Many commentators are tweeting & tooting that we need to expand the SCOTUS. That is not the answer to everything. Unless you just want a larger Court, not bound by ethics rules, engaging in the kind of behavior described in the NYT piece. What we need are guardrails - an understanding that the Court sits w/i our democracy. Our job us to strengthen it by creating the processes that promote impartiality & insulation from lobbying, not crossing our fingers & hoping for the best.
@ifilljustice That’s one of the reasons I’ve advocated for #RuleOf18 for years.
18 justices, 6 each, Left, Center, Right ideologically, as proven by all their decisions & actions. Each serves 18 years. All cases heard by 9, three of each. En Banc available.
Makes the system blind, since one never knows who is hearing each case, so can’t wait for a “friendly” court.
@_silversmith @ifilljustice How would that work without an objective measurement for "left", "right", or center? Not to mention how many justices were seen as a different alignment by the end of their tenure.
@glennpeters @ifilljustice Under #RuleOf18, new justices are coming into their positions regularly, and others are leaving. Every time there's an opening, there can be a re-evaluation. So yes - a POTUS could still *slightly* shape the Court. But they could not rig the Court, as it has been now.
Think of it as the difference between putting "english" on a pinball and tilting the machine.
@glennpeters @ifilljustice As noted elsewhere, someone who is more familiar with those inner workings than I could tell you how judges are measured that way within the legal profession.
Also, remember, Supreme Court justices do not have to be judges - and frankly, I think it might help to have one or two who were not.
As for movement along alignment? That's easier than you might think…