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

(2,736 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 Friday #1
Me TOO! lastlib Friday #2
small point: lastlib Friday #3
Oops. Fixed. Thanks IcyPeas Friday #4
Give him time .... Tasmanian Devil Friday #6
He's not my rep, BUT madamesilverspurs Friday #14
And I am stuck with crank, who is worse than his predecessor, lumpy lamborn. niyad Friday #20
OMG ABC123Easy Friday #5
They're more loyal to the almighty dollar than to the country AZ8theist Friday #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 Friday #7
This MUST be done LilElf70 Friday #8
Hear, hear peppertree Friday #9
Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! And Yes!!!!!!!!!!!! This is a winner IF we can get people to understand what it is, so important!! Cheezoholic Friday #10
We need to find a way to explain these things with humor - general, not "pointed" humor at an individual's politics. colorado_ufo Friday #11
Agree. It's one of those terms that doesn't sound like what it is. IcyPeas Friday #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 Friday #12
THIS! TY, Rep and co-sponsores! electric_blue68 Friday #13
Shine a light in dark places Seinan Sensei Friday #15
Right on. byronius Friday #16
This has to happen. badhair77 Friday #17
Add it to the $200 billion Iran bill you have to authorize Augiedog Friday #19
ding, this !!!!!!!!! AllaN01Bear Friday #21
This bill was introduced last September, apparently. niyad Friday #22
Correct. See this link (this is the link in Neguse's post) IcyPeas Friday #24
Yes, I saw it. niyad Friday #33
Sounds great, but guess who will strike it down as being "unconstitutional" Wednesdays Friday #23
I think you are right. How can a "resolution" overturn... reACTIONary Friday #27
OK, Here is the answer.... reACTIONary Friday #28
Mt. Everest was once a very big hill to climb..... lastlib Friday #29
This is a proposal for a constitutional amendment. And it is indeed a very big hill to climb. n/t thesquanderer Friday #31
Yes wendyb-NC Friday #26
So, what exactly his resolution? It is H.J.Res.122 - Proposing..... reACTIONary Friday #30
Overturning Citizens United would be a big deal jfz9580m Friday #32
Neguse is my rep!! evemac Friday #34
Mine, too, and I get to vote for him in next Friday's generalbetrayus Saturday #50
DURec leftstreet Friday #35
Not a single republican. OGBuzz Friday #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