२६ ऑक्टोबर, २०१९

Can Democratic Party candidate get American voters activated over changing the Supreme Court?

I'm reading Robert Barnes in WaPo — "Polls show trust in Supreme Court, but there is growing interest in fixed terms and other changes":
●A Gallup poll that shows rising public approval for the court, with far more Americans thinking it is “about right” ideologically than either too conservative or too liberal.

●An Annenberg Public Policy Center survey showing two-thirds of people trust the court to operate in the best interests of the public, and 70 percent think the court has the right amount of power.

●A massive survey from Marquette Law School finding that a majority of Americans have more confidence in the Supreme Court than other parts of the federal government and that few believe the justices take extremely liberal or extremely conservative positions....
Apparently, people aren't feeling too activated about the Supreme Court, even after that uproar over Justice Kavanaugh last year. Nevertheless, there are ideas about changing it. There's ending life tenure, which requires a constitutional amendment and therefore won't happen, but Marquette asked about it and 72% favored fixed terms for Justices over life terms.

I think the results would be very different if the question had been, "The Constitution provides for Supreme Court Justices to have their positions for life; would you support an amendment process to change that to a fixed term?" That bundles 2 ideas that I think are influential: 1. If something is in the Constitution, it was probably put there for a good reason and is part of our tradition, and 2. It's so hard to change the Constitution, that any talk about it is just for political effect.

The other proposed change, as phrased in the Marquette poll, is "Increase the number of justices on the US Supreme Court." This would not require a constitutional amendment and there's a history to this idea, which is generally referred to as "Court-packing." The poll, quite properly, didn't use the word "Court-packing."
The respondents in the Marquette poll opposed “court-packing” by a 57 percent to 42 percent margin. But Democrats were evenly split on the idea, and even that 40 percent support was startling to [one law professor].

“I can’t emphasize enough what a sea change that is,” [she] said. The term court-packing “used to be an epithet.”
Yeah, but the pollsters did not use the term, and I think it would have skewed the results, because would be heard as pejorative.

I think it's a terrible idea for Democrats to push these changes. They should not be talking about tearing down what people respect, only about choosing better nominees and improving the balance of types of judicial minds on the Court. A subset of voters could get activated about changing the Court, but if that happened, it would bring out conservatism in far more people. Court-packing looks blatantly political, and advocating it makes a candidate looks untrustworthy.

ADDED: Pete Buttigieg just did an interview (with Cosmopolitan) in which he "floated the ideas" of Court-packing and term limits. He presents these ideas as a potential cure for "the descent of the Supreme Court into becoming yet another political body":

[R]ight now, every time there’s a vacancy, there’s this apocalyptic ideological battle and it hurts the court and it hurts the country.

So I’ve floated several ideas and deliberately kept some level of open-mindedness about which ones are going to work best.
He's not really advocating these bad ideas, just talking about them for effect. Let's be open-minded... or, that is, let's have "some level of open-mindedness." (Are you ready to be deeply immersed in Buttigieg rhetoric? It's looked nice from a distance, but, close up, it may be an infuriating muddle!)
One of them would be to have 15 members, but 5 of them can only be seated if the other 10 unanimously agree. The idea here is you get more justices who think for themselves. Justices like Justice Kennedy or Justice Souter...
It's an "idea"... not his idea, and he's not owning the prediction that you'd get Kennedys and Souters this way or even that Kennedys and Souters are what we want on the Court. What's this idea of "justices who think for themselves"?! He must mean Justices who are less predictably conservative or liberal, but are swing Justices "thinking for themselves" and the other Justices are not? If the other Justices can't think for themselves, how would you ever get every single one of them to embrace this alien — a Justice who thinks for himself — into their midst? It would just be 10 Justices forever, and why would 10 be better than 9? Because tie votes are so helpful?
Another approach would be to have term limits. You know, Supreme Court justices, they used to just retire like everybody else. But now, we have these strange scenarios of people clinging, almost seeming to cling on for dear life because they want to make sure that they leave the bench under the right presidency. And this would help deal with that issue. Someone suggested that we rotate judges on and off the appellate bench.
Ha ha. That was some clear talk. Right now, it seems to point directly at Ruth Bader Ginsburg — "seeming to cling on for dear life because they want to make sure that they leave the bench under the right presidency." I'm surprised he said that. And he is right that Justices are hanging onto to their power too far into old age. This is an issue that resonates nicely with his own political struggle, as a young man in a race with 3 elderly candidates in front of him.
The reason I’m introducing these very bold ideas is to elevate our imagination about them.
It's all about playing with ideas, not actually embracing them. Stretch your mind!
But I’m not arriving in office saying I have the answer on this one. So the first step that I’ll do is to appoint a commission with this mission: Make the Supreme Court less political. Give us a road map to do that. And then based on their recommendations, I will go to Congress with a proposal. If absolutely necessary, we might have to have a conversation about an amendment, but I believe most of these reforms could be achieved within the framework of the current constitution.
We might need to have a conversation! We need a commission and we might need a conversation. I like the idea of nothing happening, with a slight opening for the possibility that way in the future, something could happen, if it ever proved better than nothing. If Buttigieg is running on the secret slogan "Better than nothing is a high standard," he's my guy.

