Below is my column in Fox.com on the recent suggestion that Justice Sonia Sotomayor should step aside for a younger justice in the interest of extending a liberal voting block on the Supreme Court. It is part of a growing number of calls for changing the Court that range from buying out justices to sweating them out.
Here is the column:
“I live in frustration ... To be almost 70 years old, this isn’t what I expected.” Those words from Justice Sonia Sotomayor appear to resonate with some liberals, but not in the way intended by the jurist. Some activists and journalists are beginning to nudge Sotomayor to leave the Court in order to be replaced by a younger jurist, much as was done to Justice Stephen Breyer in 2021 and 2022.
On CNN, journalist Josh Barro bluntly wondered why Sotomayor remains on the bench when younger jurists could be brought on to guarantee a liberal vote for years to come. He indicated that many liberals are frustrated with her for not stepping down: “I find it a little bit surprising, given what Justice Sotomayor describes there about the stakes of what is happening before the Supreme Court, that she’s not retired. She’s 69 years old, she’s been on the court for 15 years.”
Sotomayor gave her frank assessment of being “tired” and “frustrated” during an appearance at University of California’s, Berkeley. She suggested that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority contributes to her daily burden. It was a notable interview not only for its content but for its moderator, UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky.
Chemerinsky previously shocked many in the legal community by denouncing Sotomayor’s six conservative colleagues as “partisan hacks.” In response to Chemerinsky’s probing, Sotomayor took an implied swipe at her colleagues and declared: “I live in frustration. Every loss truly traumatizes me in my stomach and in my heart. But I have to get up the next morning and keep on fighting.”
She added that the workload is overwhelming: “There used to be a time when we had a good chunk of the summer break. Not anymore. The emergency calendar is busy almost on a weekly basis.”
Many clearly would like to see her lessen that load by following the pattern of former liberal colleague, Justice Breyer, who retired in 2022. Demand Justice, a liberal group that has pushed court–packing as a solution to the Court’s conservative majority, drove a billboard truck through the streets of Washington with slogans like “Breyer, retire. Don’t risk your legacy.”
At 69, Sotomayor shows no signs of mental decline. She has been a highly effective justice, stepping into the vacuum created by the death in 2020 of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Of course, few ever questioned the “Notorious RBG” in her decision to stay on the Court, despite her much older age and longer tenure. While some of us noted that Ginsburg was taking a huge risk in not allowing then-President Barack Obama to pick a successor, she remained on the Court in spite of medical problems and ultimately was replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Ginsburg, however, was almost 20 years older than Sotomayor. There is no concern for deterioration or death on the bench in Sotomayor’s case. It is simply a matter of swapping out justices like light bulbs before they burn out.
The grumbling from the left reflects the raw political calculations that are now commonly applied to the Supreme Court. Justices are treated as cutouts for partisan outcomes; the worth of a justice is now largely seen as her potential longevity rather than her jurisprudence. Sotomayor‘s seat is viewed as a lock for liberals, who want to trade for a new model before the new year (and a possible Republican president)
None of this is surprising in a time when law school deans have called
Seton Hall Law Assistant Dean Brian Sheppard treated such turnovers on the Court in strictly transactional terms, calling for Congress to “buy out” justices by offering them “large sums of money.”
Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz and others are interested in taking a more active approach to making continuation on the Court as unpleasant as possible — at least for conservatives. Chafetz previously declared that the “mob is right” in targeting and harassing justices, and he told a law school panel in 2022 that “I want to suggest that courts are the enemy, and always have been.” He suggested that Congress should retaliate against conservative justices by considering the withdrawal of funding for law clerks or even “cutting off the Supreme Court’s air conditioning budget.”
When the audience laughed at that absurd suggestion, it reportedly triggered fellow panelist and Harvard law profe
Apparently, it is better to do that than wait for some biological clock to toll. By cutting off the air conditioning daily and harassing justices at home nightly, activists may finally induce some jurists to flee the Court.
