politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I agree with everything you said, just want to point out that no amendment is needed. The Constitution explicitly grants that right to Congress without requiring non-standard approval such as a supermajority. It would just take a law.
The last overhaul was in 1869, which matched the number of Supreme Court justices with the number of (then) circuit courts. These are now federal district courts, and there are thirteen. I am all for doing the same thing they did in 1869: increasing the number of justices to thirteen to match the current number of district courts.
The amendment will be needed to impose term limits, which is sorely needed.
I don't disagree. There is a strong argument that SCOTUS term limits can be constitutionally imposed with legislation. But I would be the first to point out that not everyone agrees and of course, SCOTUS interprets legislation, which gives them veto power over their own term limits if that specific reform is undertaken legislatively. Either way, it's never even been tried, so who knows.
There is also an interesting proposal that instead of term limits, splitting the current roles of justices and attaching a length of service to specific judicial roles be used. In other words, have a justice sit on the general bench for eighteen years, and then move into an emeritus role where they remain a justice but take up specialized work for the court. They still "hold their Offices during good Behaviour" for as long as they like in this emeritus period, and thus fulfill the sole constitutional requirement, but others take their place on the larger bench. This idea too would require no amendment, but as good an idea as it is it will very likely never happen. (I think the Brennan Center link above covers this plan as well.)
For myself, I'd be happy if Congress just increased the number to thirteen to match the district courts without making any further provision, which would dilute the effect of the current corruption while opening no new loopholes for future McConnells to exploit. My concern is that if the number of justices are tied to anything, that thing -- like district courts -- will then become the football with which to game the court.
An amendment is the only way to make sure that the current court doesn't scuttle any novel way to reduce their power. Anything short of that will have the Conservative majority channeling the Founders to come up with an Originalist interpretation that, conveniently, agrees with their opinion.