FDR's "court packing" scheme was really a term limits scheme. It proposed that there be a retirement age set. The justice didn't HAVE to retire, but if he didn't (it was all hes back then) then a new justice was added. When he finally did retire or die, the new justice took his place until the next round of retirement decisions or deaths. Thus the SIZE of the court rotated back to a fixed size, and only temporarily increased. This CLEARLY avoided Constitutional problems, since no one was forced to leave the court. They could just choose whether or not to do so.
This didn't fly because people back then actually respected the court and saw this as "packing" for purely political ends. Different days.
This makes sense to me, and sounds doable. It gets around "packing the courts" issues. I'm ok with 18 years, since the appointments would be staggered every 2 years.
Oct 31, 2023·edited Oct 31, 2023Liked by George Takei
I tend to agree. Especially if there are some established ethics rules put in place to make it very clear the justices should not be accepting "gifts".
“Term limits would increase accountability by making the composition of the court more broadly responsive to the outcome of democratic elections over time.”
I don’t think so. While it might make the court more balanced depending on elections, what is to stop a Kavanaugh or a Gorsuch or a Thomas or an Alito to push through laws just before they know their term is up? Expansion is the way to go. Ethics rules. And impeachment and conviction of unethical justices.
Yes, I agree. The Court was initially created to be a non-political entity not affected by a given religious ideology or influenced by money, but that has long been what it is, up to today. Even when John Kennedy was running for president, in that role, he was asked if, when elected (because he was a strong Catholic) would the Pope be running the country, and Kennedy answered "No, because it is my duty to be president first and Catholic second while I'm there". The Court certainly doesn't honor that today. I think term limits and age limits should be required...maybe 12 years on the bench, 8 years as president, and the top age for both should be 72, which also should be the standard in Congress. And all elected and appointed officials should be held to even stricter ethics and social standards than the common citizen, because it is their job to make, uphold, and interpret the laws that govern social and governmental actions. If money paid no part in getting elected or being supported in their governmental roles, things would be much more oriented toward what they are supposed to do for we, the people than just what they can gain from their position.
I agree. If we can apply term and age limits equally across all government bodies. Nobody has tried to become president before age 35, for example. It’s just understood. If we understood upper age the same as lower age limits, we wouldn’t have to excuse senility in government. However, given that some old people are as sharp as ever (Biden, Pelosi)—and I do think they have earned a rest, but also appreciate tremendously their willingness to carry on—experience and life knowledge of our elders is vastly under appreciated in our country.
Yes, some are still very cognizant in old age. I'm 70, and while my short term memory is getting bad, I still have the ability to think and dig out truth from things I see and hear. But with the general retirement age at around 72 in our society, that should be the guideline for government officials, too. And yes, I think we might do better if we elected officials by maybe age 25...experience with life is important, but I don't think people necessarily have to wait to be on the edge of "middle age" to be in office. While I'm commenting here, I also think that the president should have military experience, most especially since he or she becomes the ultimate commander of our military forces, he or she should have some experience to build on and carry forward.
It all sounds great but please don't put Biden down because of his age. I am so sick of that. My mom is 96 years old and she can't see and she can't hear now, but until just a couple years ago she was smarter than most people I ever knew & completely capable mentally and physically so Biden's age is not as important as they make it sound. Money will do anything to insult him so they can avoid paying taxes.
We have to consider age in some ways, and Biden is clearly aging to the point where it sometimes makes me wonder if it's him who is making things go or the people around him that are having to tell him things because he forgets. And look at the number of times he has physically stumbled, as well as in some of his recent speeches where he has read the sideline stuff instead of or in addition to the script he is supposed to follow. I am 70, myself, and my short term memory is getting bad, sometimes I don't remember something my wife told or asked me 5 minutes ago, but I am still able to read and comprehend, and make decisions with what I need to do or say in given circumstances. The president has all kinds of things going on around him all the time, and when we get older, it is harder to keep up with a whole bunch of things we're supposed to figure out and get right. And, since the general retirement age is around 72, maybe we should just let people retire with earned benefits and stop having to deal with circumstances like that anymore, just live our lives as who we are until the day we die. I don't have a lot against Biden; he has done some really good things. But he is more moderate than progressive, and we need a president who sees and understands the issues and the bad things happening and can influence his Party members and we, the people to stand up for better things rather than just bend to the will of the loud voices opposing stronger moves. We will likely never have another of either Roosevelt, or Kennedy, or Gerald Ford, but that is who we need right now for several reasons. And, another thing...if the Democrats had pushed Bernie Sanders forward instead of Hillary Clinton, back in the day, it is highly likely that the extremist Republican agenda would not be what it is today and we'd have better things all around, which is why the Democrats are so weak now.
