Ways to fix the Supreme Court
This Vox article lists ten ways the Supreme Court could be reformed. And before you say "but I like how the conservatives control it right now," that could change if the two oldest justices - Thomas and Alito - leave the court when President Biden can nominate their replacements. Reforming the court will be better for everyone regardless of which faction happens to be in charge. Here's a summary from electoral-vote:
Expand the Court: The number of justices is fixed by law, not by the Constitution. It has varied from six to ten over time. Congress could fix it at a larger number, say 13, or if it is afraid that is unlucky, then 15.
A balanced court: One far-out proposal is a 15-member Court consisting of five Democrats, five Republicans, and five justices chosen by the other ten. This would guarantee that the five swing justices would be neutral. However, this might run into the problem that it is the president who picks justices, according to the Constitution, not the other justices. It should be noted that in some other countries, it is indeed the sitting judges who pick new judges.
Act like a Circuit Court: When a case is appealed to a circuit court, three judges are picked off the bench at random to hear the case. In this proposal, all 172 active circuit court judges would be nominated and confirmed as Supreme Court justices. Every 2 weeks, nine of them would be chosen at random to hear upcoming cases. They would hear only the cases scheduled for those two weeks. Then they would go back to their circuits. This would mean that six unelected justices could not throw out all the laws they don't happen to like.
Term limits: In this proposal, which would require a constitutional amendment, justices would serve a single 18-year term, with two most senior justices removed every two years. This would also guarantee each president at least four picks per term, depending on how vacancies were handled.
Jurisdiction stripping: The Constitution says that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction on disputes between the states and disputes with foreign countries and appellate jurisdiction on all other cases subject to whatever limitations Congress imposes on it. Congress could pass a law taking away the Court's appellate jurisdiction on voting rights, abortion, and other cases.
Require a supermajority to throw out a law: On "regular" cases (e.g., did company X violate company Y's patent), a simply majority would suffice. But to strike down a law duly passed by Congress, a 7-2 majority would be required. Of course, if seven members of the Court didn't like this law, they could kill it.
Presidential resistance: This falls under "How many divisions does the Court command?" Or "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it." A president could concoct some reason to ignore the Court and then just do it. If he made this clear in advance, the Court might be much more humble and not think that it alone can run the country.
State resistance: Same as the above, but this time with a governor saying: "Try to make me."
Congressional resistance: The Congressional Review Act lays out an expedited procedure for Congress to review and swiftly overrule executive branch regulations. A new and analogous law could give Congress an expedited procedure to swiftly overrule Supreme Court decisions.
Omnibus Legislation: In 1988, the Court handed down five decisions that eroded the Civil Rights Act. Congress promptly passed a bill restoring them all. After Congress performed this at trick half a dozen times, the Court would probably get the message.
https://www.vox.com/23186373/supreme-court-packing-roe-wade-voting-rights-jurisdiction-stripping
Expand the Court: The number of justices is fixed by law, not by the Constitution. It has varied from six to ten over time. Congress could fix it at a larger number, say 13, or if it is afraid that is unlucky, then 15.
A balanced court: One far-out proposal is a 15-member Court consisting of five Democrats, five Republicans, and five justices chosen by the other ten. This would guarantee that the five swing justices would be neutral. However, this might run into the problem that it is the president who picks justices, according to the Constitution, not the other justices. It should be noted that in some other countries, it is indeed the sitting judges who pick new judges.
Act like a Circuit Court: When a case is appealed to a circuit court, three judges are picked off the bench at random to hear the case. In this proposal, all 172 active circuit court judges would be nominated and confirmed as Supreme Court justices. Every 2 weeks, nine of them would be chosen at random to hear upcoming cases. They would hear only the cases scheduled for those two weeks. Then they would go back to their circuits. This would mean that six unelected justices could not throw out all the laws they don't happen to like.
Term limits: In this proposal, which would require a constitutional amendment, justices would serve a single 18-year term, with two most senior justices removed every two years. This would also guarantee each president at least four picks per term, depending on how vacancies were handled.
Jurisdiction stripping: The Constitution says that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction on disputes between the states and disputes with foreign countries and appellate jurisdiction on all other cases subject to whatever limitations Congress imposes on it. Congress could pass a law taking away the Court's appellate jurisdiction on voting rights, abortion, and other cases.
Require a supermajority to throw out a law: On "regular" cases (e.g., did company X violate company Y's patent), a simply majority would suffice. But to strike down a law duly passed by Congress, a 7-2 majority would be required. Of course, if seven members of the Court didn't like this law, they could kill it.
Presidential resistance: This falls under "How many divisions does the Court command?" Or "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it." A president could concoct some reason to ignore the Court and then just do it. If he made this clear in advance, the Court might be much more humble and not think that it alone can run the country.
State resistance: Same as the above, but this time with a governor saying: "Try to make me."
Congressional resistance: The Congressional Review Act lays out an expedited procedure for Congress to review and swiftly overrule executive branch regulations. A new and analogous law could give Congress an expedited procedure to swiftly overrule Supreme Court decisions.
Omnibus Legislation: In 1988, the Court handed down five decisions that eroded the Civil Rights Act. Congress promptly passed a bill restoring them all. After Congress performed this at trick half a dozen times, the Court would probably get the message.
https://www.vox.com/23186373/supreme-court-packing-roe-wade-voting-rights-jurisdiction-stripping
