The Moderate Proposal for Court-Packing

[Montmorency]

Why? I agree with limits for their terms sure, but I don't see the point in expanding the court.

Good question.

The Supreme Court today basically acts as an elite legislature. From the partisan point of view, it would be unacceptable to have a few Republicans strike down nearly any possible Democratic reform in the coming decades. From the left philosophical point of view, a few jumped-up bureaucrats deciding the fate of millions from their cloister is unconscionable, regardless of their political orientation.

The reform proposed above is essentially centrist, in that it preserves the Supreme Court while making it a little more representative of ideology in the country (a 6/5 balance favoring Democrats would be roughly proportional).

A more thorough-going reform would be for Congress to outright legislate away the power the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself over 200 years, and start over with the larger federal court system.

2: 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.

In other words, the Left partisan reform would be to eliminate almost all appellate functions of the Supreme Court, replaced with, say, cross-circuit panels for ultimate appeals.

If Republicans reject the centrist compromise, Democrats ought to use it to justify the radical program.

To help improve the system requires proper proportional representation rather than first past the post at state and federal level. Suddenly this whole issue would become irrelevant.

Reforms of the legislature are a worthy topic, but distinct from this one.