These are the voices that dominate at some of our leading law schools, teaching students that opposing views should not be tolerated on our highest court. Doerfler is correct about one thing: There is nothing laughable about what they are suggesting. We must decide as a people if we will protect our courts or will reduce their makeup to a simple matter of turning up a thermostat.
A more important legal question is whether or not the “Supreme Court of California” are a bunch of partisan hacks and have violated the First amendment rights of John Eastman by skrewing him out of his bar license for representing a client with theories they dont like
Why does the state regulation of practice of law trump the 1st amendment?
See dissent to Anastaplo by Hugo Black
Saloth Sar
Why to law schools allow its deans or professors to espouse doing away with the rule of law?
Prof. Turley’s column states: “Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz and others are interested in taking a more active approach to making continuation on the Court as unpleasant as possible — at least for conservatives. Chafetz previously declared that the “mob is right” in targeting and harassing justices, and he told a law school panel in 2022 that “I want to suggest that courts are the enemy, and always have been.” He suggested that Congress should retaliate against conservative justices by considering the withdrawal of funding for law clerks or even “cutting off the Supreme Court’s air conditioning budget.”
Statements like this should be grounds for dismissal from the faculty of a law school. I believe in free speech, but there have to be limits. Mob rule being espoused and actual harassment of judges is beyond such protection.
Why are not the Boards of a law school housing mob rule advocates not kicking them out?
Jonathan Turley wrote She has been a highly effective justice
Highly effective at WHAT? Reading her decisions (I know, they’re mostly penned by their chosen law clerks), she certainly isn’t effective at interpretive jurisprudence, with opinions easily relatable to the text of the Constitution. Definitely not an originalist, a textualist, nor a Constitutionalist. “Activist” is probably the most polite term to describe her judicial conduct; we don’t need no steenkin’ elections to create new law here at SCOTUS.
How about the quiet part out loud: judicial legislating from the bench, effective at promoting Soviet Democrat Marxist theology – helping the Soviet Democrats get through the courts what they cannot get from the voters at the ballot box
Highly effective in the term of keeping up with the cases piled up on the docks. She never missed any scheduled hearings. It doesn’t necessarily mean she’s made all decisions Prof. Turley can agree on.
The left can demand whatever they want of Sotomayor. Frankly this just makes those on the left look unhinged.
But I am fine with law professors proving they are idiots.
Sotomayor is capable of making her own choices.
I would however suggest that she might wish to step down.
She is clearly unhappy.
She is trashing her fellow justices – which is really bad in so many ways – Scalian and RBG got along fine – Sotomayor should figure out how to respect those she disagrees with.
I am perfectly capable of trashing the decisions of the court – even by those”on the right”. Who frequently do not follow the text of the consitution.
But I find it humorous coming from Sotomayor who does not have a judicial philosophy beyond – what feels right to me.
Regardless, if she is unhappy and bashing her colleagues – perhaps it is time to leave.
This is not about preserving the liberals on the court. She is only 69 – she is unlikely to die or retire soon unless she chooses and there is no way of predicting who the president will be in the future.
This is about the fact that she is unhappy and maligning her fellow justices.
This is ridiculous and it reflects the same attitude that yields behavior such as judges voting Trump off the ballot in Colorado and stealing the election in 2020. (Yes, they did). A no-holds-barred approached to politics and it sucks.
0T: Practical lessons the woke need to learn.
—–
CNN’s Erica Hill quite literally stunned speechless after CNN’s John Miller said migrants steal in NY, spend in FL, but return to NY because they’ll actually be held accountable in the sunshine state:
“So what the detectives are telling me is, they have crews here that operate in New York, do all their stealing, then go to Florida to spend the money and come back. I’m like, ‘Why don’t they just stay and steal in Florida?’ They said, ‘Because there you go to jail,'” Miller said.
https://twitter.com/briannalyman2/status/1753410174344110468?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1753410174344110468%7Ctwgr%5E56f4cda2f442f5bd9f1e402492e2372b6e35e091%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fbonchie%2F2024%2F02%2F02%2Fcnn-anchor-stunned-into-silence-after-panelist-explains-why-illegals-dont-stay-in-florida-n2169541 (video)
The demoncrat tyrannicals know something about her health that they are not telling us.