५९ टिप्पण्या:

Francisco D म्हणाले...

Court-packing looks blatantly political, and advocating it makes a candidate looks untrustworthy.

After the Kavanaugh hearings, "blatantly political" seems to be par for the course. I am surprised that people were not shocked, but maybe they were and the press does not want to cover it.

David Begley म्हणाले...

The Dems only talk about changing SCOTUS and the Electoral College after they lost elections. We never heard about these two items when Obama was President. Sore losers.

iowan2 म्हणाले...

Anyone got a list of constitutional changes the left require to advance their agenda?

Anyway. The poll that asked if SCOTUS is "advancing the best interest of the people" is so scary. People advance the "best interest" of the people. How would any judge at any level divine what the best interest would be?

gilbar म्हणाले...

SO,
When the shooting war starts; will Most People just sit it out?

Wilbur म्हणाले...

"They (Democrats) should not be talking about tearing down what people respect ..."

Like my father would say, sister, that ship sailed a long time ago.

AllenS म्हणाले...

Unfortunately, the women on the Supreme Court make their decisions solely on their feelings. Not good for the country. Not even a hint of cruel neutrality. Or is it?

MountainMan म्हणाले...

If it is working and the public seems to be pleased with it then you can count on the Democrats to screw it up. I can't think of anything they have pushed in recent years that has been to our benefit.

Ann Althouse म्हणाले...

"After the Kavanaugh hearings, "blatantly political" seems to be par for the course."

Dealing with Kavanaugh, the Democrats continually POSED as protecting the integrity of the Court and serving the rule of law. It may not be a believable effect, but it could be worse. They could come out and say directly that the Court is a political institution and they intend to exercise their political powers to the maximum. They don't do that.

Mark म्हणाले...

Wasn't that Marquette poll just 1400 people on a national scale. Seems less than 'massive' to me.

tim maguire म्हणाले...

9 justices is a nice number. My court-related amendment is staggered 18-year terms. That way, every presidential term includes 2 appointments. That’ll take much of the fuel out of the confirmation fire.

gilbar म्हणाले...

Our Beloved Professor Althouse points out that what people SAY and DO aren't the same

They could come out and say directly that the Court is a political institution and they intend to exercise their political powers to the maximum. They don't do that.

They don't SAY that. They've been DOING my Whole Life

Wilbur म्हणाले...

"(i)t could be worse. They could come out and say directly that the Court is a political institution and they intend to exercise their political powers to the maximum. They don't do that."

I think their present posture is much worse than if they would come out and be honest about what they're doing. It might be worse for their prospects of success but at least they'd be honest about it.

Mr. Majestyk म्हणाले...

Terms limits would be less effective than advocates think. Justices could just retire early when a President of their party is in power.

Jaq म्हणाले...

These polls are just the prelude to a campaign to destroy the legitimacy of the courts. Democrats use polls the way a pilot uses his instruments, as feedback on how well they are doing going where they wanted to go all along. This whole secret hearing with cherry picked leaks on top is about polls only and the purpose is to get the polls where they need to be.

Darrell म्हणाले...

