both houses of Congress and the Presidency, I would advocate for immediately passing a law to increase the size of the SC to 13, effective for the start of the SC’s 2026 term.
Then, Democrats and Republicans should go to work to enact a Constitutional Amendment for term limits on the SC. Republicans would finally have incentive to do it quickly, or else Biden would name 4 young Liberals to the SC who will be there 40+ years without term limits.
also 13 original colonies… 13 stripes on the flag.
some magahead: so that means 1.2…3…4…7 republicans… and 1…2…6 confederates?
Hey, some of us smart people can’t do that basic math either 😭
(In my case, calculus and ADHD combined powers to make me useless with actual numbers, real and imaginary, lol)
Imaginary numbers aren’t Real - they can’t hurt you.
I think a better solution should tie SC seats to the number of federal district courts. That way, should the number grow in the future, SC seats will be added automatically
Yes, that is better, but would require a Constitutional Amendment to formalize, otherwise a future Congress can just change it. Which is why you start with expansion, then force the Republicans to the table to discuss the amendment under a time limit.
If I’m not mistaken, Biden could add seats if he wanted to, so could any president. I think no one wants to do it because then the other party would add more as well.
The size of the SC is set through legislation, so a law would need to pass Congress, and the President would need to sign it. So one party can’t do it unilaterally unless they control both houses of Congress and the Presidency.
I wish he would. The only thing stopping him, ironically, is his fear of appearing partisan (and angering “moderate” republicans, if they even exist anymore), despite the fact that that’s exactly what this would be attempting to remedy.
I’d love to be wrong, but he’ll never do it. He’s barely even willing to talk about the supreme court’s corruption and blatant bias. I think he’s allergic to that much institutional change.
He called Trump semi-fascist in 2022 and backed off since. Biden does not push the limits of any power he wields.
You’ll note there has been an endless amount of arguments about Biden’s limitations to his ability and power to effect change, but never that he is pushed up against those limits.
Biden was most popular when he was fighting for Green New Deal and BBB. But his inability to whip his party into voting for the platform the Democratic party ran on was disappointing and he has never recovered.
He also implied he would be a one-term president and turn the reins over to someone younger. I’m so fucking sick of old, white men!
I hate that his pledge to be a one-term president was the deciding factor for me in 2020. I was so frustrated with the Clyburn maneuver to neutralize Bernie’s momentum that I needed something that made me believe the goddamn reality of this 2024 ticket wouldn’t come to be.
He won’t. Biden would have done it already.