Commentators say a knockdown battle over every open Supreme Court seat is demoralizing for the country and cements the perception of the court as a political body. There have been a number of Supreme Court reform proposals discussed over the years.
Presidential elections are decided by many things: media exposure, financial backing, personal chemistry, timing and luck. Policy positions often are just a way of signaling where a candidate stands on the political spectrum. But 2020 is shaping up to be different, the most ideas-driven election in recent American history. On the Democratic side, a robust debate about inequality has given rise to ambitious proposals to redress the imbalance in Americans’ economic situations.
During the tenures of Presidents Obama and Trump, the battles to confirm Supreme Court seats have become increasingly partisan, reaching a height when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused even to consider the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland, who was chosen by Obama to replace Antonin Scalia in early 2016.
Congress initially set the court at six justices with the Judiciary Act of 1789, before adding a seventh in 1807 to correspond with an additional appellate circuit. The number of justices was increased to nine in 1837, but that lasted only until the Civil War.
There have been a number of Supreme Court reform proposals discussed over the years, but the one most often cited by Democratic candidates in this cycle has come from law professors Ganesh Sitaraman and Daniel Epps: “How to Save the Supreme Court,” which will be published in the Yale Law Journal later this year. Sitaraman, who teaches at Vanderbilt and previously served as Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s policy director, explained the two options outlined in their plan to Yahoo News.
Others have proposed term limits, usually ranging from 14 to 18 years, intending to make each nomination battle less contentious by regulating the number of appointments in each presidential term. It’s a policy that John Roberts, now the chief justice, supported in 1983. He wrote at the time: “Setting a term of, say, 15 years would ensure that federal judges would not lose all touch with reality through decades of ivory tower existence.
Considering McConnell’s work at locking in a conservative judiciary for decades to come, it is unrealistic to expect that Republicans will be interested in breaking their own hold on the system. This means it would be up to Democrats to both take the White House and find 51 votes in the Senate willing to change a system that’s been in place since the Ulysses S. Grant administration.
इंडिया ताज़ा खबर, इंडिया मुख्य बातें
Similar News:आप इससे मिलती-जुलती खबरें भी पढ़ सकते हैं जिन्हें हमने अन्य समाचार स्रोतों से एकत्र किया है।
F-word: Supreme Court struggles with law blocking trademark protection in cases of vulgarityThe Supreme Court expressed disdain for the public display of vulgarity Monday, but seemed reluctant to use federal trademark law against it.
और पढो »
Opinion | Tensions on the Supreme Court are spilling into viewOpinion: Tensions on the Supreme Court are spilling into view
और पढो »
Supreme Court rejects death row appeal over anti-gay jurorThe US Supreme Court is again rejecting a gay death row inmate's appeal that claims jurors in South Dakota were biased against him because of his sexual orientation.
और पढो »
Supreme Court debates whether FUCT clothing line can trademark its nameThe Supreme Court heard a lively argument Monday on whether the 1st Amendment’s protection for the freedom of speech extends to words and symbols that the government’s trademark office views as “scandalous.”
और पढो »
Chevron says Dutch Supreme Court rejects Ecuador's $9.5 billion claimThe Supreme Court of the Netherlands dismissed Ecuador's attempts to annul ...
और पढो »
India's Supreme Court considers call to open mosques to womenIndia's Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to consider a petition from a Musli...
और पढो »
The Supreme Court scrutinises a bar on “scandalous” trademarksA clothing brand with a tasteless name gets its day in court
और पढो »
Fashion brand 'FUCT' seeks trademark help from Supreme CourtWASHINGTON (AP) — Erik Brunetti's four-letter fashion brand starts with an 'F'' and rhymes with 'duct.' The federal government calls it 'scandalous' and 'immoral' and has refused to register the...
और पढो »
U.S. Supreme Court rejects Allergan bid to use tribe to shield drug patentsThe U.S. Supreme Court on Monday cast aside pharmaceutical company Allergan Plc&...
और पढो »
Supreme Court rejects death row appeal over anti-gay jurorSupreme Court again rejects gay death row inmate's appeal that claims jurors in South Dakota were biased against him because of his sexual orientation.
और पढो »
Supreme Court declines to take up First Amendment case brought by rap artistThe Supreme Court declined Monday to take up the case of rapper Jamal Knox, who argued he was sent to prison for a song that was protected by the First Amendment.
और पढो »