@bluebelle Congress could do that, but so many of our greatest justices (RBG, John Paul Stevens) get really good after a couple of decades.
Instead progressives need to push Biden and a dem congress to take back what was stolen, and also to modernize the fed judiciary. It's too small as it is. Litigants wait years for court dates. And no more "blue slips" (senators from certain states have a right of refusal for judges appointed to the circuits their states are in). This is another norm the GOP broke. They filled liberal circuits with right wingers. We should fill conservative circuits with reasonable judges. Honestly, that's all you need. You don't even need super liberal judges. They all move to the left eventually, except the ones who were extremists to begin with (like Thomas).
Dems need to take their power and use it.
Like Amy Coney Barrett, some of these appointed judges had never tried a case in court. Is it possible to limit their terms?
You didn't tag me, but unfortunately, @lynnventura is incorrect; Congress alone cannot do that. Judicial life terms are hard-coded into Article III of the Constitution, so changing that would require an amendment. Congress can, however, expand the judiciary at all levels if they deem it necessary to do so, and in my not-so-humble opinion, they should definitely do so. Quite apart from the SCOTUS, the federal court system is far too small and inefficient to handle the case loads they are being asked to deal with.
@tgraf66 @Lynnventura
Thanks for both your comments. I had wondered what, if any changes could be made to the current structure of both the Supreme Court and the federal court system. Your comments help me understand the limits and options involved with both. Lynn, I hadn't considered the wisdom that comes with many years of service and see your point. Our government seems so antiquated in the federal court system and the electoral college. I want our republic to stand and prosper with changes reflecting society today, not be stuck in structures from the 1790's.
Article III doesn't expressly grant lifetime tenure, so I think congress alone can limit the terms with a simple majority, but I still wouldn't favor that. I'd prefer something more balanced in favor of the 21st century, not the 18th. :)
Last night I threw 3 cards on Barrett. I used the Thoth deck.
I asked: Please tell me about Amy Coleman Barrett and her nomination to the Supreme Court.
It doesn't look good for her which seems a bit surprising.
1st card- 9 of Swords/ Cruelty. I am sensing a painful time.
2nd card- 8 of Cups/ Indolence- a dark card, broken and loss felt
3td card- Reverse 9 of Cups-/ Happiness (not happy). It looks like the happiness light is shooting away from the cups. What was happiness is leaving, fast.
I am not sure how the Happiness card ended up reversed It was the only one in the deck that way so it seems that it was meant to be.
I am wondering if a few Republican senators vote NO... and that ends the process?
I would love any thoughts family. I am an amateur at this.
@lynnventura Article III, Section 1 states:
The judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour...
Regarding this, https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-iii/clauses/45 , among other Constitutional interpretation sites (all of them that I've found, in fact) says:
The language about “holding offices during good behaviour” has been interpreted to mean that the only way federal judges can be removed from office is if the House of Representatives impeaches them, and the Senate convicts them, of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Only fifteen judges have ever been impeached (that is, formally accused by the House of Representatives) and only eight have been convicted and removed from office. For practical purposes, any judge who does not commit a crime (or do something equally bad) has “lifetime tenure” and will stay in office until he or she dies or voluntarily steps down.
This interpretation hinges on the fact that there is no other Constitutionally mandated or permitted method for removing federal judges, so creating one would require an amendment.
The terms could be modified - again by amendment - but such a change must be carefully considered since that could mean a much more volatile judicial system. Term limits would force judges to be replaced much more often and those appointments could - and likely would - be even more political than they are now. In addition, as you noted, there is definitely wisdom conferred by experience.
Rather than limiting the terms, I would propose that the vetting process be required to be completely public, and that no one could be appointed to any federal bench without having had a minimum of 10 years of serving as both a trial and appellate judge in other levels of the judiciary.
Right, but how does one define "their offices?" Would that be just a supreme court seat, or any position on the federal bench? As with all things legal, it's all in the wording. :)
I believe there's a bill that's going to be introduced soon (by Ro Khanna), proposing term limits, that seeks to avoid a constitutional challenge. And even if there is a challenge, can you imagine SCOTUS reviewing that case? That would be fun.