It’s surely an open secret in their circles.
Therefore they are panicking, and grinding out their hate filled schemes.
Justice Sotomayor is diabetic. I don’t know how serious her condition is, but while she is not elderly, her health status is potentially a cause for concern. That said, I don’t think people not on the Court have any business trying to force her out before she chooses to go.
Jonathan: “This isn’t what I expected” is also the title of this comment. This describes what Roberta Kaplan said after her first encounter with DJT at Mar-a-Lago. What’s this about?
As everyone should know by now Kaplan is the attorney who represented E. Jean Carroll in her monstrous damage award of $148 million against DJT. Kaplan shredded DJT at every state of the litigation. Kaplan was just on a podcast with George Conway and related an incident at Mar-a-Lago when she deposed Trump for the first time in the lawsuit. It seems at the lunch break Kaplan says DJT remarked: “Well, you’re here in Mar-a-Lago. What do you think you’re going to do for lunch?” At this point Kalplan says DJT’s lawyers graciously offered to buy lunch for everyone. A common practice for attorneys–even when they are opposite sides. You are no doubt familiar with the practice.
Kaplan says this is when things got hot and heavy. Apparently, DJT was incensed his lawyers would offer to buy lunch for Kaplan and her associates. According to Kaplan: “At which point there was a huge pile of documents, exhibits, sitting in front of him [DJT], and he took the pile and he just threw it across the table–and stormed out of the room”. Kaplan told Conway that on the way out of the room DJT cursed at Alina Habba and used a popular slang word for the “C” word in referring to his attorney.
Now I know what you are thinking. Mar-a-Lago is a poplar dining spot in Palm Beach. Why didn’t DJT just offer to but lunch for everyone? That’s the thing a gracious host would do. Right? But DJT is not a gracious host unless there is something in it for him. So the petulant narcissist decided to make a scene. That’s what we might expect from 14 yr old boys. But from a former President of the United States?
Dennis – you are wasting your trollish time trying to raise a spectre of an out-of-control tyrant or whatever if Trump is elected. He has already served in office for four years. Our opinions about Trump are already formed, and they are far more favorable than our opinions about Biden and Harris.
Is there anything that could convince you that you’re wrong?
Yes, actual damning evidence of a real crime – not the idiotic nonsense that you left wing nuts keep coming up with.
We do not give a schiff about 30 year old claims of sexual impropriety where the alleged victim can not tall where, when, or what happened, or whether it was consensual or not. And we are not stealling 100M from somebody for protesting their innocense or speaking the truth – Caroll is nuts.
We do not give a schiff about Trump’s efforts to “overturn” an election that was likely fraudulent and that those of you on the left have spent 3 years trying to bury in the deepest darkest hole you can find.
If you have evidence that Trump coereced or induced anyone to alter anything regarding the election – provide that evidence.
We do not care that some idiotic court in NY thinks that it gets to decide what the correct value of MAL is and again try to steal millions in doing so.
We do not care that Trump like every president ever took classified Documents with him from the WH – as is perfectly legal both before and after the PRA.
We do not care that an election protest in the capitol got slightly out of hand – primarily because Pelosi was sure that the DC NG was in cahoots with Trump and going to stage a coup.
There was no incitement, there was very little violence – and democrats owe thousands of protesters an apology and compensation for being terrorized by the Biden DOJ/FBI for non crimes.
Further those of you on the left owe the Nation an appology for the hell you but all through over the collusion delusion.
