With the judges being political appointees (non-neutral/impartial meaning unfit for the bench and calls into question the legitimacy of many of the decisions), cherry picking cases (which is not authorized by any law), running with dead of night shadow dockets (not authorized by any law and calls into question the legitimacy of many of the decisions), the SCOTUS taking cases outside of their Constitutionally prescribed role, and a Congress too spineless to actually do its job, the makeup of the SCOTUS is invalid, illegitimate, and has been for decades (and calls into question the legitimacy of many of the decisions done by said SCOTUS).
So, how can we fix it? One idea is simply adding and filling new seats on the Court with Democratic judges, but is still a form of court-packing.
Another way to prevent justices from "strategically timing their retirement" is term limits. The founders went off of the honor system in their original idea, and we can see how flawed that was.
The Constitution gives the Supreme Court power to hear most federal cases on appeal from a lower court, but may only assert jurisdiction over cases "with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." Congress has at least some power to tell the Supreme Court that it is not allowed to hear certain cases. It's too cowardly to do so, however.
Congress could require a supermajority of justices to strike down federal laws. Congress could either impose a universal rule requiring a 7-2 majority on the Supreme Court to strike down a federal law, or identify particular laws, such as the Affordable Care Act, which can only be struck down by a supermajority.
Abraham Lincoln began his presidency with a broadside against the Supreme Court. Reacting to the Supreme Court's pro-slavery decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856), Lincoln attacked the very idea that the justices should have the final say on constitutional matters in his first inaugural address: "[I]f the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
Congress could follow the Civil Rights Act of 1991, a bill signed by President George H.W. Bush back when it was possible to achieve a bipartisan consensus against discrimination.
In its 1988 term, the Supreme Court handed down five decisions that, in the words of one scholar, "substantially eroded Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," which prohibits many forms of employment discrimination. Congress enacted the 1991 civil rights bill to overrule, or, in some cases, modify those decisions. Similarly, Congress could enact a Civil Rights Act of 2021 that overrides several Supreme Court decisions at once.
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) lays out an expedited process that Congress can use to swiftly overrule regulatory decisions by the executive branch. A bill overruling a federal regulation through the CRA still must pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the president, but the CRA's streamlined process makes it relatively easy for lawmakers who oppose a particular regulation to override it quickly. The same kind of act can be employed regarding SCOTUS.
Those are just a few ideas; however, we would need a Congress that actually does it's job and actually cares about this nation"
In short, SCOTUS as it stands is illegitimate, needs fixed, and need a legitimate Congress to fix it. Take from it what you will"
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
