Mayor Pete to Pack the Court: Will He Make Supremes Less Political?

is it time to pack the supreme court again I'm Scott OTT with Bill Whittle and Stephen green and this episode of right-angles brought to you by the members at bill Whittle calm and gentlemen Democrat presidential candidate Pete Buda judge who's the mayor of South Bend Indiana has a proposal that he's been pressing for quite a while now during this campaign to make the court less political and his proposal guys is basically to say let's have five justices that lean Republican five justices that lean Democrat and then let's have those 10 people appoint another five justices at their mutual agreement so that we would have at least balance on the political party representatives and then that middle group of five other justices ostensibly would be one that would be palatable to either side meaning non-political and that it would take the politics out of the court and Stephen green I just let's just take that to begin with I have another proposal to but and I may let you jump in on that one as well but just on the face of it doesn't it seem reasonable and frankly surprising that a Democrat would suggest a way to D politicize the Supreme Court was that to me yes sir yeah that's I'm sorry I liked your audio dropped out for just a second so I wasn't sure if that wasn't there bill yeah well this isn't a plan to deep a little size of Supreme Court this is a plan to politicize it more in what he perceives to be his favor it at least for the moment these these all these temporary schemes to correct the system not working in my favor before we're gonna change the rules so that it's gonna work it's gonna continue to work in my favor in the future it's almost entirely what this is it reminds me entirely of Democrats suddenly discovering on about November 9th 2016 that the electoral college was outdated and needed to be replaced with something that would elect more Democrats so no I don't trust his motives I think it's a stupid plan that said maybe there's some room for improvement on the Supreme Court the court has powers that I believe were not intended by the founders and so you have nine people who are extremely important probably more important than any nine people in the world should be and so maybe there's maybe there's a way to try and rebalance that Glenn Reynolds had an idea I want to say this as last year maybe two years ago for expanding the Supreme Court you keep the nine members that we have now that are selected in the exact same way that we have now you know we talk about how the court is political well you you can't take the politics out of the court for the same reason you can't take the sex out of a hooker it's a government institution it's going to be political I'm not actually saying they're hookers or whores or anything horrible like that I'm just saying it's it's it's intrigued you could make a case well there are certain members that certainly may be more speaking up on behalf of hookers might people take that as an insult and you probably should you know I expect a prostitute to return fair service for for my dollar well hopefully not my dollar but you know what I mean I don't expect the same out of anybody appointed by any politician sometimes I get it and that's great but it's nothing I really expect anyway Glenn's idea was to expand the court by 50 justices which would Wow that it'd be a lot more democratic so you got that you've got the with a small D you've got the core nine who were appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and then you'd have 50 more appointed one each by the governor of each of the 50 states for some sort of term limits six years 12 years 18 years whatever the term limit was not only appointed by the governor of each state but approved by the Assembly of each state and then and this is the beautiful part this might bring us back to a little bit of federalism subject to repeal by the vote of their home state assembly so you'd have a much bigger court where you've got diluted power simply because you've got a lot more people voting on each case and then you've got the idea that state governments are going to have a say in the Supreme Court by being able to recall justices off the if they interfere too much presumably in state business well there's this idea if there is a nugget room another proposal by a guy named Matt Ford who wrote in the New Republic an article posted early in June and Bill Whittle this is a this is a guy who's being critical of Peabody judges suggestion saying basically that's not going to make it less partisan and so what we should try to do is not let one side or the other win these judicial wars but we should just get out of the business of having judicial wars there are some 11 circuit courts around the country plus the District of Columbia and so Matt Ford's suggestion is that when there's a vacancy on the court that it would be supplied by a lottery drawing from each circuit so if if a judge from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals leaves the court they would do a random drawing from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to replace that justice and those people would have a limited term perhaps it's been proposed maybe 18 years or some other period of time they'd have a limited term the Chief Justice would still be appointed by the President of the United States and and when the Chief Justice was done his term he could go to whatever Circuit Court he wanted to because the appellate court judges would have lifetime ten years but the Supreme Court justices would not now bill I know both you and Steve have indicated that that we should go after the motives of the people who are making these proposals in doing so are you saying that the way that the Supreme Court is set up is the perfect incarnation of