Giving each state equal representation without a population distribution that is exactly equal across every state inherently devalues the representation of those in population centers, giving disproportionate power to a party that is outnumbered but is spread out over the much emptier land. Equal rep must be based proportionally off of population to avoid devaluing individual voter influence.
I think that in the case of the judiciary’s supreme court, having a huge amount of people would be a ‘too many cooks in the kitchen’ problem. The important thing is a diversity of viewpoints who can argue on the technical (and moral) merits of the topic. Each state should send their most capable justice who can persuade their peers.
The way I figure, such an expanded SCOTUS would naturally form four or five cliques of 10-20 members apiece, who work with head justices to articulate their viewpoints into a dissertation on the topic. These proposals are examined and held to a vote, with the weakest being removed from the running - at which point, a rewrite is done on the remaining proposals by aligned cliques, voted on, and repeated until only one remains. Head justices do not get to vote, unless there is an exact tie among rulings.
…honestly, it would be good if there was a scientific research institute, dedicated to trying out political concepts like this in a simulated setting. The big problem of theoretical political systems is that they typically have to be applied to real-world people, which causes no end of social chafing. Having an MMO or roleplay to research these things, may go a long way towards healthy implementations.
While nice in theory, that’s not how partisan politics works in practice. What’s going to happen is that the absurdly large proportion of judges from conservative states will simply shout over opposition like they currently do in all other branches of government and stonewall any attempt to compromise. Gods forbid you try to push progressive ideas.
15 Justices, 30 year term (so its long enough, but not “lifetime”
Each seat is staggered 2 years apart, exporing on odd number years, approximately 6 months after the year begins (Maybe make it July 4th for the symbolism?).
Appointments are approved by simple majority of both houses (I don’t like the senate, but getting rid of them is unrealistic at this point), except in intra-term vacancies, which would require a 3/4 supermajority in both houses (to prevent sudden changes in the composition of the court). Each presidential term is expected to apppont 2 judges, a 2-term president appoints 4, unless they somehow find a supermajority to fill those vacancies, otherwise, they have to wait until the original term expires to do a regular, simple majority appointment. Filling a intra-term vacancy only lasts for the rest of that seat’s term, not a full 30 years.
That sounds remarkably similar to the court reform proposal by Pete Buttigieg. Although I don’t remember the specifics enough to say with confidence exactly how similar, I know he wanted each presidential terms to get a nomination and to remove the lifetime appointment in favor of a lengthy term. Although I think he wanted a portion of the court to be nominated by the justices themselves, including Chief Justice, but that was probably a more naive mindset that stemmed from a time when we had significantly more faith in the impartiality and apolitical motivations of the SCOTUS. I don’t know if that would be a good idea anymore, considering how easy it was for Trump to ratfuck the composition of the courts.
I personally don’t like it, but that is because I am biased in favor of popular public voting and a term that is a decade long, plus age limits. IMO, we want our representatives in all branches to have a relatively short shelf life, so that they can change with the times. Justices were given life terms to insulate them from the need to defend their office and politics, but I have the impression that modern life moves too quickly for the timespan you proposed. The internet has more or less been around for 40 years, and much has changed in technology and society within that time frame.
To me, the ideal term and age cap is 10 and 50 years, respectively. While a 51+ year person would almost certainly still have a sound mind, they would likely have difficulty when it comes to relating with the younger members of society. Say, for example, sexting. We have (stupid) laws that treat minors as creators of CP pornography when they share dick pictures with each other, putting them on sex offender registries for life - but they could boink each other in person, and not be charged. This example is an intersection of changing technology and social norms, that an older justice might not grasp.
Anyhow, setting aside my bias: Your concept is fine, and seems to fall within line with how things have traditionally worked. 👍
Giving each state equal representation without a population distribution that is exactly equal across every state inherently devalues the representation of those in population centers, giving disproportionate power to a party that is outnumbered but is spread out over the much emptier land. Equal rep must be based proportionally off of population to avoid devaluing individual voter influence.
I think that in the case of the judiciary’s supreme court, having a huge amount of people would be a ‘too many cooks in the kitchen’ problem. The important thing is a diversity of viewpoints who can argue on the technical (and moral) merits of the topic. Each state should send their most capable justice who can persuade their peers.
The way I figure, such an expanded SCOTUS would naturally form four or five cliques of 10-20 members apiece, who work with head justices to articulate their viewpoints into a dissertation on the topic. These proposals are examined and held to a vote, with the weakest being removed from the running - at which point, a rewrite is done on the remaining proposals by aligned cliques, voted on, and repeated until only one remains. Head justices do not get to vote, unless there is an exact tie among rulings.
…honestly, it would be good if there was a scientific research institute, dedicated to trying out political concepts like this in a simulated setting. The big problem of theoretical political systems is that they typically have to be applied to real-world people, which causes no end of social chafing. Having an MMO or roleplay to research these things, may go a long way towards healthy implementations.
While nice in theory, that’s not how partisan politics works in practice. What’s going to happen is that the absurdly large proportion of judges from conservative states will simply shout over opposition like they currently do in all other branches of government and stonewall any attempt to compromise. Gods forbid you try to push progressive ideas.
15 Justices, 30 year term (so its long enough, but not “lifetime”
Each seat is staggered 2 years apart, exporing on odd number years, approximately 6 months after the year begins (Maybe make it July 4th for the symbolism?).
Appointments are approved by simple majority of both houses (I don’t like the senate, but getting rid of them is unrealistic at this point), except in intra-term vacancies, which would require a 3/4 supermajority in both houses (to prevent sudden changes in the composition of the court). Each presidential term is expected to apppont 2 judges, a 2-term president appoints 4, unless they somehow find a supermajority to fill those vacancies, otherwise, they have to wait until the original term expires to do a regular, simple majority appointment. Filling a intra-term vacancy only lasts for the rest of that seat’s term, not a full 30 years.
How’s my proposal?
That sounds remarkably similar to the court reform proposal by Pete Buttigieg. Although I don’t remember the specifics enough to say with confidence exactly how similar, I know he wanted each presidential terms to get a nomination and to remove the lifetime appointment in favor of a lengthy term. Although I think he wanted a portion of the court to be nominated by the justices themselves, including Chief Justice, but that was probably a more naive mindset that stemmed from a time when we had significantly more faith in the impartiality and apolitical motivations of the SCOTUS. I don’t know if that would be a good idea anymore, considering how easy it was for Trump to ratfuck the composition of the courts.
I personally don’t like it, but that is because I am biased in favor of popular public voting and a term that is a decade long, plus age limits. IMO, we want our representatives in all branches to have a relatively short shelf life, so that they can change with the times. Justices were given life terms to insulate them from the need to defend their office and politics, but I have the impression that modern life moves too quickly for the timespan you proposed. The internet has more or less been around for 40 years, and much has changed in technology and society within that time frame.
To me, the ideal term and age cap is 10 and 50 years, respectively. While a 51+ year person would almost certainly still have a sound mind, they would likely have difficulty when it comes to relating with the younger members of society. Say, for example, sexting. We have (stupid) laws that treat minors as creators of CP pornography when they share dick pictures with each other, putting them on sex offender registries for life - but they could boink each other in person, and not be charged. This example is an intersection of changing technology and social norms, that an older justice might not grasp.
Anyhow, setting aside my bias: Your concept is fine, and seems to fall within line with how things have traditionally worked. 👍