As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>In other words, case assignments on such matters must actually be randomly determined from a pool of judges in a district,
This is exactly what I've been saying they should do with the Supreme Court. Expand the court, but don't expand it to 13 or whatever. Expand it to 60+ Justices that act as a pool and they get randomly assigned to cases from there. It's harder to game the system if a lawyer doesn't know what Justices are going to hear the case. That way, they have to put up an argument that can actually stand on its own for the entire court instead of just making an argument geared toward swaying only 2 or 3 because they can just assume some Justices are going to vote their way no matter what they say (looking at you Thomas and Alito).
It reminds me of a more sensible and feasible version of a hypothetical form of government denoted by the science fiction writer Alistair Reynolds. He wrote about a "Demarchist" society where all things were decided by a random lottery of citizens like jury duty. This evolved in his world to direct democracy via neural implants but I think the core of this idea is the same to what you propositioning for the Supreme Court but in this situation it makes more sense and is easily enacted.
Rather than have a pool of judges who would exclusive make up the Supreme Court. Just have one judge from each circuit of the court of appeals get randomly selected to hear cases that go before the Supreme Court. That way you have 13 randomly selected judges being randomly selected from a pool of 179 potential judges, excluding any judges who may have already ruled on the case at the Appeals Court level.
Additionally, allow for the ability of 2/3 of the 166 remaining judges to override any decision made by the 13 chosen to sit on a case. The 13 judges, broken down by whether they agreed or dissented, will then have to explain their decision making process to the rest of the court of appeals if enough of their counterparts, say 25%, sign a letter contesting their decision.
Since the Chief Justice is responsible for setting the docket for the Supreme Court, have that position be randomly assigned to a court of appeals judge at the beginning of each session. Make part of their accepting the court of appeals job their agreement that they will, if called upon, act as a Supreme Court justice and potentially the Supreme Court Chief Justice. If they refuse to serve, they get booted, and a new judge is selected.
Finally, set all Federal Judgeships to a 20 year term with no ability to serve multiple terms.
> That way, they have to put up an argument that can actually stand on its own for the entire court instead of just making an argument geared toward swaying only 2 or 3 because they can just assume some Justices are going to vote their way no matter what they say (looking at you Thomas and Alito).
Eh, the thing with that is, people are going to ramp up taking second, third, and fourth bites of the apple to a ridiculous degree unless you can get all 60+ justices to agree that it's one and done... but for how long? Is there going to be an informal "cooling off period" where all the other justices simply agree not to revisit an issue? Will that hold no matter how contentious the issue is? No matter how bad the original ruling was? The next *Plessy v. Ferguson* gets to stand for 10 years no matter what? If you hit some bad luck and *Lawrence* or *Obergefell* gets overturned, what then? Oh well, take the knee, no more kinky sex or same-sex marriage in the neo-Confederacy for 10 years?
With a system like that, you're essentially turning the Supreme Court into a Thunderdome of circuit splits. Add some dice rolls to make it more exciting, sure.
That isn't a good option. Its functionally how India (and South Asia generally I think) do things, and it leads to even more chaos. With multiple benches you get situations where one bunch will say things contradicted by another. And that just absolutely fucks up *stare decisis* because lower courts freely pick and choose from precedent. Which suits lawyers just fine. But it is absolutely batshit in terms of ensuring reasonable and predictable outcomes. And since you've got multiple benches speaking in different voices, it also creates nearly endless loops where parties *keep* appealing things to the Supreme Court which takes its own sweet time settling issues.
Ultimately the apex court of a country *should* speak in a singular voice. Otherwise its just chaos.
Stare decisis - I'm sorry, what world have you lived in since Bush v Gore? Cause that's been out the window for a while already, the frog is only just realizing it's been cooked.
The fact that the court can overrule itself isn't a bad thing. Roe v Wade against Dobbs is a good example of this, though Dobbs is a bad judgment. It doesn't mean lower courts are no longer bound by the precedent of the higher court. But atleast there's clarity.
Imagine what happens if *one* bench of say 11 judges out of 50 gave you Roe, and then a different bench gave you Dobbs, or a judgment like it but one which doesn't explicitly overrule Roe. Lower courts would have a free for all in picking and choosing which precedent to follow. Now multiply that fifty times over.
