- 17 Nov 2018 07:19
#14964229
Prof. David Faris: It's Time To Fight Dirty!
33.5 min., especially the last 10 min. or so where he talks about multi-member districts in the House with RCV, and expanding both the House and the US SC.
. . . He suggests an amendment to have the 9 members of the current size court serve for 18 years. With them spaced so that one is replaced at the beginning of each new Congress over the summer. That is every 2 years. Then each Pres. would get to appoint 2 SC justices in each 4 year term.
. . . He wants Congress to double or triple the size of the House with a simple law and have Congress also by law require multi-member districts and RCV. He likes 5 or 10 member districts. I think 7 would be better. But, half the states now have less than 8 Reps. in the House. Even doubling its size would mean several to many states would have just 1 district where all its Reps. would compete in that 1 district.
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
I have an additional idea. It is based on my desire or fairness. Assuming an amendment doesn't pass.
I would like to expand the court. Expand it a lot because I want to create a middle of the court. I would want this to be as locked in as possible. So, not just a Senate rule, but with a law.
. . 1] Expand the size of the court to make it big enough so that each party has the same number of justices to start out with.
. . 2] Then add 3 more special justices. These justices are special because they are nominated by the Pres. from a short list created by some outside group like maybe the American Bar Assoc. [if it is and will remain un-corrupted] and these justices must be confirmed by a 2/3 or even higher percentage. These justices are the new middle. To get a 2/3 vote they must be middle of the road judges.
. . 3] I assumed that there is no amendment, so justices still serve for life. The Constitution doesn't say how the Pres. is to choose his nominee. So, giving a short list may be Constitutional.
-------------------
I still like as an alternative, a rule that in the summer of the 1st year of each 4 year presidential term the Pres. can fire the one SC justice who he thinks is the worst of the bunch. And then replace him/her in the normal way. Over time this would get rid of the worst justices on both sides and it would let every Pres. get at least one SC pick.
. . And I would really like for a way to be found to get or add some middle of the road justices.
33.5 min., especially the last 10 min. or so where he talks about multi-member districts in the House with RCV, and expanding both the House and the US SC.
. . . He suggests an amendment to have the 9 members of the current size court serve for 18 years. With them spaced so that one is replaced at the beginning of each new Congress over the summer. That is every 2 years. Then each Pres. would get to appoint 2 SC justices in each 4 year term.
. . . He wants Congress to double or triple the size of the House with a simple law and have Congress also by law require multi-member districts and RCV. He likes 5 or 10 member districts. I think 7 would be better. But, half the states now have less than 8 Reps. in the House. Even doubling its size would mean several to many states would have just 1 district where all its Reps. would compete in that 1 district.
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
I have an additional idea. It is based on my desire or fairness. Assuming an amendment doesn't pass.
I would like to expand the court. Expand it a lot because I want to create a middle of the court. I would want this to be as locked in as possible. So, not just a Senate rule, but with a law.
. . 1] Expand the size of the court to make it big enough so that each party has the same number of justices to start out with.
. . 2] Then add 3 more special justices. These justices are special because they are nominated by the Pres. from a short list created by some outside group like maybe the American Bar Assoc. [if it is and will remain un-corrupted] and these justices must be confirmed by a 2/3 or even higher percentage. These justices are the new middle. To get a 2/3 vote they must be middle of the road judges.
. . 3] I assumed that there is no amendment, so justices still serve for life. The Constitution doesn't say how the Pres. is to choose his nominee. So, giving a short list may be Constitutional.
-------------------
I still like as an alternative, a rule that in the summer of the 1st year of each 4 year presidential term the Pres. can fire the one SC justice who he thinks is the worst of the bunch. And then replace him/her in the normal way. Over time this would get rid of the worst justices on both sides and it would let every Pres. get at least one SC pick.
. . And I would really like for a way to be found to get or add some middle of the road justices.
Last edited by Steve_American on 17 Nov 2018 14:36, edited 1 time in total.