True insofar as it goes… but this elides the detail that the right just won a generational battle for the Supreme Court. There is zero chance that any Republicans back reform here.
Even the minimum viable reform to enact term limits after this lot dies off is dead on arrival.
Sure. Until recently, they were losing. De-politicising the courts could be electorally advantageous for both sides.
> the minimum viable reform to enact term limits after this lot dies off is dead on arrival
Because that’s obviously partisan. There are more Republican-appointed judges. Term limiting them obviously favours one side in a way drawing from appellate judges by lot does not. (The Fifth and Ninth are regarded as crazy by half the country.)
How recently are you talking here? It’s been a conservative majority for over 5 decades.
> De-politicising the courts could be electorally advantageous for both sides.
Perhaps in the sense that being more consistently moderate would be advantageous for either party in seeking to win median voters, but I think this is not true in terms of the party base dynamics that actually drive most of policy and candidate selection. The Republican base is _thrilled_ with Trump and Mitchell’s maneuvering to secure a decades-long unshakable majority. Campaigning as a Republican on “I would like to reverse the biggest win in our lifetimes” would be political suicide, and your primary opponents would be the most well-funded in the country.
> Because that’s obviously partisan
The last bill I saw had the change kick in _after_ the existing justices vacated their seats, so as to not be seen to attack the existing majority. Even then it was DoA with zero Republican support. And that should not surprise you.
I like your proposal, but I stand by my claim that it’s politically impossible as a bipartisan policy for this generation. The only way we get Supreme Court reform is if they overreach, moderates get fed up with strong conservative rulings, Dems win a landslide with a mandate, and pass a partisan reform bill.
Typo, McConnell.
I think you overestimate how much the political apparatus cares about the long-term. It's hard not to agree that de-politicized courts are good, more or less, for everyone. But the right-wing won a generational battle for the Supreme Court. There is no incentive for any right-wing politician currently alive to propose that kind of change today; if anything, the political machine would call them out for proposing that their party loosen its grip on the reins.
We'll see how the right-wing feels after this next election. It's not a secret that whoever wins in 2024 will likely get to appoint several new justices, though the court as a whole will almost certainly remain right-leaning. If that control does start to erode, though, expect to hear much discussion about making the de-politicization of the courts a priority.
From someone most Democrats would consider "on the right" - it's more complicated than that, of course - you're right.
The right had _lost_ that battle for generations, though. I don't recall any serious efforts to reorganize the judiciary as a result of that.
The "Hawaii judge" has been a running meme on the right for _years_. Pretty much everything Trump tried to do that was even a little bit controversial was fought in the courts, and the left tended to practice "judge shopping" to place the cases in Hawaii's district. The Ninth Circuit has been known as the "Ninth Circus" for as long as I can recall.
Of course, the right also practices judge shopping. It's just part of how things are set up today. The difference in this discussion is that we're now talking about changing the system itself because the left feels like they lost.
> Even the minimum viable reform to enact term limits after this lot dies off is dead on arrival.
I wouldn't be opposed to reform of some kind, but keeping the current nomination process and enacting term limits doesn't seem viable. The problem here is that Justices are nominated by the President. As long as that's the case, all term limits will do is make the judiciary less consistent. The biggest impact of changing the makeup of the Supreme Court more often would be to have precedent overturned more frequently.
It could be argued that the entire point of the way things are set up is so that the three branches won't be controlled by the same zeitgeist at the same time. Presidents get four to eight years. Congress can serve as long as they're re-elected, in two or six year terms. SCOTUS serves lifetime terms.
The fact that the branches are at odds isn't a bug; it's a feature.