Can anyone really support Democrats after their actions of the last three years?
If you do, I don't want to associate with you.

Howard म्हणाले...

No. The average voter is not that deep into politics.

Unknown म्हणाले...

> They could come out and say directly that the Court is a political institution and they intend to exercise their political powers to the maximum. They don't do that.

Leave it to Beto to let their cat out of the bag.

Won't they find an end run around court packing, just like they did with Obamacare and now with impeachment?

wendybar म्हणाले...

I agree with AllenS @6:37am. RGB just won 1 million dollars for her liberal court decisions.

Fernandinande म्हणाले...

Slightly over 50% of voters can't name any one of the nine government lawyers.

Gojuplyr831@gmail.com म्हणाले...

Term limits for Supreme Court Justices? Notice how the idea of term limits for Congress seems to be studiously avoided? Wonder why. Maybe when the full Barr investigation comes out people will be so sickened they will support term limits for Congress to prevent them from being in office long enough to be completely corrupted. I doubt it, but it is a nice dream.

Temujin म्हणाले...

The entire point of the Constitution is to avoid governance by majority rules, or an even lower standard- using polls taken by people with an agenda, asking questions of people ill-educated. The Constitution is there to protect us from the worse angels of our nature.

But you have to follow it's instructions for it to work.

Temujin म्हणाले...

There should not be another Democrat elected to office for two generations.

Fernandinande म्हणाले...

I think I need to ask an attorney if I'm triggered:

Record Gender: (DO NOT ASK. RECORD ONLY ONE RESPONSE)
1 Male
2 Female

Dust Bunny Queen म्हणाले...

My opinion for what it is worth.

#1. 9 justices is a good number. Too few would narrow the scope of the various thought processes and too many just creates chaos and more importantly a log jam. 9 is good because it is an uneven number and would avoid tie votes which just frustrate everyone. Make a DAMNED decision! That is what you are there for.

#2. There SHOULD be a term limit based on ageof the justices. Not based on years in the position but based age. When the Constitution was written most people didn't live very long lives and even the wealthy who lived to the grand old age of 70 were exceptional.

Dying younger has its advantages in that you don't develop mental/cognition deficiencies. Alzhimers, Dementia were not seen as much in those days because....you were DEAD already. So. Retire at the age of 75. Enjoy some retirement and let a younger person who has the stamina and ability to serve. Instead of drooling onto the desk and sleeping in public at important events, let someone who has all their marbles take your place.

(I say all this in a rather stark manner because I am dealing with two relatives who have Dementia, Alzheimer's, illness and some physical disabilities from old age My Father and MiL. No way in HELL would I want either of these wonderful and "used to be" very smart people in charge of ANYTHING!!! Shit. They don't know what day it is or even who they are talking to much of the time.)

#3. Being old doesn't always mean that you are demented but it might mean that you are fluffing off more of the work load to Clerks and subordinates. Someone else is making the rulings and decisions. There should be some way to make sure that the RULINGS by these elderly, sickly and demented Justices (YEAH. Looking a YOU Ruthie) are not being made by the unknown and likely partisan Clerical staff. How that can be done. I have no idea.

My suspicion is that much of some of the Justice's work is NOT being done by them at all. If that is the case...Why even have a Supreme Court. Just put the decisions up for vote and let Mob Rule prevail.

MadisonMan म्हणाले...

I think term limits are good. They should also be applied to Congress. I could get behind this Amendment to the Constitution. The problem is that Career Politicians -- the bane of citizens -- would never support it. If you are 75 and have been in office for >20 years, you're out.

Maybe when the full Barr investigation comes out

Oh, that's never coming out.

Mrs. X म्हणाले...

“ They could come out and say directly that the Court is a political institution and they intend to exercise their political powers to the maximum. They don't do that.”

They don’t SAY it. They just do it. (But maybe that’s what you meant.)

Leland म्हणाले...

They should not be talking about tearing down what people respect, only about choosing better nominees and improving the balance of types of judicial minds on the Court.