judicial probity and nothing can be done to improve it or are you willing to listen to reason I was willing to listen to reason but the devil death quote scripture and and that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to listen to every argument that comes down the pike the first thing to say about this is it once again and I simply stand in awe of it I never will understand it I don't expect to but once again the Constitution is is they in an area where it seems like being little Vegas is good the two most people surprise the Constitution does not say that the Supreme Court shall consist of nine justices or any number of justices other than eight Chief Justice there has to be a chief justice and the rest of the numbers are up to I don't even know who know who I guess the president would make the decision as Congress was the Congress that number of the number of justices yes okay so what they've done basically is they've said the will of the people will not only be done through the electoral process but through the judicial process they will have the ability to change the number of people on the courts and and that just amazes me and and I think it's really very wise so now down to the specifics since there is no legal number of justices on the Supreme Court the president can this point that Congress can approve as many as as they want to we've had nine justices since 1868 now the Democrats are trying to change that system because for the first time in three generations there's a chance that the court will not be there they're giant bludgeoned to to cudgel the American people into believing what they believe and so now that the court is actually in danger of becoming a neutral if not conservative court all of a sudden it has to go same thing with the electoral colleges as was pointed out earlier this is the thing about our opponents that I find most disgraceful and and dishonorable and makes me realize that the idea of honor is just simply not there it's not that they it's not that they're doing dishonorable things they just don't they don't get it they're million the idea that we're going to hunt it the idea that we're going to change the rules every time that we play a game by the rules and if the if by playing by the rules means we lose instead of losing we change the rules again so that the rules now favor us so that we never lose and that's exactly what they're doing here there's nothing wrong with the system that's been working so far other than the fact that the Supreme Court should I in my in my reading of the Constitution and the foundational papers the Supreme Court was never going to decide if a law was constitutional or not if the law passed through Congress and was signed by the president was constitutional by definition and and that the remedy to bad laws was to change your lawmakers and get new laws every two years he I don't you get to flush the whole house so this whole thing about gee you know we need to find a more we need to find a better way is we need to find a better way because now it's five to four and if Ruth Bader Ginsburg doesn't survive her encasement in carbonite it'll be it'll be five to three if if they approve a conservative it'll be six to three but that'll never happen they would simply rather have that seat empty until they have the the power to win the court back and the final thing I'll say about that this is this this is why this is so important the court is the weapon that the left has in order to get their policies in place they would have to get the majority of Americans to vote for them through their representatives and that has never happened and never will happen and so the so the left has used the Supreme Court to to basically nullify laws that they don't like to legislate laws that they do like even though those laws could not have passed through Congress which is where they're from if the Left loses the court they lose they lose the game and they cannot lose the court which is why we're seeing these predictable shows of you know what we got a better idea actually you know we should go back and look at that election and see how many hairdressers voted for Hillary Clinton you know and that's how we'll determine the thing is this this business of moving the goalposts is shameful and disgusting and I would refuse to countenance any look at it simply to deny them the satisfaction of this never-ending dishonor that they seem to cover themselves in hey yeah I was just let me let me throw this to you Steve because you can say what you wanted to say in conjunction with this but it seems to me that when when the court was completely in the hands of the leftist judges that we might have been a lot more open to reform in the judiciary or are we now looking in hindsight and saying well we were always just the honorable people who wanted to win Ally and by that means shows replace the gender because we were we're I can't recall a single measure from the 1950s on which would be what the the Warren Court and all that a a single huge push from the right from the Conservatives from the libertarians to restructure or reform the Supreme Court just because we weren't getting our way instead we did the the hard grassroots work of not just getting new justices on the Supreme Court but of restructuring the Republican Party in such a way that it could win elections and win the Senate and get more of our people on the Supreme Court so I'm just gonna call BS on on the whole premise of follow up there's got and I'm gonna call BS on the other half because if we were to have a if we were to have a six to three or or or a nine to nothing conservative court I would not want that court to legislate from the bench and I would not want that court to make a decision about constitutionality of laws that has no business making a decision about if the