The lies about the Biden’s and Hunters laptop that likely resulted in a senile president and the most incometent fderal govenrment in US history. Under YOUR watch we have the mess in Afghanistan. Near double digit inflation. An economy that should have recovered 3 years ago -0 but has not, The mess in Ukraine, the Mess in Israel, the mess at the border, the Mess in Yemen, the Mess with Iran,
lawfare all over the place, screwed up and politicized prosecutions and courts.
The left has the power in academia, in our institutions, in many of our businesses, in our govenrment,
And everything it touches turns to schiff.
Si NO people are unlikely to change their minds about Trump.
because no matter what he is/was a far better president than anything you have produced.
Dennis seems to think that when you accuse someone of rape – they should buy you lunch.
edwardmahl/John Say: I say judge a bird by its feathers. Throwing around papers at a deposition is not the first time DJT has engaged in such outbursts. Cassidy Hutchinson testified before the J.6 House Committee about DJT lunging at the steering wheel of “the Beast” when the SS refused to let the boss go up to the Capitol. Then Hutchinson said “there was catsup dripping down the wall and a shattered porcelain plate on the floor” of the WH dining room after DJT saw an interview of AG Barr saying he saw no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Just two other examples of how DJT loses it when confronted with bad news.
Now I can understand why someone would not want to sit down for a deposition in which there are accusations of rape and defamation. But DJT agreed to the deposition. But, as it turns out, 2 juries found DJT liable of just that. And it’s not uncommon for both defense and plaintiffs lawyers to offer to buy lunch for the other side. It was only when DJT refused to host lunch did Alina Habba offer to do it. That is what set off DJT and he became angry at Alina–for doing the gracious thing. It made DJT look really bad.
But I would like to make one correction to my earlier comment–a rarity for me! Where I said DJT used the “C”-word in reference to Alina Habba. That is incorrect. After a careful review of the Kaplan interview the sexist slur by DJT was actually directed at Robbie Kaplan. Makes the incident a whole lot worse!
Finally, for JS I have this Q. Would Robbie Kaplan go into a public interview and just make up the story? I don’t think so. She is a lawyer who chooses her words carefully. You can’t make up those things when it comes to DJT!
I judge you by your own statements.
No. Hutchinson did NOT testify that “DJT lunging at the steering wheel of “the Beast””
She OBVIOUSLY had no first hand knowledge of that – she was not in the car.
She testified to the RUMOR.
Her testimony was refuted by the people in the car at the time and the people she allegedly heard the story from.
This is typical of your inability to make good judgements.
I do not know what happened in the car – and for the most part do not care.
Trump was entitled to go to the capitol if he wished.
But SS’s job is to keep the president safe – even when the president wants to do something that is not safe.
So you are making a mountain out of a claim that even if true means nothing. Presidents and the Secret Service disagree all the time.
The secret service usually wins because they are fully prepared to physically carry the president against his will to wherever thye think is safe.
All that said – Hutchinson did NOT say that in her closed door testimony. I only came up in the kangaroo court testimony that the J6 committee did in public – whithout any cross examination.
Her testimony is hearsay. It was denied by those who allegedly told it to her, it was denied by those actually in “the beast”
So with multiple credible sources conflicting with Huthvingson under oath. Secret Service agents who have no political affiliation with Trump. You chose to beleive Hutchinson ?
I would note that Hutchinson has been publicly angry – as have a few other republicans in the WH because they have had to pay their own legal bills for the lawfare inflicted on them by the left. They have begged for funds from the TNC and Trump.
But Trump and the RNC can not help them even if they wanted – as they would be obstruction of justice.
That is PRECISELY what Got Nixon – trying to raise funds for the defense of the defendants in Watergate.
Hutchinson can start a gofundme campaign if she wishs – or better yet GiveSendGo where they will not steal all the contributions because they do not like the politics of the receiver. Regardless myraids of people who are allowed to would contribute to her legal costs
But Trump can not.
