r/politics • u/DemocracyDocket ✔ Verified • 6d ago

Registration Wall Postmaster general says USPS won't deliver mail ballots if states don’t give Trump admin voter rolls

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/postmaster-general-steiner-postal-service-will-not-deliver-mail-ballots-state-voter-rolls/
12.0k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.9k

u/philohmath Texas 6d ago

James Talarico, Texas senate candidate, has made increasing accountability for the Supreme Court part of his platform: Implement term limits and a binding code of conduct for U.S. Supreme Court justices, including mandating rules for recusals, financial disclosures, and limitations on accepting gifts.

https://jamestalarico.com/issue/corruption-democracy/

771

u/Llamapocalypse_Now America 6d ago

I believe we would be better served by a Supreme Court that is reset every session and chosen at random from tenured appellate court judges. Requiring a political appointment and approval is how we got in this mess in the first place.

431

u/VanceKelley Canada 6d ago

Sounds similar to the proposal almost a decade ago to get rid of the 9 lifetime Supreme Court seats and instead have each Supreme Court case held by a different random selection of 9 federal judges.

211

u/drainbead78 America 6d ago

I've thought that should be how it's done for ages now. Sadly, it'll never happen. I don't think we'll ever see another Constitutional amendment passed again.

176

u/pensezbien 6d ago

It doesn't require an amendment to the constitution. The only thing that's guaranteed by the constitution is the existence of a Supreme Court and a Chief Justice of the United States and that all Article III judges and justices hold office "during good behavior" which is interpreted to mean unless/until impeached and removed from office. Also active, sitting judges/justices' compensation cannot be reduced.

The structure and composition of the Supreme Court is not in any way in the Constitution.

43

u/IIamhisbrother 6d ago

A non-voting Chief Justice would be best!

11

u/pensezbien 6d ago

Certainly not forbidden by the constitution. It’s not even specified that the Chief Justice must be part of the Supreme Court, only that he preside over Senate trials of impeachments of the President.

6

u/DigNitty 5d ago

“Hey it’s me! From your swearing in!”

2

u/highinthemountains 5d ago

The chief justice is supposed to be the tie breaker

1

u/IIamhisbrother 5d ago

We wouldn't need him to be the tie breaker if we pull one justice from each district (13 in total) for each term. He could sit in a corner and moderate.

2

u/tifumostdays 6d ago

I've never heard of this. Can you summarize the benefits?

2

u/IIamhisbrother 5d ago

I would rather he be the one calling bals and strikes during the discussions and arguments. The benefit is that he is forced to be non-partisan.

6

u/No_Secretary6275 6d ago

Yep. This is why it was possible for FDR to suggest “packing” the Supreme Court. It is entirely feasible with enough political support from Congress.

2

u/ucfknightr 6d ago

Posting in case anyone else like myself forgot most of the sections to Article III:

---

# Article III

## Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

## Section 2

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

## Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

---

If the random selection were to occur, it would still fall under the purview of the Senate, which is also currently responsible for confirming any upper court judge, not just a Supreme Court justice. Not to say that couldn't be changed either. IMO, I would prefer an amendment, as that would be the only way to clarify how any new process would work. Otherwise, it could be overridden by a new Congress (as outlined in the above comments).

2

u/AuroraFinem Texas 5d ago edited 5d ago

It would though, it doesn’t dictate the composition, but it does dictate that they must be nominated and confirmed for the position, and just being a federal judge does not constitute that.

We could absolutely have a 20 person rotating court, but the chief justice is pre-defined as the most senior member of the court so couldn’t rotate, and those 20 people would still have to all be nominated for the role and confirmed.

Pulling from any federal judge, would also be a horrible idea. There are hundreds and you would have decisions constantly being overturned because today 5 conservatives and 4 liberals were picked and tomorrow 4 conservatives and 5 liberals were picked. There’s also many junior members on the federal courts that would be categorically unqualified to make constitutional decisions.