Have Democrat candidates offered anything else this election cycle? About the only thing they've suggested by respected is the CIA and FBI, but only because Democrats are using them to overthrow Trump. Democrats have actively demonized ICE agents enforcing the laws that Congress enacted. The entire DOJ is in shambles, yet Democrats also think the same DOJ will easily by able to collect firearms from Americans. And in their mind it will work, if only they can get enough Justices on the Supreme Court to nullify the 2nd Amendment.

Bay Area Guy म्हणाले...

There's no reason to add more Justices to the Court or impose term limits. Mayor Pete and weasel Dems simply don't like it when Republican Presidents win elections and appoint strict constructionists to the Bench, after confirmation by a Republican Senate (who also won elections).

Mayor Pete is just using weasel words to float bad ideas to blunt the above.

AllenS म्हणाले...

MadisonMan said...
I think term limits are good. They should also be applied to Congress. I could get behind this Amendment to the Constitution.

Amen to that.

gilbar म्हणाले...

yet Democrats also think the same DOJ will easily by able to collect firearms from Americans

Well, Beta O'Rourke is on record stating that ALL TRUE AMERICANS will GLADLY turn in their guns and ammunition. According to Beta; the only people that won't turn in their guns are the criminals and mass murderers... And they've got nothing to do with his desire to collect guns: Criminals can Keep their guns, it's AMERICANS that worry him

John henry म्हणाले...

PDJT should come out in favor of raising the number to 15 or so.

He can say something like "finally the democrats have a good idea. Let's work together to make this happen."

Since he gets to appoint the extra 6,that will be the last we hear of it.

I am fine with the existing number of justices

John Henry

Tommy Duncan म्हणाले...

"[R]ight now, every time there’s a vacancy, there’s this apocalyptic ideological battle and it hurts the court and it hurts the country."

Gee, which party causes that ideological battle?

cyrus83 म्हणाले...

All of the Democrat bluster on the Supreme Court reflects their worry that they may well lose it for a considerable period of time. You can bet if we had President Hillary right now and only Thomas, Alito, and Roberts left from Republican presidents, Democrats would be fine with the Court, with life tenure, and with everything else they're now griping about.

The Democrat plan is that if they can't control the Supreme Court, then they will do their best to delegitimize the Court and burn the institution to the ground and destroy its credibility with the public. Said plan will go nuclear in magnitude if RBG's seat becomes vacant while Trump is still president.

gilbar म्हणाले...

DBQ said...
#2. There SHOULD be a term limit based on ageof the justices. Not based on years in the position but based age. When the Constitution was written most people didn't live very long lives and even the wealthy who lived to the grand old age of 70 were exceptional.


What happens to a General of the Army, who reaches the age of 64? Mandatory Retirement
the retirement under subsection (a) of that officer may be deferred—
(1) by the President, but such a deferment may not extend beyond the first day of the month following the month in which the officer becomes 68 years of age


once an Officer is 68 THEY ARE OUT
Why? because we don't want senile old coots running the Army
BUT! senile old coots Are Just Fine for the General's Bosses
Let's Change that!

iowan2 म्हणाले...

Dealing with Kavanaugh, the Democrats continually POSED as protecting the integrity of the Court and serving the rule of law. It may not be a believable effect, but it could be worse.

Democrats are judged by what the say, even when their actions contradict.

Compared to President Trump. He says he wants Ukraine to look into the 2016 election interference, His actions support his statements. Democrats read his mind and say he demanded Ukraine dig up dirt on his political opponent.

Amadeus 48 म्हणाले...

Mayor Pete speaks with a forked tongue.
I think the Supreme Court is respected generally because it occupies center left, center right ground. Is it the last, best hope for comity?

Karen of Texas म्हणाले...

"Yeah, but the pollsters did not use the term[court-packing], and I think it would have skewed the results, because would be heard as pejorative."

I think it's interesting that you think some large swath of those polled, never mind if expanded to voting age citizens, have a clue what  "court-packing" is or what it means. They probably don't even know what pejorative means. And further, if informed what court-packing is/means, some ghastly large percentage of under 45ers would latch on and think it a grand idea - like Pete does with his mild mannered, innocent sounding "elevate our imagination" - because who wants to be in the crowd of non elevators?!? Why, the elevators can answer that - the *deplorables* of course.