I agree with all you said yet the problem is we don't have an alternative candidate to vote for this time. I also think Bernie could have won if everyone had not stepped all over him. Big money would never allow him to win, they would've killed him first I think, if he got that close. .
Even if the DNC had not stepped all over him, the powers that be would never have let him be elected. I honestly believe he could have won, if he were allowed to compete honestly, and then they would've probably killed him. Big money rules.
Expansion is an attempt to just quick fix a current problem, and simply creates a new problem. “We” expand the court to “restore balance”, and when “they” get in power they expand the court further. Then the pendulum swings again, “we” are back in power and... lather, rinse, repeat.
Term limits and enforced ethics rules are a fox for the underlying problem that can’t then be abused in perpetuity.
Court expansion may be the only way to go. SCOTUS justices have lifetime appointments per the constitution; this SCOTUS will never allow term limits. But then court expansion can be practiced by both sides and nothing can prevent us from having 17 wackadoodle conservative justices at some point. Think of the children!!!
You start with “expansion is the only way to go” and end with pointing out why expansion is such a terrible idea. Way to cover your bases!
As for your other note about “justices have lifetime appointments per the Constitution”, they don’t. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the justices get appointed for life. It says the “hold their Offices during Good Behaviour”. So if it wanted to Congress could decide a Justice is no longer showing Good Behaviour (and Congress hers to decide what is/isn’t “good”) and remove them at any time.
Should Congress decide that insisting on serving more than 18 years, for example, is not “good behavior” the. Congress, affectively, imposed term limits.
Good points! But to say that “good behavior” automatically terminates at the end of 18 years is a stretch. I don’t think it would pass constitutional muster—far too many justices have been great well into their old age. Think of Justices Douglas and Brennan as well as RBG. And do you really think this Congress would pass a bill altering how long a justice can serve? They can’t push a code of ethics or even conduct impeachment hearings for Thomas who has shown horrible behavior. There is no easy way to solve this problem.
I agree there’s no easy way to solve it. But expansion is not a good idea. It would not do anything to solve the problem and just result in an ever growing Supreme Court.
Term limits and enforcement of strict ethics requirements are certainly better ideas. They would alleviate (if not eliminate) a number of the problems the current system has: atrophied judicial viewpoints being ensconced on the court for decades, justices who feel untouchable because of their job security, etc.
When the Constitution was ratified people did not live as long as they do today, and they certainly didn't live out their senior years in relatively good health. Allowing lifetime appointments of Supreme Court justices didn't mean the same thing that it means today. I think it's well past time to update the Constitution (including the second amendment), but as you state, amending the Constitution is very difficult (see the Equal Rights Amendment). I'm fine with term limits but if the legislation Mr. Cohn is proposing is passed and signed by the President it will immediately bring lawsuits that will work their way up to the current conservative Supreme Court which, I believe, would vote against such legislation. How do you get around this?
It’s unclear on what constitutional ground they would be allowed to challenge the law. It’s clear that Congress has the right to regulate the size and terms of the Court’s service.
Does anyone really think that the 1% give a flying F about we can do this we try that?The Supreme Court has been bought,the House is controlled by a bunch of insane people,the Senate is one vote away from being useless,The President is 80 yrs old,with a77yr old fascist tied in the polls.seems like the time for talking is over ,these,are not people who want to be friends with you,they want to subjugate you!They do not respect the Constitution or any one not in their Caste, you are just a means to wealth and power to them,been that way for ever,this country was the last hope for a real Democracy,it’s not looking good for it right now!Really folks wake up! These people are not playing by the rules,. they are making them,and we’re letting them do it! The only thing they understand is 10 million people in a streets with pitchforks,and the Constitution backing them up! Hope there’s a kid out there who has some nuts,because our generation seems to have lost theirs! We can’t work with these people anymore they don’t want to be your buddy ,they want to be your ruler,and the odds are on their side. Or am I just being dramatic?
Yeah I'm with you, it's past time for a national strike or pitchforks in the streets, since the 2000 election when the Supreme Court appointed Bush in violation of all the precedents and the law. Citizens United is crushing us, we can't compete with dollars and shouldn't have to.
This is a start but they really need strict ethics rules that leads to fairly automatic impeachment if violated. Maybe allow one violation with a warning but the second violation gets investigated by Congress. I also think for the usual nomination, they should come up through the federal judiciary for experience.
Why 18 Years? I'd make it more like 8. And Specific what they can accept how much and a mandatory reporting it. They fail to report it one time they are FIRED. No more Thomas etc.