@lynnventura That is specifically defined already. The language specifies both the Supreme Court and inferior courts, i.e., circuit, appellate, etc. Since the Constitution rightly concerns itself only with the federal government and not the states, the phrase "their offices" includes any and all federal judgeships appointed by the Executive, as they all are.
Unless the bill by Ro Khanna is a proposal to amend the Constitution, the Supreme Court would have no issue with declaring it unconstitutional, as they should in light of Article III, Section 1 regardless of the political leanings of the justices.
@lovendures, about your card reading. You are good at this in that you saw those cards as dark and negative, but I think the cards are talking about her feelings, not whether she will get confirmed.
I feel she will be confirmed.
I feel the GOP will be able to pull it off. They've got $250 million of donors' money resting on this. This confirmation is the most important thing the GOP can do for it's wealthy sponsors before the election.
I threw cards on her last week and the cards also were negative, and I felt they showed she was feeling miserable. Her religious fundamentalist sect, People of Praise, that is the biggest part of her existence, is being maligned all over the country now. She thinks they've been wrongly maligned and she's right that linking them to the Handmaid's Tale is incorrect. It is likely causing religious persecution against People of Praise and other extreme sects as well. But all the GOP money can't seem to change people's minds about linking it to Atwood's dystopian story. The association also affects her family and the sect itself. They are probably feeling persecuted, like the Puritans. It could get worse for her and them over time.
But I feel she is going to get confirmed.
She also feels the intense pressure to make her sponsors happy. Yesterday I threw the Thoth 4 cups, luxury, and saw that she felt a firehose of pressure being spewed on her head.
Well, she has made a Devil's bargain because although she's happy to change the world according to her religious beliefs, her sponsors own her. Jesus turned away from the Devil's bargain, and I'm sure she knows that story. I don't think a judge can truly free yourself from that even if you are appointed for life.
As for how we feel about her getting confirmed! The GOP's rogue behavior has given the dems permission to do whatever it takes to drown out the voices of these conservative judges who have been appointed against the intent and long-time practice of our Constitution. The dems will expand the Supreme Court and Amy Coney Barrett will be rendered impotent.
@jeanne-mayell So this is the fascinating part of throwing cards to me. The multiple interpretations. But it also is confusing. It reminds me of a game that I play with my kids. We have seven die with pictures of key story elements, like a house, light bulb, lightning, etc. The player rolls the die and has to tell an original story using the images each only once. For an experienced stage performer and improviser like me, it is easy to steer the story anyway that I want. So there are so many ways that it can go which is the fun of it. But I control the path. How does one not control the path of the tarot reading? (I probably should post this in another thread more related to this topic as well.) Your two very different readings made me wonder about this.
Thanks Jeanne. What you have written makes a great deal of sense. It could be what she is feeling with the process and how it has negatively spotlighted her religion, not what happens to the court.
What a mess.
Bill McKibben, the nation's leading climate activist, wrote this about Amy Coney Barrett: First that Charles Koch, the nation's leading greenhouse gas polluter who financed the climate denial movement for the last forty years, has spent $35 million to back Ms. Barett to the bench.
Second, that the Pope himself is a climate activist, so, Amy, how does that fit with your Catholism?
I look forward to the day when they expand the size of the court and she and Kavanaugh become impotent minority voices on the bench that no one cares about.
Excerpted From The New Yorker "The Republican-controlled Senate, by any measure, is acting dishonorably as it moves to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the high court: having previously declared that Presidents in their last year in office should not be able to nominate a new Justice, it reversed this “McConnell rule” when it served them to do so.
The Trump years have been so ugly that this hypocrisy doesn’t stand out as sharply as it should, but it is an ignoble thing to have done and, in Barrett’s case, to have gone along with.
Still, it’s not the most remarkable thing about the moment.
For me, anyway, that came when Senator John Kennedy, of Louisiana, asked Barrett if she had an opinion on climate change.
“I’ve read things about climate change,” she said. “I would not say I have firm views on it.”