I'm obviously not optimistic or hopeful concerning our citizen brethren.

rcocean म्हणाले...

This is always how the D's and liberals operate. It starts out with "Hey, lets just talk" or "Lets have a conversation" and then their ideas get normalized, then we move on to action and changing society and the law. Of course, R's and Conservatives never catch on, since they only see one move ahead.

The D's have NO Reason to complain. They have 4 justices to the R's Five. Of the last Four Presidents covering 28 years, the D's appointed 4 Justices, and the R's 4. So what are they squawking about? Simple, in October 2016, they thought they had the SCOTUS locked up for the next 20 years. Hillary would renominate Garland, giving them the crucial 5th vote, then President Hillary would replace Kennedy with another Liberal, and Ginsberg would retire and Hillary would nominate a younger, even more left-wing version of her.

The new "Kagan Supreme court" would've then gone to work on American society. Immigration laws ruled unconstitutional, all Republican gerrymanders unconstitutional, laws against affirmative action - unconstitutional, laws requiring ID to vote - unconstitutional, 2nd Amendment gutted, busing across city/county lines Ok'd - and so on and so on. It would've made the Warren Court look like a bunch of frightened moderates. Its reason Number 231, they hate Trump so much.

Bob Smith म्हणाले...

“We didn’t get our way. Waaaa, Waaaaa.” Bangs spoon on high chair. Cries biiig tears.

Lucien म्हणाले...

The "Amending the Constitution is too hard and will never happen" line is a fig-leaf to legitimize efforts to let the Constitution "evolve" by extra-constitutional means. By adopting it, Ann enables those who want judges to decide how those changes should come about, without appreciating how many of those judges will be Trump appointees. Used to be you could count on conservative judges to play by the rules, while liberal judges indulged in "living" constitutionalism. Not sure that works anymore.

After the post-civil war amendments there was about a 50-year drought, then 11 amendments in the 20th century (although two just canceled each other out), now another drought. That doesn't mean amendments are impossible, or won't happen. Wouldn't there be broad support for an amendment to end gerrymandering (bankrolled by Soros, Koch, and Gates)? How about a short one "The Second Amendment to this Constitution shall not apply to the States"?

Michael K म्हणाले...

A successful impeachment would certainly get the Convention of States going quickly.

dbp म्हणाले...

"The poll, quite properly, didn't use the word "Court-packing.""

Quite properly? I think it would be negligent to not use the term. If mayor Pete becomes president and has a majority in the Senate and then decides to add 6 justices, that would be a massive power grab.

Dust Bunny Queen म्हणाले...

This is always how the D's and liberals operate. It starts out with "Hey, lets just talk" or "Lets have a conversation"

Exactly. However, they don't want a "conversation". The translation for those phrases is "SHUT UP and listen". No talking. No conversing. Just verbiage from one side and no opposing thoughts allowed. They will ram their agenda down your throat and you'd better not disagree.

The Dems and progressives (not liberal in the classic term) are in essence and in action, Dictators and Fascists. If you disagree....shut up!!

This why the 2nd Amendment is so very important. It protects all the other Amendments. This is why they want to gut the 2nd. The rest will fall like dominoes

Birkel म्हणाले...

Terms limits are a terrible idea without civil service reforms.
Do we really want to be RULED by the Peter Strzoks of the world?

Are you people blind to that danger?
Removing politicians after a given term but leaving the entrenched bureaucrats to run things is WORSE than what we currently have.

Roughcoat म्हणाले...

The Supreme Court is too powerful. Its decisions are too consequential. It wields de facto executive and legislative power, with little in the way of checks on its actions.

Wilbur म्हणाले...

I read a book by George Will about 25 years laying out the case for term limits for government work generally. I found it most persuasive.

I wonder if he's changed his mind.

mockturtle म्हणाले...

It wields de facto executive and legislative power, with little in the way of checks on its actions.

This is so, roughcoat. The only check on the SCOTUS is 'court packing' and it's not always effective. The Warren Court did disastrous damage to our Constitution and most of the damage has yet to be rectified.

Francisco D म्हणाले...