As my friend Andrew Seidel (constitutional attorney for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State) says, the Supreme Court has already been packed, with activist right-wing justices. Expanding the court would balance the court. The number of justices has fluctuated in the past, so there is precedent for this. Some have suggested 13 justices, to match the number of federal circuit courts, which seems reasonable to me. And it's not just SCOTUS - the federal court system is overburdened, with cases taking years to wind through, due to lack of staffing. The entire system needs expanding. My point being - why not do both term limits and expansion?
I totally support term limits for SCOTUS. And 18 years sounds right to me. Barring an u expected death or resignation, there would be 2 appointments each four year presidential term.
I truly hope the TLTC can get the ball rolling and achieve this goal.
Then we can turn our attention to term limits for members of Congress.
And ultimately address the even more difficult project of executing/dismembering/exiling/extinguishing/annihilating the Spawn of the Devil aka the Electoral College.
I mostly like this, but enforced ethics rules are a must. Also, having experienced justices coming up the ranks of the federal system would be appropriate. Experience and unbiased rulings are key. With two thirds of the citizens believing the SCOTUS is untrustworthy and even corrupt, something must be done.
New justices every two years makes sense. Personally, I'd prefer justices in their 50's to early 60's. Too young and they don't have the experience to properly do the job. But what do you do when a justice doesn't complete the term because they die or retire? It seems like the staggered terms would be off after a while.
I would love to see term limits, but if it felt like republicans were giving up power then it would never happen. They know now they can simply refuse to have hearings, at least when they’re in power and there’s a democrat president
Expand the court to 18 and the cases are pulled by a lottery system. But the whole system is corrupt so much already and the Republicans like always will refuse to Vote for it like Term limits for them at 3 terms Total.
FDR's "court packing" scheme was really a term limits scheme. It proposed that there be a retirement age set. The justice didn't HAVE to retire, but if he didn't (it was all hes back then) then a new justice was added. When he finally did retire or die, the new justice took his place until the next round of retirement decisions or deaths. Thus the SIZE of the court rotated back to a fixed size, and only temporarily increased. This CLEARLY avoided Constitutional problems, since no one was forced to leave the court. They could just choose whether or not to do so.
This didn't fly because people back then actually respected the court and saw this as "packing" for purely political ends. Different days.
This makes sense to me, and sounds doable. It gets around "packing the courts" issues. I'm ok with 18 years, since the appointments would be staggered every 2 years.
It may be the only reform we can get through this next Congress that the president would sign.
I tend to agree. Especially if there are some established ethics rules put in place to make it very clear the justices should not be accepting "gifts".
I think 18 years is too long. Shoot for 12 years and compromise somewhere in between.
Yes I agree.
"a new justice would be appointed every two years, giving every president two appointments in a four-year term."
Hear that, Mitch?
“Term limits would increase accountability by making the composition of the court more broadly responsive to the outcome of democratic elections over time.”
I don’t think so. While it might make the court more balanced depending on elections, what is to stop a Kavanaugh or a Gorsuch or a Thomas or an Alito to push through laws just before they know their term is up? Expansion is the way to go. Ethics rules. And impeachment and conviction of unethical justices.
Yes, I agree. The Court was initially created to be a non-political entity not affected by a given religious ideology or influenced by money, but that has long been what it is, up to today. Even when John Kennedy was running for president, in that role, he was asked if, when elected (because he was a strong Catholic) would the Pope be running the country, and Kennedy answered "No, because it is my duty to be president first and Catholic second while I'm there". The Court certainly doesn't honor that today. I think term limits and age limits should be required...maybe 12 years on the bench, 8 years as president, and the top age for both should be 72, which also should be the standard in Congress. And all elected and appointed officials should be held to even stricter ethics and social standards than the common citizen, because it is their job to make, uphold, and interpret the laws that govern social and governmental actions. If money paid no part in getting elected or being supported in their governmental roles, things would be much more oriented toward what they are supposed to do for we, the people than just what they can gain from their position.
I agree. If we can apply term and age limits equally across all government bodies. Nobody has tried to become president before age 35, for example. It’s just understood. If we understood upper age the same as lower age limits, we wouldn’t have to excuse senility in government. However, given that some old people are as sharp as ever (Biden, Pelosi)—and I do think they have earned a rest, but also appreciate tremendously their willingness to carry on—experience and life knowledge of our elders is vastly under appreciated in our country.