And unlike the Biden’s, Republicans are not trying to pretend they can circumvent obstruction claims using politically friendly rich lawyers.
So your example is complete garbage.
I have sympathy for Cassidy. But my sympathy is that YOU and democrats pressured her.
John, Dennis is a chronic liar. You and others proved that much, yet Dennis repeats the same lies. I am glad you do this because it shows others how badly the left lies. Thank you, Dennis, for being an excellent example of showing people how unabashed the left is when they lie.
Dennis, While I have found Edwardmahl’s posts far more intelligent than yours – I am not him.
I have posted under three names here.
My real name years ago.
Anonymous – when I accidentally hit post prior to setting my name or when it is difficult to impossible to connect as jbsay because of internet problems, and jbsay.
I do not understand why people would post under multiple names – unless they have either discredited one name so badly that no oe beleives them under than name anyone – as You and gigi have done, or if say for posting something illegal they got banned.
Nor do I understand why anyone would deliberately post as anonymous.
I post as jobsy and will continue to, and only as jbsay because I have over a long time earned credibility posting under that name.
Everyone here knows when they read a post by jbsay that I have checked my facts before posting and that my logic is rock solid.
Why would I give that up to post under a different name ?
Nor do I understand the desire of you or numerous others here to guess who if anyone is posting under multiple names.
I do not understand why anyone would post under multiple names. I do not understand why someone else would care if others are posting under multiple names.
So many here waste their time trying to guess what different names others are posting under.
I do not play those games.
I do not post under other names.
I have on rare occassions posted my email address and a few here have emailed me directly.
Frankly if you are the slightest internet savy you can find my real name and address and ….
I do not use them because in real life I have a relative that is a sociopath and a stalker and not savy enough to find me posting as jbsay.
Otherwise I would prefer to post under my name. I take pride in what I write.
regardless, if you email me – I will engage you directly and I will share my real identity.
Regardless, I have not posted as edwardmahl or any other name.
What does this have to do with the story?
“Mar-a-Lago is a poplar dining spot in Palm Beach. “
Dennis, Mar a Lago is not a restaurant open to the general public. The rest is worse rubbish. You need to stop littering.
The above is from S. Meyer.
Dennis, did you see the story today that Trump paid $20K to a non-union shop in Clinton, MI, to stage a rally of fake striking union auto workers last September, with non-union people holding up “Union Members for Trump” signs? So much cosplay with Trump.
Anonymous: Yes, I did see the story. Now why would DJT do such a unseemly thing? I know the answer to my own Q.
And we are supposed tro beleive this because you have such an excellent records of accuracy.
Dennis, I start with the assumption that what you post will prove false when I check the facts – I am rarely wrong.
Just as I have said that I would not think of posting under a different name – because I have built a reputation for credibility and reason,
you really should be posting as anonymous – because you are so rarely right about anything.
Possibly only Gigi is more inaccurate about everything she rights.
Gigi is not very sharp and I sometimes leave her alone – because I think she actually beleives the nonsense she writes and does not have the intellectual skills to recognizer her own errors.
While you are no genius, you have the intelligence to recognize that som much of what you post is false.
That means you are lying. You either know what you post is false, or you are intelligent enough to figure it out.
With respect to your cosplay strike claim or your Kaplan deposition claim – Why should anyone beleive you ?
Do you have a credible source ?
Most of these I do not care about.
If Trump stuck Roberta Kaplan with buying her own Lunch – good for him. Its not as if she is poor.
If Trump tries to go to the capitol on J6 – that is precisely what he promised he was going to do.
But neither of these stories have credible sources. It is highly unlikely they are true.
Not is it likely your Cosplay strike story is true.
Nor was the collusion delusion true.
Nor was the hinter Biden’s laptop is russian disinformation true.
Is there anything you have said over the years that has actually been true ?
You really expect that when you falsely accuse someone of Rape that they are going to buy you lunch ?
