Altering SCOTUS
It's very much part of the Democratic party's plan that, if the Senate hypocritically rams a Trump nominee into RBG's seat after refusing to seat Obama's last nominee on the grounds that it was an election year, the Democrats will eliminate the filibuster and expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court. (Note that both of these ideas require the Democrats to take the White House and the Senate, something a lot of people think they they'll do.) https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/ruth-b...
I have long supported both of these ideas, even when the GOP was in power. The filibuster became idiotic the moment the Senate stopped requiring Senators to speak continuously as part of their filibuster. The filibuster used to be a way for a Senator to show commitment to (or against) a new law, and was a way to persuade other Senators to come around to their side of thinking. But now all a Senator has to do is say, "I'm filibustering," and we all just pretend that it's happening, meaning every single law requires 60 votes to go anywhere, as that's what it takes to end a filibuster. It means few laws get passed and little gets done. The filibuster is not good for the country, and must be ended.
The Supreme Court is long outdated as well. Back when it was founded, the USA was a little strip of a country along the eastern seaboard, with a tiny population. Nine justices was plenty to represent everyone. Now the USA has 328 million people and spans a continent. We need far more than nine people to represent that many people spread over such a wide area. I'm thinking we need 23 or 25 SCOTUS justices at least, though I'm guessing that if the Democrats pack the court, we'll have 15 or 17.
And, while I'm at it, I also think SCOTUS justices should serve for 20 years at most. Back when the SCOTUS was created, you were lucky to live past 60. Now it's common for people to live and work well into their 80s, meaning this tiny handful of people can be appointed to the court in one generation, and still be making decisions two or even three generations later, when our society has changed and evolved past earlier thinking.
But I'll take two out of three of the above.
comments
I have long supported both of these ideas, even when the GOP was in power. The filibuster became idiotic the moment the Senate stopped requiring Senators to speak continuously as part of their filibuster. The filibuster used to be a way for a Senator to show commitment to (or against) a new law, and was a way to persuade other Senators to come around to their side of thinking. But now all a Senator has to do is say, "I'm filibustering," and we all just pretend that it's happening, meaning every single law requires 60 votes to go anywhere, as that's what it takes to end a filibuster. It means few laws get passed and little gets done. The filibuster is not good for the country, and must be ended.
The Supreme Court is long outdated as well. Back when it was founded, the USA was a little strip of a country along the eastern seaboard, with a tiny population. Nine justices was plenty to represent everyone. Now the USA has 328 million people and spans a continent. We need far more than nine people to represent that many people spread over such a wide area. I'm thinking we need 23 or 25 SCOTUS justices at least, though I'm guessing that if the Democrats pack the court, we'll have 15 or 17.
And, while I'm at it, I also think SCOTUS justices should serve for 20 years at most. Back when the SCOTUS was created, you were lucky to live past 60. Now it's common for people to live and work well into their 80s, meaning this tiny handful of people can be appointed to the court in one generation, and still be making decisions two or even three generations later, when our society has changed and evolved past earlier thinking.
But I'll take two out of three of the above.
comments
No comments have been added yet.
