Jen Sorensen for March 27, 2024

  1. Xf8u 3
    XF8U-3  3 months ago

    FDR tried to expand the court – no go. And he was quite popular.

     •  Reply
  2. Gt r at vmi jdp
    salakfarm Premium Member 3 months ago

    First thing on Biden’s re-election agenda with control of both houses MUST be expanding the Supremes to 13.

     •  Reply
  3. Img 1373
    Quixotic1  3 months ago

    We could always impeach the corrupt, incompetent jurists.

    That being said, there’s historical precedent for expanding the SCOTUS.

     •  Reply
  4. Brain guy dancing hg clr
    Concretionist  3 months ago

    All y’all “expand the court” types are barking at the moon. There’s no possible way the Thuglicans will be so thoroughly removed from power that they’ll have to let it happen.

     •  Reply
  5. Avt freyjaw nurse48
    FreyjaRN Premium Member 3 months ago

    We need one judge per circuit.

    There weren’t nine judges when SCOTUS was formed.

     •  Reply
  6. 704fe3d1 4a7d 495f a742 2d8456861f60
    admiree2  3 months ago

    Expansion? Should we stop at 43 or make it the size of the House of Representatives? Only hitch would be a sign up sheet to use the chamber in the Capitol Building or allocate the money to expand the current SCOTUS Building.

     •  Reply
  7. Missing large
    sunnydazed  3 months ago

    Is there a rumor that there used to be 15 Supreme Court Justices, or can we just do it that way?

     •  Reply
  8. Pine marten3
    martens  3 months ago

    Review of Justice Breyer’s new book (WashPost):

    During his nearly three decades on the Supreme Court, Breyer took a more pragmatic approach, issuing opinions or dissents and giving lectures that challenged originalists’ approach usually favored by conservatives. His new book, down to its title — “Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism” — aims to cement his belief in former chief justice John Marshall’s philosophy that “the Constitution must be a workable set of principles to be interpreted by subsequent generations.”

    The book also serves as Breyer’s warning that the textualist approach by the high court’s current conservative majority has led to wrongly decided cases with significant consequences for the country — most notably the restriction of access to abortion and the expansion of gun rights.

     •  Reply
  9. Missing large
    Valiant1943 Premium Member 3 months ago

    For God’s sake, what are we waiting for?

     •  Reply
  10. Lifi
    rossevrymn  3 months ago

    My idea ever since MS I’m Going to Live Forever croaked.

     •  Reply
  11. Thrill
    fritzoid Premium Member 3 months ago

    Expanding the court opens the door for the GOP expanding it again next time they have an opportunity, and so on and so on… Don’t grant yourself powers you don’t want available for the other side as well; it’s bitten the Dems in the butt in the past.

    Tying the number of SCOTUS Justices to the number of Circuit Courts has an appealing symmetry, but there’s no logical justification to do so. If you’re thinking of SCOTUS as a representative body, wouldn’t that require that each Circuit provide exactly one Justice, and each vacancy be filled by someone from the same Circuit? It’s true that diversity of experience is valuable in group decision-making, but geographical distribution isn’t in itself an effective way to promote that. (It’s also true that a panel of thirteen isn’t likely to make decisions any more wisely or justly than a panel of nine.)

    Yes, the current bench sucks, but that’s because of who sits on it, not because it’s too small. Establishing and enforcing ethical standards is of course essential, both for those Justices now seated and for future nominees. I grant that doesn’t help much in the moment, but until that’s done, expanding the court is an expediency liable to backfire.

     •  Reply
  12. Durak ukraine
    Durak Premium Member 3 months ago

    One Justice from every state and territory. Expand it to 57. Now.

     •  Reply
  13. 1
    ncorgbl  3 months ago

    Win elections. Having enough of a majority in congress to impeach and expel corrupt justices.

     •  Reply
  14. Missing large
    casonia2  3 months ago

    Good one, Jen!

     •  Reply
  15. Saurichia
    Saurischia Premium Member 3 months ago

    It seems to me that there could be term limits and have it set up in such a way that each presidential administration can replace one of the judges. That way there would be a rotation as there seems to be no benefit to lifelong appointments. At least it would be more representative of the citizens who elected the president and congress. A lifetime appointment where judges could conceivably serve for 50 years is ridiculous and is a major lever for manipulation of the process, which we have recently experienced. Not sure why adding more justices would be a solution. We need to solve the root of the problem.

     •  Reply
  16. Carthago delenda est
    Carthago delenda est  3 months ago

    John Oliver offered a partial solution.

     •  Reply
  17. Froggy with cat ears
    willie_mctell  3 months ago

    Court expansion has a built in problem. If one side in a dispute can do it, then the other side can do it. It leads to every adult citizen in the country having a seat on the court. Probably arguments about admitting non-citizens will follow. Maybe a constitutional limit to an even number of justices would be fun. BTW, I think the present makeup of the court is vile. I loved the Warren court. Hugo Black, William O. Douglas,…

     •  Reply
  18. Freeradical
    Free Radical  3 months ago

    Conservative justices are actually neither of those things

     •  Reply
  19. Home winter 001  2
    gmadoll789 Premium Member 3 months ago

    If they were to recuse themselves as often as they should, we would NEED more justices to get anything done! Easy to estimate exactly how many that would be.

     •  Reply
  20. R.j.s
    Rocky Premium Member 3 months ago

    The Justices, (at least the one’s who can clearly articulate what a “woman” is…) are following the Constitution more closely than they have in decades. And the Constitution is really pretty clear on most subjects. Simply because they do not rule as some people wish does not automatically mean that they are wrong. Before you start crying and whining like children, stop and actually READ the document in question! Yes, it has some big words in it. And yes, I know that’s asking a lot from today’s entitled, responsibility-dodging, murder-endorsing, zombies; But hey! Stranger things have happened!

     •  Reply
  21. Missing large
    AtomicForce91 Premium Member 3 months ago

    “Extremists” that do not want to kill children under the guise of healthcare.

     •  Reply
  22. Missing large
    smartgrr  3 months ago

    Term limits not more justices

     •  Reply
  23. Missing large
    smartgrr  3 months ago

    And remove any who have received any kind of financial donation

     •  Reply
  24. Missing large  3 months ago


     •  Reply
  25. Missing large
    wolfiiig  3 months ago

    The Chief Justice is asleep at the wheel.

     •  Reply
  26. B3b2b771 4dd5 4067 bfef 5ade241cb8c2
    cdward  3 months ago

    Expand it now. Then legislate a mechanism for impeaching Supreme Court justices who violate the codes of ethics that would get any other judge kicked out or arrested.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Jen Sorensen