Next. Kaplan was deposing Trump – not the other way arround. It is the “norm” for the attorney conducting the deposition to be responsible for
providing their own and particularly the person they are deposing lunch.
You/Kaplan seem to be arguing that because Trump is rich it is his duty to pay for everything else.
The first problem with you post is that as we have seen repeatedly – there is no reason to trust anything you post.
Next we know that we can not trust attny Kaplan – because she failed to disclose her relationship with Judge Kaplan.
That appears to be a minor relations – we do not have the same social media resources in 1996 so it is harder to tell if Kaplan – Like Willis is lying.
Regardless, the obligation to disclose exists for BOTH. Failing to do so is an ethical violation.
But despite your false rants regarding Hanna’s ethics, I would suggest that you think about the fact that this story can only go one direction.
Either the relationship beteeen the Kaplans at the weis firm was deminimus, in which case we will not hear more, or it was not, in which case slowly more will drip drip out.
You can be sure that Trump has PI’s and attorney’s dreging through the lives of Kaplan and Kapalan and like the Willis blow up in GA,
all secrets will be revealed.
I would further note though proplerly reported to Trump, Carrol’s other attonrey Clerked for Judge Kaplan and relatively recently.
That alone required an ethical judge to recuse themselves. The parties in a case are entitled to the attornies of their respective choices.
If there is a conflict – it is the Judge that must go.
Next we have had this angry Trump rants from those of you on the left all the time.
Though Trump is fully entitled to be angry over the lawfare the left is inflicting on him there is little evidence that those are truthful.
But assuming you are correct – Trump’s anger is fully justified.
Regardless, the probability of Truth is low – the person being deposed does not bring a stack of papers to a deposition – the lawyer conducting the deposition brings document. This should be obvious to you – but you do not think beyond the surface of your remarks.
It is not Trump, or Trump’s lawyers job to bring their evidence to a depostion. The purpose of a deposition is for Kaplan to secure evidence from the testimony of the person being deposed.
Put simply the only people who would have had lots of papers at a a deposition of Trump by Kaplan would have been Kaplan,
And she would not have dumped a stack of those on Trump. She would have kept them close and provided them one at a time to trump as needed.
Is your/Kaplan’s story plausible ? NO! is it totally impossible ? No, just highly unlikely.
But then your inability to weight the evidence available and distinguish between what is probable and what is not is legendary.
“Orange man bad” – we ALL got it
Dennis McIntyre, assigned here as Bribery Biden’s Baghdad Bob, screamed in hopes of distracting: “This isn’t what I expected” is also the title of this comment. This describes what Roberta Kaplan said after her first encounter with DJT at Mar-a-Lago. What’s this about?
The title of Dennis/Baghdad Bob’s comment should be “I’m here to post as though myself and Professor Turley are on first name terms, while frantically attempting to redirect the conversation away from the Soviet Democrats’ justices and Bribery Biden back to Trump!”
Why is it that Dennis McIntyre’s “today in political sex allegations” isn’t about Bribery Biden’s daughter asking in her diary if she’s a junky and a sexual pervert because of all those “inappropriate showers” with Dennis’s rapist boss, The Big Guy, during her teen years? That’s first person evidence, Dennis/Baghdad Bob! Most rapists are above raping their teenage daughter in the shower – they do that to other peoples’ daughters.
Would you like discuss the fact your employer, Bribery Biden, The Big Guy, has another credible rape victim with contemporary witnesses telling you and the rest of the Soviet Democrats he’s a rapist, Dennis/Baghdad Bob? And – unlike your psychopath hero E. Jean Carroll, Tara Reade knows what day, what year, and explicitly what happened.
https://www.businessinsider.com/former-neighbor-corroborates-joe-bidens-accuser-2020-4?op=1
Now I know what you are thinking. Mar-a-Lago is a poplar dining spot in Palm Beach.