It’s hard to imagine that an intelligent and highly educated person, such as Barrett, would not have reached a conclusion on the key questions facing the future of life on earth:
Is global warming dangerous, and is it caused by humans?
Neither of these positions is controversial among the scientific community, nor, for that matter, in the Catholic community where Barrett makes her spiritual home.
https://link.newyorker.com/click/21856475.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&source=gmail-imap&ust=1603926118000000&usg=AOvVaw2tGNZIKgxpGlRoZuabPiv l" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pope Francis’s lengthiest and most important encyclical, “https://link.newyorker.com/click/21856475.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&source=gmail-imap&ust=1603926118000000&usg=AOvVaw29u934aH8Z-8xNUtbY7gm z" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Laudato Si,” takes on the climate crisis with a philosophical and sociological depth that few others have even attempted. The Pope’s newest https://link.newyorker.com/click/21856475.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&source=gmail-imap&ust=1603926118000000&usg=AOvVaw38JqbkIPKKv36HXJmcAYR 8" target="_blank" rel="noopener">encyclical, “Fratelli Tutti,” released this month, covers much the same ground, and he has helpfully https://link.newyorker.com/click/21856475.17681/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudGVkLmNvbS90YWxrcy9oaXNfaG9saW5lc3NfcG9wZV9mcmFuY2lzX291cl9tb3JhbF9pbXBlcmF0aXZlX3RvX2FjdF9vbl9jbGltYXRlX2NoYW5nZV9hbmRfM19zdGVwc193ZV9jYW5fdGFrZT9sYW5ndWFnZT1lbiZtYmlkPSZ1dG1fc291cmNlPW5sJnV0bV9icmFuZD10bnkmdXRtX21haWxpbmc9VE5ZX0NsaW1hdGVDcmlzaXNfMTAyMTIwJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1hdWQtZGV2JnV0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmYnhpZD01Yzc0NjU5OTNmOTJhNDY4NDQ0Y2E4ZDgmY25kaWQ9NTAyNzc2NDgmaGFzaGE9ZmViN2U4MmM2MDU5NzAwOGY5YzQzNzlhOWNhNGUwYzUmaGFzaGI9NmM2YTlmZDY5YTBlNjEwY2IwZTQ2M2UyNzc3YzQzYTMwMjUzMmI1ZSZoYXNoYz04NGQxYzA2ZTAxOWQ0ZTMxMjdkMGI1OTM2YzUzNDI3NzAzYjcyNjlmMmI3NTAwMzMwOTVlYjJhYTc5YWE0NTUwJmVzcmM9/5c7465993f92a468444ca8d8B48699f6a&source=gmail-imap&ust=1603926118000000&usg=AOvVaw2RADZ1rXm0qxjT1yS8WiD p" target="_blank" rel="noopener">produced a ted talk that makes the point in much sharper terms. “We must act now,” he said, which is what every scientist studying the crisis has said, too. -- Bill McKibben
There's no provision in the Constitution for a recall, only impeachment/removal, and impeachment would by definition require that the nominee/justice have committed a "high crimes [or] misdemeanors", so I don't think so. However, I'm not a Constitutional specialist, just a very interested person, so I can't say definitively. However, if it could be proven that she lied under oath during the process, that would qualify, I think.
Have your feelings about the likelihood of Amy Coney Barrett being confirmed to the SCOTUS changed since our original predictions that she won't be confirmed?
I want to hold onto hope that something will scuttle the vote.
Lisa Murkowski plans to vote to confirm, so short of the vote being delayed I don't see how she doesn't get confirmed. That said, I do think there will be short and long term consequences to ramming through her nomination and confirmation. And, while there may not be the votes to impeach any particular justice, that doesn't mean they can't feel pressured to resign. If enough negative stuff comes out about them, especially Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorusch, who knows how that will play out.
Once Americans start losing rights they've had for generations, you will see more of an uproar, and with that more pressure on the democrats to do something. They've been way too complacent. This may end up being the wake up call the center left and left has needed. After all, the right wing didn't just get control of the sup ct overnight. It took decades of sustained pressure. Dems need to do the same and this may be serve as the motivation.