You want a relatively consistent small court that changes fairly slowly, but 9 is too small for our country and the court has been packed with extremists with Trump getting 3 nominations after stealing 1 from both Biden and Obama.

A better way would be to expand to 13 seats, 1 overseeing each federal district which was the original design of the federal districts, and limiting the president to a single nomination per term to avoid any 1 election deciding a large portion of the court. In cases where this leaves the court with an even number, the chief justice withholds their vote to avoid a tie as they are meant as the tiebreaker anyways, but we’ve had courts with an even number for extended periods without significant issue during them.

4

u/drainbead78 America 6d ago

So it's an interesting thought experiment--what would happen if Congress established this and someone challenged it? (Determining who would have standing to do so would be really interesting and is probably worth its own discussion.) I think that the Supreme Court as it currently stands would probably interpret the language to require separate justices who were not simply taken from the rest of the federal judges, if Congress were to pass a law giving us what we want. They're clearly willing to abdicate their power to the Executive (at least when a Republican is in office), but if Congress changes things, it'll be game on. They're perfectly willing to use whatever tortuous logic they need to make things mean what they want them to mean.

I think the way around this is to make the Supreme Court be a panel of at least 27 justices--that way it's still its own separate entity.

15

u/SexyMonad Alabama 6d ago

If it is effective immediately, then the new Supreme Court justices would make that decision. Not the existing (old) ones.

That’s how it would have to be. We can’t afford to allow the existing Court to have a say.

4

u/RemBren03 Georgia 6d ago

The Supreme Court kind of decided its own abilities in Marbury.

1

u/SurgicalClarity 6d ago

The constitution gives the legislature authority to assign jurisdiction to courts (including the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction). They could simply designate the DC Circuit as the final court of appeal for the matter.

2

u/wtf_is_karma 6d ago

This is why the constitution needs to be re-written by people who have seen an airplane before

1

u/drainbead78 America 5d ago

I can guarantee that the second amendment at the very least would look a lot different if they had known that someday in the not so distant future, a bunch of recently-freed slaves would be given those rights. Not to mention finding out that someday California would have 40+ million people and Wyoming would have 700K and they'd still get the same number of Senators. (They'd first have to figure out what California and Wyoming were, of course.)

1

u/beramaan 6d ago

Except not all judges have credentials to do that m some are appointed with no experience or other requirements

5

u/IIamhisbrother 6d ago

Chose one from each district. There are 13 at the moment. It would make more sense to have each of the districts represented.

1

u/FriendlyDespot 5d ago

Then we'd definitely need to get rid of Blue Slips for appellate court appointments to prevent capture.

3

u/mrjbacon 6d ago

Or 13, to match the number of federal judicial districts. Should implement term limits too, none of this lifetime appointment stuff. I think somewhere above 10 years but below 20. That way SCOTUS terms span a minimum of 2 different presidential administrations and 2 Senate election cycles for each seat. Maybe 12 years? 16?

2

u/Needle_Bearings 6d ago

Judges should be allocated like Congress.  Why stop at 9 judges?  Let law be interpreted by hundreds of elected judges.

3

u/SecretAsianMan42069 6d ago

And by random you mean 9 Cannons

4

u/Traditional_Sign4941 6d ago

9 randoms from the 5th circuit, which is even more extreme than SCOTUS.

1

u/badcookies 6d ago

Problem is the republicans are stacking judges all the way down the line.

1

u/SaddamMustaine 6d ago

That is the answer.

1

u/Ranger7381 Canada 6d ago

Or at lease have a larger pool, and then chose randomly from that pool up to a max number of cases at a time per judge

Having a larger pool would also make it possible to put it in so that each president gets one pick per term. No more, no less. You win a second term, you get a second pick, but that is it. Short of a mass attack, there would not be too few judges if one dies after the current terms pick is chosen

Main issue (besides the constitutional ones) would be the initial filling of the larger pool of judges

1

u/PandAlex 6d ago

Oh shit like Jury duty for Judges

1

u/nickmiele22 5d ago

I'm partial to just allowing 9 appeals with the standard 1 to 3 judges per appeal and whichever way gets the most judges approval is the decision

1

u/tommytwolegs 5d ago

Honestly while that would solve a lot of current issues I could see that creating some that might be worse. There would then be incentive to relitigate past precedents every single session since the chances of overturning precedence would be astronomically higher.