And the White House had Harvey Weinstein on the open door policy guest list, free to come and go to hang out with the First Daughters – despite the fact that the Clinton and then Obama Secret Service close protection details warned both families their BFF, Harvey Weinstein, was a serial rapist and pedophile. Any comments to make about that, now that you’ve finished diverting to Mar-a-lago Dennis/Baghdad Bob?
Now we know what you’re thinking, Dennis/Baghdad Bob: Even if normal Americans won’t be distracted by me, my fellow Soviet Democrat police state fascists need a little bit of support and hopefully we can get off topic regarding the fact we’re now eating our own.
Well, you could be right about that.
But from a former President of the United States?
The fact is, Dennis McIntyre/Baghdad Bob, is you’ve voted for every racist/rapist Democrat president that ran for office during your lifetime. Whether it was Carter and Obama the racists or Clinton and Biden as the racists AND rapists.
You’ll believe every single word uttered by Carroll, who can’t even remember what year it was, what exactly happened, etc – but dismiss out of hand Tara Reade and the contemporaneous witnesses who confirm she told them about Biden raping her back when it happened. What happened to your #MeToo Believe Her, Dennis/Baghdad Bob where Tara Reade is concerned?
You are the face of Soviet Democrat dishonesty and chickensh!t chicanery; if you didn’t have active double standards to use as political weapons, you’d actually have none.
Kapalan and Trump have a decades old anomonsity between them and its no secret in the halls of NYC City Hall. When it comes to Trump and NYC politicians/justices, its all personal because it is.
What does this have to do with Sotomayor? We get it…you hate Trump but stick to the article at hand.
Once again, I suggest expanding the Supreme Court to a panel of 15, there being so much more work now.
And the same with the Executive Branch, expanding it to Seven Presidents.
Like the rational thinking Swiss:
The seven members of the Federal Council
https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/federal-council/members-of-the-federal-council.html
In your vision of a 15-Justice Scotus (which ain’t gonna happen but it passes the time to talk about), would they decide cases in panels, or would all Justices be on every case?
Kansas Elder, I envisage panels but appealable to the entire court, if the appeal is approved.
David, increased numbers can make things work less efficiently and less judiciously. Keep the size the same. If they need some relief, specialty courts could be created since, in some aspects, the SC Judges lack specific knowledge. The SC would still be the final judge.
So basically the same as circuit courts where they sit in panels of three but can grant rehearing en banc?
David, please think more than the first level about this.
There is a reason that I proposed a Superior Court of the United States with a large number of judges.
That would actually reduce the workload of Scotus. That would work the way your 15 justice supreme court does.
But the structure and function of the supreme court is quite different.
The supreme court is not just the top appeals court in the country.
It is not even a traditional appellate court.
The supreme court does not have to take any case.
It does not have to take it even if 9 justices beleive it was decided wrongly.
The supreme court takes only the cases is chooses, and those are nearly always cases with constitutional issues.
If you have the supreme court dividing into panels – must a 3 judge panel take evey appeal to the supreme court ?
Or are you going to preserve the existing cert system – if you do – then do 7 justices have to grant cert before a panel hears a case or only 2 ?
If you require 7 justices to grant cert for a pannel to hear the case – you have dramatically expanded the workload of the court, not reduced it.
If you only require the justices on the pannel to decide 2:1 to grant cert you have made it far easier to deny cases, and far more likely that random 3 judge panels on the left or the right would deny cert to cases that should be heard.
If you allow a certa apeal from the panel to the full court – you have again increased the workload.
If you actualy want to reduce the workload of the supreme court – reduce the number of justices to 7 or even 5.
That will actually reduce the work load.
I would suggest that you might want to read “The Mythical Man-Month”
While it was written about software development the findings are robust across all intellectual disciplines.
except in very carefully thought out and structured ways – adding more people to a project actually tends to increase the amount of work and decrease the efficiency and it does so exponentially.
