• 0 Posts
  • 7 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
Cake day: June 11th, 2023
  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todaytopolitics @lemmy.world•Chief Justice John Roberts says American public wrongly views the justices as ‘political actors’English
    3·
    11 hours ago

    This is pretty close to my thinking as well: just keep adding members on a set schedule; don’t fill vacated seats. (I’d add one seat at the end of the first and third year of the presidential term, to keep this process as far away from the presidential and midterm elections as possible.)

    The only major difference is that I would not use emergency sessions to reconstitute the court! I would strongly isolate the court from politicization.

    The foundation of my plan would be to establish a formal “line of succession” to SCOTUS. We have 13 circuit courts of appeal, each with a chief judge. Those chief judges, in order of seniority, are the first in the line of succession. Next, every other appeals court judge, in order of seniority.

    Every one of these judges has been through a Senate confirmation. They are pre-approved. If every SCOTUS justice dies from a Hantavirus outbreak, the next court has already been selected, without needing to expose the court to the political process.

    This line of succession offers some other possibilities as well. When it comes time to appoint a new justice, the president can name anyone they want, and the Senate can confirm. But, we can say that the first 26 (2 * number of circuit courts) in the line of succession are pre-confirmed and don’t require an additional confirmation to be named to the bench. The Senate can fairly consider the president’s preferred, younger nominee, or the president can ram one of these 26 senior candidates down the Senate’s throat. The president has a veto-proof pool of candidates that the Senate can’t play games with.

    The line of succession also offers the possibility of temporary elevations for specific purposes. Suppose most/all of the justices are conflicted and forced to recuse themselves from a particular case. The line of succession allows us to elevate temporary replacement justices for this case. This would allow an ad hoc supreme court to hear cases involving, say, SCOTUS ethics.

  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todaytopolitics @lemmy.world•Chief Justice John Roberts says American public wrongly views the justices as ‘political actors’English
    4·
    12 hours ago

    Don’t assign a set number of seats. Whenever a justice dies, their seat dies with them.

    Add one justice every two years, at the end of the first and third year of the presidential term. Every president gets to add exactly two justices per term. This timing pushes the decision as far away from an election as possible.

    To further depoliticize the process, I would formally establish a “line of succession” for the court. This line would start with the chief judges of each of the 13 circuit appeals courts, then continue with every other judge in the appeals courts, in order of seniority.

    Everyone in the line of succession has been previously confirmed by the Senate to their appellate court seats. To limit the games the Senate can play, I would not require an additional Senate confirmation if the candidate is one of the first 26 in the line of succession. The president can unilaterally elevate any of those 26 to SCOTUS (but, these are the oldest candidates available. They are at the pinnacle of their careers; they can be expected to serve terms measured in months, not decades. The president is not going to want to name one of these geriatrics.)

    If a new justice hasn’t been added by the 18th/30th month of the president’s term, the next in the line of succession is permanently elevated to SCOTUS. This deadline keeps the appointment process at least 6 months away from an election.

    The “line of succession” also suggests a way for the court to be apolitically reconstituted in case of a disaster. If the court falls below 5 members, the next in the line is automatically elevated.

    Further, it provides a means for a case to be heard even if all sitting justices are conflicted and compelled to recuse themselves. If fewer than 5 members of the court are eligible to hear a particular case, the next in the line of succession is temporarily elevated for that case. In a case where SCOTUS ethics rules are under scrutiny, the case may be heard entirely by temporary members.

  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todaytopolitics @lemmy.world•Trump cracks about leaving office in ‘8 or 9 years’ — a month shy of his 80th birthdayEnglish
    2·
    1 day ago

    I just read an argument that he can run for VP. The problem is a difference in language between the 12th and the 25th amendments.

    The 25th says nobody can be elected to president more than twice. It does not say that a person is ineligible to be president, only that they can’t be elected to the office.

    A two-term former president is not prohibited from being named the Speaker of the House, or to any other office in the line of succession. That two term former President cum Speaker is not constitutionally ineligible from becoming president again. If all offices in the line ahead of him are vacant, he is eligible to retake the office.

    The 12th amendment says: “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

    It doesn’t say anything about being “elected”.

    As he would be theoretically eligible to become president via the line of succession, he is not actually ineligible to be president again. Therefore, he is not ineligible to run for VP, with a running mate who runs on a platform of “I’ll resign on day one”.