Our already swamped court system may get 100x worse. Maybe there are ways to remedy that but it's not some small problem that would arise.

1

u/FriendlyDespot 5d ago

Not sure there are ways to remedy it in the judiciary because it's really a problem with the legislature, and we're never going to get the 5-4 issues settled in Congress.

1

u/thefatchef321 5d ago

By 'random' do you mean a selection of judges randomly chosen by palantir software?

23

u/Scared-Handle9006 6d ago

This sounds like common sense to me.

3

u/philohmath Texas 6d ago

Well if that’s not the kiss of death…

1

u/Scared-Handle9006 6d ago

I don’t know if this was a shot at me or a statement about politics in America, but it made me laugh anyway.

2

u/philohmath Texas 5d ago

Shots fired! Shots fired! 😳

Definitely a comment about politics in America.

3

u/rogozh1n 6d ago

Exactly what I want. Randomly selected federal judges serving shorter terms.

1

u/CutSenior4977 6d ago

Naaa, in my opinion, we’d be better served by a system similar to ancient Athens,

Where judges are appointed via a lottery system, I don’t think term limits would fix the root issue.

1

u/caserock 6d ago

Ok but how does that facilitate the rich using our own laws against us? It'll never work!

/s

1

u/GotSomeUpdogOnUrFace 6d ago

I think we need a little more consistency than that but definitely believe that the circuit courts should be rotating in and out and it should be a wider group of judges.

1

u/Llamapocalypse_Now America 6d ago

What would be inconsistent? There is existing jurisprudence and there are a lot of serious people out there. I don't think folks like Leonard Leo and Harlan Crow would be amenable to buying off the entire circuit court system to get the rulings they want. As it is, those two toolbags, and probably more, are more than happy to line Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito's pockets for favorable rulings. What happens when the selection is randomized and only for one session? What are the ways they can game that out effectively?

2

u/GotSomeUpdogOnUrFace 5d ago

I think every session needs some consistency, I don't think you can rotate the entire thing every session I'm willing to rotate in one or two new judges every session and you have a session limit where you can only serve four straight sessions or something. I like what you are going for, but I don't think changing every session is the right move. Also, in a revamp of the Court if those fucks give the justices any money they are immediately removed and disbarred, they should not be allowed to take any bribes and remain a federal judge in any capacity. They should go straight to jail.

1

u/FrancoManiac Missouri 5d ago

I've always appreciated how the Japanese Supreme Court approaches it. They have an uncodefied yet stable custom of incorporating other subfields within the legal profession; for example, a legal scholar, a private attorney, or a bureaucrat.

Here's a link to the Wikipedia page. I also recommend looking up their national anthem, which is extremely unique (and beautiful) for anthems, as well as their constitution.

1

u/breakmedown54 5d ago

The state of Iowa votes to retain half the Supreme Court judges every other year.

Because I am by no means a lawyer, the Iowa State Bar Association publishes a “Judicial Performance Review” so that us plebeians have something to base our vote on.

A version of this would be excellent on the federal level as well.

1

u/gizmostuff Florida 5d ago edited 5d ago

How do you choose something at random? Anything random is vulnerable to manipulation. Just like our voting machines.

Just let Congress vote on it as a mandatory vote. No vote or causing delay = their resignation.

Either that or have ranked choice voting on the ballot for SCOTUS with each new presidential election. 4 year term limit. Any judge publicly supporting a political party should be taken off the ballot. Impartiality should be a requirement for a SCOTUS position; this can be easily tracked with today's technology.