Yes, some are still very cognizant in old age. I'm 70, and while my short term memory is getting bad, I still have the ability to think and dig out truth from things I see and hear. But with the general retirement age at around 72 in our society, that should be the guideline for government officials, too. And yes, I think we might do better if we elected officials by maybe age 25...experience with life is important, but I don't think people necessarily have to wait to be on the edge of "middle age" to be in office. While I'm commenting here, I also think that the president should have military experience, most especially since he or she becomes the ultimate commander of our military forces, he or she should have some experience to build on and carry forward.
Oh Lord....how old are you?
It all sounds great but please don't put Biden down because of his age. I am so sick of that. My mom is 96 years old and she can't see and she can't hear now, but until just a couple years ago she was smarter than most people I ever knew & completely capable mentally and physically so Biden's age is not as important as they make it sound. Money will do anything to insult him so they can avoid paying taxes.
We have to consider age in some ways, and Biden is clearly aging to the point where it sometimes makes me wonder if it's him who is making things go or the people around him that are having to tell him things because he forgets. And look at the number of times he has physically stumbled, as well as in some of his recent speeches where he has read the sideline stuff instead of or in addition to the script he is supposed to follow. I am 70, myself, and my short term memory is getting bad, sometimes I don't remember something my wife told or asked me 5 minutes ago, but I am still able to read and comprehend, and make decisions with what I need to do or say in given circumstances. The president has all kinds of things going on around him all the time, and when we get older, it is harder to keep up with a whole bunch of things we're supposed to figure out and get right. And, since the general retirement age is around 72, maybe we should just let people retire with earned benefits and stop having to deal with circumstances like that anymore, just live our lives as who we are until the day we die. I don't have a lot against Biden; he has done some really good things. But he is more moderate than progressive, and we need a president who sees and understands the issues and the bad things happening and can influence his Party members and we, the people to stand up for better things rather than just bend to the will of the loud voices opposing stronger moves. We will likely never have another of either Roosevelt, or Kennedy, or Gerald Ford, but that is who we need right now for several reasons. And, another thing...if the Democrats had pushed Bernie Sanders forward instead of Hillary Clinton, back in the day, it is highly likely that the extremist Republican agenda would not be what it is today and we'd have better things all around, which is why the Democrats are so weak now.
I have an 80yr old husband.
OOOOOH aghhhhhhh Yes short term memory is the killer. I am so sick of repeating things.
Yes, my wife doesn't like it either, she often just tries to make me feel stupid. But then I do things we need done, and that's just fine...
I agree with all you said yet the problem is we don't have an alternative candidate to vote for this time. I also think Bernie could have won if everyone had not stepped all over him. Big money would never allow him to win, they would've killed him first I think, if he got that close. .
It was the DNC who stepped on him! Get rid of the DNC. Who are they anyway?
The people should vote for their leader.
You do not have a democracy.
Even if the DNC had not stepped all over him, the powers that be would never have let him be elected. I honestly believe he could have won, if he were allowed to compete honestly, and then they would've probably killed him. Big money rules.
Expansion is an attempt to just quick fix a current problem, and simply creates a new problem. “We” expand the court to “restore balance”, and when “they” get in power they expand the court further. Then the pendulum swings again, “we” are back in power and... lather, rinse, repeat.
Term limits and enforced ethics rules are a fox for the underlying problem that can’t then be abused in perpetuity.
Top at 13, one for each circuit court. But yes, also term and age limits, and ethics rules that get them expelled if they break.
Court expansion may be the only way to go. SCOTUS justices have lifetime appointments per the constitution; this SCOTUS will never allow term limits. But then court expansion can be practiced by both sides and nothing can prevent us from having 17 wackadoodle conservative justices at some point. Think of the children!!!
You start with “expansion is the only way to go” and end with pointing out why expansion is such a terrible idea. Way to cover your bases!
As for your other note about “justices have lifetime appointments per the Constitution”, they don’t. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the justices get appointed for life. It says the “hold their Offices during Good Behaviour”. So if it wanted to Congress could decide a Justice is no longer showing Good Behaviour (and Congress hers to decide what is/isn’t “good”) and remove them at any time.
Should Congress decide that insisting on serving more than 18 years, for example, is not “good behavior” the. Congress, affectively, imposed term limits.
Good points! But to say that “good behavior” automatically terminates at the end of 18 years is a stretch. I don’t think it would pass constitutional muster—far too many justices have been great well into their old age. Think of Justices Douglas and Brennan as well as RBG. And do you really think this Congress would pass a bill altering how long a justice can serve? They can’t push a code of ethics or even conduct impeachment hearings for Thomas who has shown horrible behavior. There is no easy way to solve this problem.
I agree there’s no easy way to solve it. But expansion is not a good idea. It would not do anything to solve the problem and just result in an ever growing Supreme Court.