thing were to become the weapon of the Conservatives I would not change my rules of its behavior nor would I change what I wanted to do I wanted to function the way it was determined in the Constitution and I would not all of a sudden be in favor of Supreme Court nullification or any of this other stuff I would want the court to send these issues back to the legislation where almost all of them belong so yeah I'm with Steve on this well and if I can share with you my really terrible idea that I thought of well bill was reminding us about how the number of Justices is determined by Congress instead of expanding the court maybe we need instead to limit it let's take out two justices we're gonna narrow it down to seven by an act of Congress except instead of Congress saying you know the last in first out they're gonna set up a battle royale where the first two to die in in hand-to-hand combat are the ones to lose their seats and I'm telling you right now this would be a bipartisan thing because you're gonna lose a Democrat and a Republican Bader Ginsburg is gonna be the first to go because she's half dead already and then Chief Justice Roberts would be out because he has no spine can't fight and we could call it Thunder bench nine justices enter seven justices leave and yeah and that that'd be as good as the random selection of judges that that mayor Pete is selected which you know which which we could do with a giant ball of giant transparent sphere and Taylor Swift could come down and there'd be floating ping-pong balls and he twist a little lever and one would come out as it hey you're a Supreme Court justice second progress nothing to do with knives that nothing to do with you being the leading judicial minds of the country anymore because the leading judicial minds of the country now are arrayed against the progressives well the interpretation of language is an inherently political act even if you would find the most virtuous people in the country to do it you just simply cannot suspend who you are and and then dispassionately examine a text and come up with a decision regarding that text that is completely contrary to the way that you have previously thought or would desire it to come out I'm not saying it's impossible to have to do that but it is virtually impossible to do that the best judges that we have are those who basically put the text above themselves and say look my I am a servant to the text not the other way around and so my job is to try to figure out what this text means what it meant to the people who wrote it and ratified it and and how that relates to to the case before us now ideally the Supreme Court should be a case driven institution not a legislative body not a body that's that's constantly sitting in judgment over the Congress but a body that is deciding cases that couldn't be decided at lower levels or over which no other Court has jurisdiction maritime cases cases involving of foreign entities with people in the United States cases between States and states and the like and so in my fantasy world all we have are a bunch of devoted textualist s– who look at the Constitution's words and try to determine what they mean in the context the current case now you know the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction in most cases so it's deciding something that's already been decided and it's always been a wonder to me that the some of the wisest people in the country the best educated legal minds in our country at the appellate court level the federal judges all have somehow come to a decision that is exactly contrary to another group of judges who sit at a slightly higher level to them and so just that fact alone should tell you that there's a certain amount of witchcraft in this process it's not it's not a pure science it is a matter of human ideas human interpretations and therefore is beset with the fallen nature of humanity and our own inability to be able to judge rightly that said I think as my colleagues have suggested if the supreme courts purview were smaller than it is then it wouldn't be as big a deal who served on the Supreme Court we wouldn't be as concerned with entrusting the executive officer of the federal government with those appointments and that small body of the US Senate with their with the the confirmation of those nominees but putting the genie back in the bottle at this point is a little bit more than one might hopefully imagine could happen once you've said essentially that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter when it comes to constitutionality of laws then to tell the court that you that you want it to get back inside the bottle is to basically invite them to reject that again you know any law passed to constrain the power of the Supreme Court would of course be found unconstitutional and so I think the best we can hope for is to accomplish as much as we possibly can at the local and state level and push the authority and decision-making power down to local and state level when it comes to governance and try to prevent creating test cases for these nine justices or frankly five and when it comes right down to it one guy in a black robe who provides the swing vote in these cases I don't think Pete Buddha judges idea is anything beyond a utopian fantasy I don't even if I don't question his motives I don't think it can work I actually like the Matt Ford's idea at the new Republican more than Pete Buddha judges because at least you're randomly drawing people from the federal bench but ultimately you're not gonna make it a non-political body you're not going to make it something that's going to always be predictable and come out the way you expected I'm looking at you John Roberts so for Bill Whittle and Steve green I'm Scott OTT thanks to the members have bill Whittle calm for making this possible