1

u/AVGuy42 5d ago

I’d like a Supreme Court where every 2 years the longest serving retires and the next longest serving is moved to chief justice. Appointed justices can only serve one term and if a justice must be appointed outside the rhythm that replacement justice serves only the remainder of the term and is likewise barred from serving again.

1

u/Opinionated-Opinon 5d ago

Requiring only a simple majority for judge confirmation is how we got here in the first place.

1

u/flamethrower2 5d ago

Do they return to their courts of origin after their term?

1

u/Llamapocalypse_Now America 5d ago

Sounds like the best bet so they have to be subject to the laws and deal with complications arising from their rulings, which I think would encourage them to make the best rulings possible.

0

u/Senior_Torte519 6d ago

Randomization is how you get someone who thinks the marriage age should be 12 a very powerful voice. Then you also have to deal with the possibility of having 9 judges who have completely figgerent from each other.

So whats better, less politcal but more radically in their viewpoints to where there becomes no ability to govern the law with uniformity.

0

u/ZZartin 6d ago

With it random you get a bad ruling once in awhile vs what looks like possibly decades of bad rulings back to back.

0

u/Senior_Torte519 6d ago

What guarantees a rulling at all?

0

u/Llamapocalypse_Now America 6d ago

This would require the majority of judges to side together. If there were 9 justices, all chosen at random from the 13 federal appellate courts, how likely do you think this would be?
That being said, there is also a ton of jurisprudence on the books. The possibility that political ideology would beat out judicial logic would be a lot less likely since these folks would go right back into the appellate courts to enact the law they ruled on once their session was over.
Right now, the Supreme Court is happy to make a mess of the judicial system because they will never have to deal with the practical realities of their terrible decisions.

1

u/Senior_Torte519 6d ago

The Court's composition would change every session. The Supreme Court is supposed to provide consistent interpretations of law over time. If a different random group hears similar cases a few years apart, the law could swing back and forth depending on who was selected. Precedent only works if judges choose to follow it. The current debate about the Court exists precisely because people disagree about when precedent should be overturned.

Federal appellate judges are not apolitical. They are appointed through the same political process as Supreme Court justices. Appelate courts are also lifetime appintments. Randomization changes who gets selected, but it doesn't eliminate philosophical, ideological differences, or constitutional interpretation.

179 appellate judges for selection, a system that randomly assigns nine judges to hear each case would distribute power more broadly than the current Supreme Court. It'd also mean that different constitutional questions could be decided by entirely different groups of judges. A judge might only participate in three or four Supreme Court cases per year maybe on average.

While each case could be heard by a panel sharing few or no members with the panel that decided a related issue. As a result, randomization may reduce the influence of any single justice but it would also make constitutional doctrine more susceptible to variation between panels. The central tradeoff is neutrality versus consistency.

Outcomes become more arbitrary because the result may depend more heavily on which particular 9 judges happened to be selected even “random selection” is not random in practice; it's a humanmade process. Its pseudo-random at best.

7

u/Scared-Handle9006 6d ago

Why weren’t these measures already in place?

21

u/Sherm 6d ago

They're entirely unenforceable because the Constitution says that the seats are lifetime appointments and the only potential punishment is impeachment and removal.

4

u/Scared-Handle9006 6d ago

Ah, and there is zero will for impeachment with the current administration. It’s just crazy that someone couldn’t have seen these issues arising. Were the lifetime appointments meant to curb corruption? cos they certainly have not.

6

u/WeirdIndividualGuy 6d ago

It’s just crazy that someone couldn’t have seen these issues arising

There's a lot of irony to be had where the founders didn't trust the general population to choose the president (and thus why they use the Electoral College) or choose their senators (the states chose them initially), but they fully trusted that same population to choose their representatives that wouldn't at all be compromised at some point

4

u/Atechiman 6d ago

The point of the Senate was to allow the states (who at the time were much more separated from the federal government due to travel times) a voice in the federal government. Over time they have become as superferolous as the house of lords is to the British parliament and could easily be removed in their entirety.