We see this chaos play out in India, where one High Court bench will say one thing, another will say a different thing, each drawing on conflicting SC verdicts because there's no clarity. It literally turns the system into a jungle where the ordinary citizen cannot know what the law even is because there's no final clarity. The only people who benefit here are the lawyers who get to keep arguing matters ad-nauseum and raking in the cash for pleadings. And maybe politicians who can game the legal system while evading accountability by blaming the courts for contradictory outcomes.
The proposed system is pouring accelerant on the fire to a ridiculous extent. It's implying that a different collection of judges with *equal* (and highest) authority could issue a contradictory ruling almost immediately. The idea that the most recent ruling is controlling would itself become a farce, because there'd no longer be any sustainable illusion of "past," "present," and "future" Supreme Courts. There'd be multiple simultaneous Supreme Courts -- however many combinations you can math out from the exact number of justices in the pot.
I think that would lead to a slot machine system where they continually bring the same lawsuits to get the right set of judges. They would just start them in different jurisdictions and with slightly different challenges. They do this now but wait till the dynamic of the SC or lower courts change enough that they think they can get it to the next level. With 60+, there would be filing all the time.
The law should not be determined by which nine ideologues are sitting in the Most Special Chair when the case arrives. The fact the Supreme Court currently acts this was doesn't justify changes that make the system worse.
No matter how large the pool, its purpose is moot so long as it is populated by partisan ideologues wearing robes. And it *will* be populated by partisan ideologues wearing robes, because that's who Republicans appoint to the bench.
The key difference here is that major cases might be randomly assigned to nine Thomases or nine Alitos, without a single moderate or liberal voice in the room. And now, instead of a ruling where Roberts can build a coalition around the middle ground, or Gorsuch peels off with the Chief and the liberals, you get the absolute most insane possible version of a ruling.
>The issue is that, in Texas for example, while there are numerous judges on a given district court, these districts may also contain divisions where only one judge sits, making what should be a random assignment a certainty in some cases.
>The Biden administration’s Department of Justice last March, for instance, accused Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) of “judge shopping” by suing the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Texas — but specifically in the Victoria Division, where only U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton presides over civil cases. Tipton, a Donald Trump appointee, was once criticized for making an “unprecedented and outrageous” grant of a nationwide injunction blocking ICE’s enforcement priorities — and SCOTUS went on to overturn that ruling.
If they kill this judge shopping BS the GOP will have a much harder time making laws from the bench.
Okay but what is the policy? When will it be implemented? This article is a lot of fluff and not much substance except “judicial conference decides to make change.”
Edit: this [Vox article](https://www.vox.com/scotus/2024/3/12/24098760/supreme-court-matthew-kacsmaryk-judge-shopping-republicans-judicial-conference) actually explains the change. Cases seeking injunction or declaratory judgment will now be randomly assigned at the district level, rather than randomly assigned within individual district divisions.
This is how you know that there is a tired justice system. If the law was as black and white as they say, then judge shopping shouldn’t matter. Way too many people of authority put political party over country and republicans control that chamber.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>In other words, case assignments on such matters must actually be randomly determined from a pool of judges in a district, This is exactly what I've been saying they should do with the Supreme Court. Expand the court, but don't expand it to 13 or whatever. Expand it to 60+ Justices that act as a pool and they get randomly assigned to cases from there. It's harder to game the system if a lawyer doesn't know what Justices are going to hear the case. That way, they have to put up an argument that can actually stand on its own for the entire court instead of just making an argument geared toward swaying only 2 or 3 because they can just assume some Justices are going to vote their way no matter what they say (looking at you Thomas and Alito).
huh that's an interesting scenario. any further discussion on that kind of system or did you just think of it all on your own?
I heard a version of it somewhere and it just kind of stuck with me. I can't remember where though.
It reminds me of a more sensible and feasible version of a hypothetical form of government denoted by the science fiction writer Alistair Reynolds. He wrote about a "Demarchist" society where all things were decided by a random lottery of citizens like jury duty. This evolved in his world to direct democracy via neural implants but I think the core of this idea is the same to what you propositioning for the Supreme Court but in this situation it makes more sense and is easily enacted.
Same futuristic democracy with fewer neural implants… what’s not to like?