Term limits and enforcement of strict ethics requirements are certainly better ideas. They would alleviate (if not eliminate) a number of the problems the current system has: atrophied judicial viewpoints being ensconced on the court for decades, justices who feel untouchable because of their job security, etc.
Good reasoning.
When the Constitution was ratified people did not live as long as they do today, and they certainly didn't live out their senior years in relatively good health. Allowing lifetime appointments of Supreme Court justices didn't mean the same thing that it means today. I think it's well past time to update the Constitution (including the second amendment), but as you state, amending the Constitution is very difficult (see the Equal Rights Amendment). I'm fine with term limits but if the legislation Mr. Cohn is proposing is passed and signed by the President it will immediately bring lawsuits that will work their way up to the current conservative Supreme Court which, I believe, would vote against such legislation. How do you get around this?
It’s unclear on what constitutional ground they would be allowed to challenge the law. It’s clear that Congress has the right to regulate the size and terms of the Court’s service.
Citation please.
The supreme court is controlled by Congress per the constitution. That's your citation.
Does anyone really think that the 1% give a flying F about we can do this we try that?The Supreme Court has been bought,the House is controlled by a bunch of insane people,the Senate is one vote away from being useless,The President is 80 yrs old,with a77yr old fascist tied in the polls.seems like the time for talking is over ,these,are not people who want to be friends with you,they want to subjugate you!They do not respect the Constitution or any one not in their Caste, you are just a means to wealth and power to them,been that way for ever,this country was the last hope for a real Democracy,it’s not looking good for it right now!Really folks wake up! These people are not playing by the rules,. they are making them,and we’re letting them do it! The only thing they understand is 10 million people in a streets with pitchforks,and the Constitution backing them up! Hope there’s a kid out there who has some nuts,because our generation seems to have lost theirs! We can’t work with these people anymore they don’t want to be your buddy ,they want to be your ruler,and the odds are on their side. Or am I just being dramatic?
Yeah I'm with you, it's past time for a national strike or pitchforks in the streets, since the 2000 election when the Supreme Court appointed Bush in violation of all the precedents and the law. Citizens United is crushing us, we can't compete with dollars and shouldn't have to.
PACKTheCOURT at least buy some time!
This is a start but they really need strict ethics rules that leads to fairly automatic impeachment if violated. Maybe allow one violation with a warning but the second violation gets investigated by Congress. I also think for the usual nomination, they should come up through the federal judiciary for experience.
It seems we need a multi-pronged approach.
Why 18 Years? I'd make it more like 8. And Specific what they can accept how much and a mandatory reporting it. They fail to report it one time they are FIRED. No more Thomas etc.
As my friend Andrew Seidel (constitutional attorney for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State) says, the Supreme Court has already been packed, with activist right-wing justices. Expanding the court would balance the court. The number of justices has fluctuated in the past, so there is precedent for this. Some have suggested 13 justices, to match the number of federal circuit courts, which seems reasonable to me. And it's not just SCOTUS - the federal court system is overburdened, with cases taking years to wind through, due to lack of staffing. The entire system needs expanding. My point being - why not do both term limits and expansion?
I totally support term limits for SCOTUS. And 18 years sounds right to me. Barring an u expected death or resignation, there would be 2 appointments each four year presidential term.
I truly hope the TLTC can get the ball rolling and achieve this goal.
Then we can turn our attention to term limits for members of Congress.
And ultimately address the even more difficult project of executing/dismembering/exiling/extinguishing/annihilating the Spawn of the Devil aka the Electoral College.
Onward through the fog!
I mostly like this, but enforced ethics rules are a must. Also, having experienced justices coming up the ranks of the federal system would be appropriate. Experience and unbiased rulings are key. With two thirds of the citizens believing the SCOTUS is untrustworthy and even corrupt, something must be done.
New justices every two years makes sense. Personally, I'd prefer justices in their 50's to early 60's. Too young and they don't have the experience to properly do the job. But what do you do when a justice doesn't complete the term because they die or retire? It seems like the staggered terms would be off after a while.
I would love to see term limits, but if it felt like republicans were giving up power then it would never happen. They know now they can simply refuse to have hearings, at least when they’re in power and there’s a democrat president
Expand the court to 18 and the cases are pulled by a lottery system. But the whole system is corrupt so much already and the Republicans like always will refuse to Vote for it like Term limits for them at 3 terms Total.
Plus Our Lady ..
Some called it The Big Cheef Dignity Court
with irony of the gobsmacked sort . . .
There was Touchy Sam and Suds
a Long Dong with a Mein Kampf-y bud
and Witch citing Rulings . .of Sanity falling short. .
and a Feddy KneelSuck . .. # Happy High Robes . . ...