Have you thought about becoming a political consultant? Woah! Big leap in analysis from when I first started reading your column when you were a teenager. Kinda mind blowing.
Wonderful analysis of the supposed important attempt to bring honor and ethics back to the Supreme Court, as if it ever left it, other than through a partisan view. Am old enough to remember the umbrage directed to the Warren Court. Times and sides change, the arguments alone prevail, without end.
As always, balanced thoughtful analysis. That said, books like the The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution outlines the solution. What needs to happen is legal scholars, democracy groups, and members like Raskin need to message this issue better instead of assuming Americans can't keep up. Reform in all branches is needed, but I say start with the courts.
I agree with Paulie and Robin - this is a very informative and interesting analysis of the situation. I printed this one so I can give it the time it deserves - to ponder and let percolate. Thank you.
My problem with Leo's counter-offer is that it's mostly solving the wrong problem.
Like, yeah, okay, we can probably put more teeth on SCOTUS accountability, just like we did on the executive branch in the aftermath of Watergate.
But all of this essentially boils down to the same old tired incoherent "MoNeY iN PoLiTiCs!!11" screeching, which is misguided. News flash: Money is, among other things, a way we measure power, while politics is the way we regulate the distribution of power. Money is inherently inextricable from politics. Saying "money in politics is the problem" is like doing an autopsy, noticing that every single organ in the body is devoted towards homeostatically maintaining the blood, and concluding that the blood must be the problem.
Put another way, if Rod Blagojevich (a reference which I realize is increasingly dating myself) had been caught on tape saying, "I'm selling this Senate seat to the first person who promises me they'll ALWAYS vote for legislation supporting blind orphaned cancer kids. I'll take a little off the top, of course, but most of the proceeds are going to my favorite blind cancer kid orphanage. And if this guy ever betrays the blind orphaned cancer kids, I'm going to bite the bullet and out BOTH of us..." well, not a single jury in the country would have convicted him.
The point is, money isn't the thing people hate, it's the fact that people hate what the money makes the politicians DO.
Anyways, term limits and packing are dumb ways to fix the court.
The best way to fix it is random empanelment. Confirm the entire DC circuit** to SCOTUS, then have each case select 9 justices from that pool such that each justice sits on roughly the same number of cases.
** Just looked it up, DC circuit only has 11 judges on it, out of ~890 on the entire fed bench. Maybe we do some scheme where every other circuit elects 2-3 judges or something to have a large enough pool -- several dozen total should do.
This encourages moderation and consensus by ensuring that no matter how extreme a given panel might accidentally end up being, they still have to make a ruling that won't be instantly overturned by an opposite but equally extreme panel.
Anything else that doesn't rely on this randomization principle, will just consign us to endless rounds of recrimination (or, since that never actually happens, idiotic fear thereof). Random empanelment stops the cycle in its tracks.
Great read and a lot of information to think about! Thanks!!
Have you thought about becoming a political consultant? Woah! Big leap in analysis from when I first started reading your column when you were a teenager. Kinda mind blowing.
Wonderful analysis of the supposed important attempt to bring honor and ethics back to the Supreme Court, as if it ever left it, other than through a partisan view. Am old enough to remember the umbrage directed to the Warren Court. Times and sides change, the arguments alone prevail, without end.
There should be 13 justices, one for each circuit:
https://mmansour.substack.com/p/a-rogue-court-what-to-do-about-it?r=tcxup
As always, balanced thoughtful analysis. That said, books like the The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution outlines the solution. What needs to happen is legal scholars, democracy groups, and members like Raskin need to message this issue better instead of assuming Americans can't keep up. Reform in all branches is needed, but I say start with the courts.
I agree with Paulie and Robin - this is a very informative and interesting analysis of the situation. I printed this one so I can give it the time it deserves - to ponder and let percolate. Thank you.
My problem with Leo's counter-offer is that it's mostly solving the wrong problem.
Like, yeah, okay, we can probably put more teeth on SCOTUS accountability, just like we did on the executive branch in the aftermath of Watergate.
But all of this essentially boils down to the same old tired incoherent "MoNeY iN PoLiTiCs!!11" screeching, which is misguided. News flash: Money is, among other things, a way we measure power, while politics is the way we regulate the distribution of power. Money is inherently inextricable from politics. Saying "money in politics is the problem" is like doing an autopsy, noticing that every single organ in the body is devoted towards homeostatically maintaining the blood, and concluding that the blood must be the problem.
Put another way, if Rod Blagojevich (a reference which I realize is increasingly dating myself) had been caught on tape saying, "I'm selling this Senate seat to the first person who promises me they'll ALWAYS vote for legislation supporting blind orphaned cancer kids. I'll take a little off the top, of course, but most of the proceeds are going to my favorite blind cancer kid orphanage. And if this guy ever betrays the blind orphaned cancer kids, I'm going to bite the bullet and out BOTH of us..." well, not a single jury in the country would have convicted him.
The point is, money isn't the thing people hate, it's the fact that people hate what the money makes the politicians DO.
Anyways, term limits and packing are dumb ways to fix the court.
The best way to fix it is random empanelment. Confirm the entire DC circuit** to SCOTUS, then have each case select 9 justices from that pool such that each justice sits on roughly the same number of cases.
** Just looked it up, DC circuit only has 11 judges on it, out of ~890 on the entire fed bench. Maybe we do some scheme where every other circuit elects 2-3 judges or something to have a large enough pool -- several dozen total should do.
This encourages moderation and consensus by ensuring that no matter how extreme a given panel might accidentally end up being, they still have to make a ruling that won't be instantly overturned by an opposite but equally extreme panel.
Anything else that doesn't rely on this randomization principle, will just consign us to endless rounds of recrimination (or, since that never actually happens, idiotic fear thereof). Random empanelment stops the cycle in its tracks.