Dealing with Kavanaugh, the Democrats continually POSED as protecting the integrity of the Court and serving the rule of law. It may not be a believable effect, but it could be worse

I think you are right in a technical sense, Althouse. However, the Senate proceedings were such an obviously manipulative sham that only extremely partisan Democrats can likely believe that their Senators were protecting the integrity of the court.

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves म्हणाले...

Supreme court is only;y political if it happens to tilt right.

If it tilts left - no problem!

Reality is the leftists generally vote in lockstep.

effinayright म्हणाले...

Ann Althouse said...
"After the Kavanaugh hearings, "blatantly political" seems to be par for the course."

Dealing with Kavanaugh, the Democrats continually POSED as protecting the integrity of the Court and serving the rule of law. It may not be a believable effect, but it could be worse. They could come out and say directly that the Court is a political institution and they intend to exercise their political powers to the maximum. They don't do that.
*************

Is that a defense for what the Dems actually DID by trying to ruin Kavanaugh's reputation and life??

IOW are we are ^blessed^ that they just didn't come right out and shoot him in the Senate?

Lucien म्हणाले...

Age-related term limits would exacerbate the current trend toward younger nominees. Staggered 18-year terms would yield (on average) two nominations per presidential term, and encourage the selection of older, more experienced justices.

Yancey Ward म्हणाले...

If the Democrats win the House, Senate, and Presidency next year, they will expand the court. They are telling you today what they are going to do. Sure, they will hem and haw about it on the campaign trail, but once in office, they will move forward. And a filibuster won't be allowed to prevent it- that will also be thrown out for expediency.

Yancey Ward म्हणाले...

I would, though, support fixed limits, and for me the fixed limit should be about a decade. It would encourage the appointment of older and more experienced judges. Other pet rules of mine would be that a federal judge shouldn't have law degree or have held any other federal office other than another federal judgeship.

effinayright म्हणाले...

People regularly point to how much longer (roughly 20 years) people live today as opposed to the 1930's, when the Social Security system ws set up. When Washington attempts to deal with the systemm's impending bankruptcy, increasing the retirement age for full eligibility is one option. Reducing benefits is another, but politically deadly.

Yet for some reason life-long tenure on the Court can't be touched, even though judges become physically and (dare we say it?) intellectually infirm, with clerks writing the opinions as aged Justices fill their droolcups.

(At some point people should demand "proof life" photos of RBG every Friday, with her holding up the day's copy of the WaPo.)

I've said it before: if Trump wins a landslide and his political coat-tails pull just three more states over to GOP rule in their legislatures, we'll have a shot at holding an Article V Convention of the States.

Amending the jurisdiction of the Court would be at the top of the do-list, and capping Justice's terms at, say, 75, right up there with it.

Ann Althouse म्हणाले...

"Is that a defense for what the Dems actually DID by trying to ruin Kavanaugh's reputation and life??"

I'm not trying to defend them, only to describe what they did. They POSED as doing something virtuous and in service of the rule of law. Would it be better if they'd been forthright about what they were doing? No, I think it's better that they believe we expect them not to believe in the rule of law and we'll punish them politically if they don't at least pretend.

Jim at म्हणाले...

Maybe when the full Barr investigation comes out people will be so sickened they will support term limits for Congress to prevent them from being in office long enough to be completely corrupted.

The problem with term limits is it gives more power to the un-elected bureaucrats. They're the ones behind the attempted coup. Congress is simply dancing to their beat.

Birkel म्हणाले...

"I think it's better that they believe we expect them not to believe in the rule of law and we'll punish them politically if they don't at least pretend."

If they were straightforward with admitting they don't care about the rule of law and they only wanted to destroy Kavanaugh to protect their politically aligned Court, how would that be worse?

Honest question.

Birkel म्हणाले...

Jim at

He gets it.

Michael McNeil म्हणाले...

I like Glenn Reynolds' suggestion from last year that the Supreme Court be increased to 59 justices, serving for life as now, the original 9 still appointed by the President, while the additional 50 would be appointed — 1 each as “their” seat becomes available — by the governors of the several states. This would keep the President — and any political party drifting too far from what the American states want as a whole — from unduly dominating the court. Then let the Democrats try to pack it beyond that point!