Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bluetus

(2,761 posts)
46. Exactly the case. This problem was caused largely by the SCOTUS
Sat Mar 21, 2026, 10:23 AM
Saturday

One of our top priorities must be to completely reform the SCOTUS. From the very beginning, and especially in the past 20 years, the SCOTUS has effectively made up law from whole cloth. This is why one of the most selfish and destructive acts in the history of our nation was when RBG would not give up her seat at a time that a liberal could replace her.

Congress has the power to reform the courts. But that means we must have a President that will sign that legislation. And before that, we must have a Senate that will go along with what emerges from the House. And before that, we must have a House that will actually vote for these reforms. Remember that we still have something like 100 "centerists" who will never do anything helpful without great pressure.

So it is a long road, but we must start now. We need to make SCOTUS reform one of the top 5 issues that every Dem is confronted with in every election. And it does not have to be a completely partisan thing. There can be a fair and balanced set of reforms, such as

* Expand to 13 active justices
* Rotation of Chief
* 1 new justice seated in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd years of each POTUS term
* When there are more than 13, the longest-tenured become "Senior" and non-voting

With such a system, no President would ever name more than 6 justices (less than a majority). Other than death or resignation, there would effectively be a term limit of about 17 years. If we had that system today, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts would have been non-voting years ago. Sotomayor and Kagan would be nearing their "senior" status.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Behind this effort 100 percent! Drum Mar 20 #1
Me TOO! lastlib Mar 20 #2
small point: lastlib Mar 20 #3
Oops. Fixed. Thanks IcyPeas Mar 20 #4
Give him time .... Tasmanian Devil Mar 20 #6
He's not my rep, BUT madamesilverspurs Mar 20 #14
And I am stuck with crank, who is worse than his predecessor, lumpy lamborn. niyad Mar 20 #20
OMG ABC123Easy Mar 20 #5
They're more loyal to the almighty dollar than to the country AZ8theist Mar 20 #18
DING DING DING! OldBaldy1701E Saturday #39
looked at the names and missing are multiple centrists and/or conservative Dems, plus many of the AIPAC-preferred Celerity Saturday #42
Makes sense ABC123Easy Saturday #48
You GO, Congressman! GiqueCee Mar 20 #7
This MUST be done LilElf70 Mar 20 #8
Hear, hear peppertree Mar 20 #9
Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! And Yes!!!!!!!!!!!! This is a winner IF we can get people to understand what it is, so important!! Cheezoholic Mar 20 #10
We need to find a way to explain these things with humor - general, not "pointed" humor at an individual's politics. colorado_ufo Mar 20 #11
Agree. It's one of those terms that doesn't sound like what it is. IcyPeas Mar 20 #25
Yeah, Americans don't understand what the Supremes did Farmer-Rick Saturday #45
We need this to save us from billionaires like Musk, Ellison, etc. ShazamIam Mar 20 #12
THIS! TY, Rep and co-sponsores! electric_blue68 Mar 20 #13
Shine a light in dark places Seinan Sensei Mar 20 #15
Right on. byronius Mar 20 #16
This has to happen. badhair77 Mar 20 #17
Add it to the $200 billion Iran bill you have to authorize Augiedog Mar 20 #19
ding, this !!!!!!!!! AllaN01Bear Mar 20 #21
This bill was introduced last September, apparently. niyad Mar 20 #22
Correct. See this link (this is the link in Neguse's post) IcyPeas Mar 20 #24
Yes, I saw it. niyad Mar 20 #33
Sounds great, but guess who will strike it down as being "unconstitutional" Wednesdays Mar 20 #23
I think you are right. How can a "resolution" overturn... reACTIONary Mar 20 #27
OK, Here is the answer.... reACTIONary Mar 20 #28
Mt. Everest was once a very big hill to climb..... lastlib Mar 20 #29
This is a proposal for a constitutional amendment. And it is indeed a very big hill to climb. n/t thesquanderer Mar 20 #31
Yes wendyb-NC Mar 20 #26
So, what exactly his resolution? It is H.J.Res.122 - Proposing..... reACTIONary Mar 20 #30
Overturning Citizens United would be a big deal jfz9580m Mar 20 #32
Neguse is my rep!! evemac Mar 20 #34
Mine, too, and I get to vote for him in next Friday's generalbetrayus Saturday #50
DURec leftstreet Mar 20 #35
Not a single republican. OGBuzz Mar 20 #36
Am I wrong in thinking that a "resolution" like this may be to gauge support, or at least encourage a debate and..... FadedMullet Saturday #37
Corporations, Organizations, Religions, and Associations and other gangs DO NOT... BurnDoubt Saturday #38
A constitutional amendment is way too far around the barn ColoradoHoosier Saturday #40
Exactly the case. This problem was caused largely by the SCOTUS Bluetus Saturday #46
YAY! Let's all damn the idea and say 'Not a chance!' GenThePerservering Saturday #41
Good for Neguse, but we are lacking leadership at the party level Bluetus Saturday #43
Does anyone know how many such resolutions have been introduced in Congress over the years? betsuni Saturday #44
Essential if we want to save democracy in this country. Martin68 Saturday #47
Kick and Rec berniesandersmittens Saturday #49
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Rep. Neguse resolution to...»Reply #46