34 Replies to “Mayor Pete to Pack the Court: Will He Make Supremes Less Political?

  1. As James Madison once lamented: 'We didn't spend enough time on Article III'
    I can't recall when Madison said that, maybe after 'Marbury', but he and other Founders realized that they gave the Federal Judiciary (Article III) waaaaay too much power and as such, they could have gone into much more detail when writing Article III of the Constitution. It's the most unequal — in their favor — Branch of the 3 'coequal' branches of government.

  2. Trump will replace 2 -3 Supreme court judges. This will change the course of the country for the better.

  3. You will not solve the problem while left-wing universities are churning out left-wing lawyers who then become judges.

  4. Get rid of the Supreme Court all together and just let ONE single Computer define the Constitution and make judgements in All cases. Problem solved. No Bias from a computer right?

  5. if you try, the republicans will do the same thing. The only way to make it less political is appointing moderate centrist judges. the far left would never agree to that.

  6. The way I see it the SC is a useless entity.
    If the courts job is to protect the Constitution just what constitution are they defending?
    The one that serves the sovereign?
    Or the one that serves the banks?
    Sense action speak louder it would seem the sovereign don't stand a chance at keeping a republic that was lost so long ago.

  7. Actually, Republicans unilaterally changed the number of Justices to 8 in the last year of Obama, and then changed it back to 9 when it was convenient for them to do.

  8. If the court finds the law restricting them unconstitutional Congress can say ok we are changing the number of judges on the court to ZERO.


  10. Well, since the SCOTUS arrogated unto themselves the power of the dictionary – to legislate by redefinition, destroying the rule of law (and, philosophically, the nation) by having done so, I would have to argue that the court, as currently constituted, does not work.

  11. If liberals win communism wins if communism wins atheism wins if atheism wins western culture , natural law doesn't exist.
    Its the same kind of people thinking the same way that leads to communist Russia tens of millions of dead , no free thought , starvation, no freedom. Gun control, speech laws, attacking religion, government teaching morals and values in public schools are just some ways they try and achieve there goals, and with a public docile on drugs it's easy to achieve.

  12. Right now we have Blackmail happening bc of spying. Justice Roberts was Blackmailed bc of a parallel platform to the NSA. See this video. One will be chilled by hearing of Mueller’s actctios at the end of this video. The Democrats are Evil:

  13. The Republicans made sure that there were only 8 justices on the court during the last year of Obama's presidency. Stop saying that the Democrats want to change the number from 9 when the Republicans have already done it. Please stop being so hypocritical.

  14. Here's my idea to reign in the Supreme Court:
    Amendment that requires that for every 5 years a Supreme Court Justice is in service, they are reviewed by the Circuit Court judges, who simply vote as to whether they keep their seat or not. A simple majority wins. So, if a SCJ is not behaving according to the way judges are expected to behave, then the CCJ's will vote them off of the Supreme Court. Let the judges police themselves, in this way, and they'll all have to behave in order to keep their jobs.

  15. Steve, since the left own the Culture and almost every aspect of the Federal Government, Federal and State Judges, the complete Education System of our Children Cradle to Adulthood and just about every State Legislatures are packed with Socialists passing Socialist Laws. Not to forget to mention they own every aspect of Communications as well.

    The left have the House, lost the Executive and Senate and now look what they are doing with just half of the Legislature…attempting to Overthrow the Executive Branch.

    I promise that they will take back every aspect of Government because they will never stop never accept defeat. We have a Weak milquetoast bunch of timid mice called the GOP who are afraid of their own shadows and don't have a clue as to how to run the Government or they are just as Corrupt and paid off by the Left.

    Leftists want to Dominate every single aspect of Our lives which now includes the Supreme Court because for this "Short" time it belongs to the Right or at least individuals who respect the Constitution.

    So I have to ask Steve Scott and Bill "How are we winning over on these Leftists?"

  16. Pete "Bootyjudge" Buttigeig sounds like a real moron. "I will de-politicize the Supreme Court by overtly politicizing it ." Yet another Progressive/SJW scheme to game the system and impose an agenda that can´t win at the ballot box. Just what we need- a mediocre mayor of a second-tier city (who thinks his homosexuality is a reason to vote for him) trying to set a national agenda. I don´t think so.
    Btw- I have a better idea- leave the Constitution as it is regarding federal judges and read The Federalist Papers so that you understand why it is indeed that way. Choosing judges by lottery is another moronic idea.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *