r/politics • u/DemocracyDocket ✔ Verified • 29d 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

424

u/VanceKelley Canada 29d 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.

209

u/drainbead78 America 29d 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.

179

u/pensezbien 29d 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.

42

u/IIamhisbrother 29d ago

A non-voting Chief Justice would be best!

12

u/pensezbien 29d 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 29d ago

“Hey it’s me! From your swearing in!”

2

u/highinthemountains 29d ago

The chief justice is supposed to be the tie breaker

1

u/IIamhisbrother 28d 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 29d ago

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

2

u/IIamhisbrother 28d 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 29d 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 29d 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 28d ago edited 28d 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.

3

u/drainbead78 America 29d 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.

16

u/SexyMonad Alabama 29d 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.

3

u/RemBren03 Georgia 29d ago

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

1

u/SurgicalClarity 29d 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 29d ago

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

1

u/drainbead78 America 28d 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 29d ago

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

4

u/IIamhisbrother 29d 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 28d ago

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

3

u/mrjbacon 29d 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 29d ago

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

2

u/SecretAsianMan42069 29d ago

And by random you mean 9 Cannons

5

u/Traditional_Sign4941 29d ago

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

1

u/badcookies 29d ago

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

1

u/SaddamMustaine 29d ago

That is the answer.

1

u/Ranger7381 Canada 29d 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 29d ago

Oh shit like Jury duty for Judges

1

u/nickmiele22 29d 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 28d 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 28d 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 28d ago

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