There are ways to have a much larger Supreme court and have efficiency increase and the workload off each justice decrease but this ways are antithetical to the way law and the supreme court work.
Don’t presume that because you think that adding alot of justices will tilt the ideological balance of the court, that it will also be more efficient. It wont. With near certainty your 15 justice court will gum up the works at the supreme court.
The court will be able to hear less cases – not more, but most implimnetations will make it more likely to hear cases not less.
The result being it will fall further and further behind.
Do not confuse ideological objectives with practical ones like improve productivity and reduced workload.
Derschowitz has a good test – he calls the shoe on the other foot test.
Lest presume Democrats decide to expand the court to 15 justices but before a single justice gets confirmed Trump is elected and it is Trump that gets to apoint 6 more justices.
While I know you will be even more unhappy with the ideological balance of the court – do you actually still think the workload will go down ?
It wont. a 16 justice supreme court with 12 conservative justices will be as inefficient and dysfunctional as one withy 12 left wing not justices.
This i sa common problem with those on the left – because you think some idea might have ideolgicla advantage you delude yourself into beleiving it is also a good idea, when it is not.
You tanked the filibuster for presidential apointments – how has that worked out ?
Whether in the executive or the judicial branch it has resulted in more extreme people – is that a good thing.
If you want to restore some balance to the courts – restore the filibuster for all appointments.
Except now you can’t. Republicans are not going to limit their own ability to put ideologues into power when they control the senate, and democrats will be unable to in turn.
This is one of several rules changed democrats have made to 2090 year old rules that have made politics worse not better.
There is actually very little work to do.
The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of only security and infrastructure.
The only thing that remains is for the Supreme Court to order the extirpation of the unconstitutional welfare state.
See? That was easy, wasn’t it?
That would increase not decrease the work. It would also create massive problems.
Do you now expect to seat 15 justices for oral arguments ? Do you expect to have 15 justices decide each case ?
Or are you going to decide cases in pannels – that would reduce workload but it would destroy the effect of the supreme court speaking on issues with one voice.
The most critical tribute of the supreme court is that it is final, and speaks with one voice.
If you actually want to reduce the workload Congress can create a “superior court of the united states” that is superior to all the district appelate courts but inferior tot he supreme court, That court can be as large or small as you like. That court can decide cases in pannels. That court can serve to resolve circuit splits, leaving the supreme court to resolve only the cases where 4 justices think the “superior court of the united state” got it wrong.
That is the way to reduce workload. for the Supreme court.
I would further note II am not especially interested in Sotomayor’s whining.
SCOTUS can reduce its workload fairly easily. It can reverse and remand without opinion or hearing the idiotic nonsense coming from lower courts. We are seeing that with myriads of cases that are left wing nut efforts to get the court to reverse Breun.
If SCOTUS is not going to reverse or narrow, then those cases should either be affirmed – where the lower court got it right or reversed and remanded for reconsideration in light of Bruen when they are wrong. There is no reason for SCOTUS to hear cases that challenge precedent if there is no chance it will reverse.
SCOTUS needs to affirm, reverse and remand without hearing more often.
It also needs to ignore more cases that do not matter.
As an example the TX border case will come to it soon enough.
SCOTUS should not have vacated the TRO – that sends a signal that is likely a false one – despite the fact that they vacated without comment.
I do not care about vacating. I care about the time they spent on something that did not matter one way or another, and that will come before them as a full case soon enough anyway.
Vactating the TRO does NOT direct TX to leave. Nor does it change whether CBP or the TX NG will fallow a possibly unconstutional order should Biden order them to take down the TX razor wire.
The decision was a pointless waste of time.
This rap video on Jan 6 and Democrat hypocrisy is outstanding:
https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1753514490853822734
OT,
Athlete and actor Carl Weathers passed on in his sleep peacefully at the age of 76.
RIP.
“This Isn’t What I Expected”:
“Big Fani” and The Notorious “Lil Nate”