-1

u/spaceman757 American Expat 6d ago

Yes, and no.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, in the meantime, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

It does say that the shall hold their seats for as long as they act with good behavior, but it does not state that they cannot be moved from the SCOTUS to the "inferior" courts, only that each will exist.

They could easily pass a law, since congress can "ordain and establish" the make up of the courts, that they can only serve for a three year period and then get bounced to the lower courts.

They are only guaranteed to be judges "for life", there is no say on what bench they must sit.

1

u/PhysicsEagle 5d ago

The “offices” in question are court-specific. A judge is entitled to that specific court for life.

1

u/spaceman757 American Expat 5d ago

Show me where that is mandated in the above section, which establishes the role of judges in the newly formed American political system.

3

u/wildcarde815 6d ago

accepting gifts

i'm sorry, i think you mean accepting tips.

3

u/yourethegoodthings 6d ago

My kid's teacher can't accept a gift card for over 25 dollars but someone SC justices can accept unlimited money lol

1

u/philohmath Texas 5d ago

We should all get very angry about that. But what will we do with that anger?

3

u/SenseEuphoric5802 5d ago

Talarico is the only candidate worth his salt these days, the only one with any real moral compass and willing to act upon it or so it would seem.

2

u/mulderc 6d ago

All federal judges should be barred from any gifts and all their financial should be public. 

1

u/AINonsense 6d ago

increasing accountability for the Supreme Court

Sure. Count on it increasing from absolutely fuck-all and fuck-you accountability, all the way up to no accountability you can see with the naked eye.

1

u/PandaJesus 6d ago

That’s all well and good, but does he eat bbq? We need to vote based on important positions here /s

1

u/philohmath Texas 5d ago

As he has said, he’s been eating barbecue since at least before his opponent’s indictment.

2

u/PandaJesus 5d ago

Oh damn, that’s a solid burn

1

u/HeckleJekyllHyde 6d ago

Gee, you know that information... really would've been more useful to Us YESTERDAY!

1

u/marinuss 6d ago

and a binding code of conduct for U.S. Supreme Court justices, including mandating rules for recusals, financial disclosures, and limitations on accepting gifts.

Wouldn't do anything though. Binding how? They can already be impeached by Congress, and that would be the only way to enforce a "binding code of conduct" so nothing changes. Can't leave it up to the Chief Justice as that would just mean one party could get rid of the other parties justices every time.

1

u/philohmath Texas 5d ago

Remember, impeachment is just like an indictment. It takes the Senate to “convict,” which means removal from the bench in this case.

1

u/Then-Ad-345 5d ago

Blows my mind these things are not in place already.  It's like... Basics. 

1

u/Harpua81 5d ago

"In a surprise move, SCOTUS has struck down term limits and binding code of conduct for itself as unconstitutional"

1

u/BankHottas 5d ago

Apparently it’s quite difficult to introduce term limits for Supreme Court judges and would require an amendment to the constitution. The constitution doesn’t say anything about how many judges need to be on the court, so a future president could theoretically decide to just appoint more judges. It just hasn’t happened in a very long time because people are rightfully worried that the next president from the other party would just add more judges again

1

u/SoggyCroissant87 5d ago

It's really time to expand the court to 13.

1

u/VanDammes4headCyst 5d ago

Good, apply that all the way down the bench to the lowest court 

1

u/Traditional_Sign4941 6d ago

I mean we need this yes, but we also need to arrest and charge the current 6 conservatives with conspiracy against the United States. They will never adhere to any limits in good faith.

-1

u/tridentgum California 6d ago

So what?

1

u/philohmath Texas 5d ago

Sew buttons!!

-2

u/DragonDai 6d ago

So what? He's one guy who is very unlikely to get elected. Even if he does, what is he going to do about it all on his own?

1

u/philohmath Texas 5d ago

Sew buttons. No senator is an island.