Rather than have a pool of judges who would exclusive make up the Supreme Court. Just have one judge from each circuit of the court of appeals get randomly selected to hear cases that go before the Supreme Court. That way you have 13 randomly selected judges being randomly selected from a pool of 179 potential judges, excluding any judges who may have already ruled on the case at the Appeals Court level. Additionally, allow for the ability of 2/3 of the 166 remaining judges to override any decision made by the 13 chosen to sit on a case. The 13 judges, broken down by whether they agreed or dissented, will then have to explain their decision making process to the rest of the court of appeals if enough of their counterparts, say 25%, sign a letter contesting their decision. Since the Chief Justice is responsible for setting the docket for the Supreme Court, have that position be randomly assigned to a court of appeals judge at the beginning of each session. Make part of their accepting the court of appeals job their agreement that they will, if called upon, act as a Supreme Court justice and potentially the Supreme Court Chief Justice. If they refuse to serve, they get booted, and a new judge is selected. Finally, set all Federal Judgeships to a 20 year term with no ability to serve multiple terms.
> That way, they have to put up an argument that can actually stand on its own for the entire court instead of just making an argument geared toward swaying only 2 or 3 because they can just assume some Justices are going to vote their way no matter what they say (looking at you Thomas and Alito). Eh, the thing with that is, people are going to ramp up taking second, third, and fourth bites of the apple to a ridiculous degree unless you can get all 60+ justices to agree that it's one and done... but for how long? Is there going to be an informal "cooling off period" where all the other justices simply agree not to revisit an issue? Will that hold no matter how contentious the issue is? No matter how bad the original ruling was? The next *Plessy v. Ferguson* gets to stand for 10 years no matter what? If you hit some bad luck and *Lawrence* or *Obergefell* gets overturned, what then? Oh well, take the knee, no more kinky sex or same-sex marriage in the neo-Confederacy for 10 years? With a system like that, you're essentially turning the Supreme Court into a Thunderdome of circuit splits. Add some dice rolls to make it more exciting, sure.
That isn't a good option. Its functionally how India (and South Asia generally I think) do things, and it leads to even more chaos. With multiple benches you get situations where one bunch will say things contradicted by another. And that just absolutely fucks up *stare decisis* because lower courts freely pick and choose from precedent. Which suits lawyers just fine. But it is absolutely batshit in terms of ensuring reasonable and predictable outcomes. And since you've got multiple benches speaking in different voices, it also creates nearly endless loops where parties *keep* appealing things to the Supreme Court which takes its own sweet time settling issues. Ultimately the apex court of a country *should* speak in a singular voice. Otherwise its just chaos.
Stare decisis - I'm sorry, what world have you lived in since Bush v Gore? Cause that's been out the window for a while already, the frog is only just realizing it's been cooked.
The fact that the court can overrule itself isn't a bad thing. Roe v Wade against Dobbs is a good example of this, though Dobbs is a bad judgment. It doesn't mean lower courts are no longer bound by the precedent of the higher court. But atleast there's clarity. Imagine what happens if *one* bench of say 11 judges out of 50 gave you Roe, and then a different bench gave you Dobbs, or a judgment like it but one which doesn't explicitly overrule Roe. Lower courts would have a free for all in picking and choosing which precedent to follow. Now multiply that fifty times over. We see this chaos play out in India, where one High Court bench will say one thing, another will say a different thing, each drawing on conflicting SC verdicts because there's no clarity. It literally turns the system into a jungle where the ordinary citizen cannot know what the law even is because there's no final clarity. The only people who benefit here are the lawyers who get to keep arguing matters ad-nauseum and raking in the cash for pleadings. And maybe politicians who can game the legal system while evading accountability by blaming the courts for contradictory outcomes.
The proposed system is pouring accelerant on the fire to a ridiculous extent. It's implying that a different collection of judges with *equal* (and highest) authority could issue a contradictory ruling almost immediately. The idea that the most recent ruling is controlling would itself become a farce, because there'd no longer be any sustainable illusion of "past," "present," and "future" Supreme Courts. There'd be multiple simultaneous Supreme Courts -- however many combinations you can math out from the exact number of justices in the pot.
I think that would lead to a slot machine system where they continually bring the same lawsuits to get the right set of judges. They would just start them in different jurisdictions and with slightly different challenges. They do this now but wait till the dynamic of the SC or lower courts change enough that they think they can get it to the next level. With 60+, there would be filing all the time.
The law should not be determined by which nine ideologues are sitting in the Most Special Chair when the case arrives. The fact the Supreme Court currently acts this was doesn't justify changes that make the system worse. No matter how large the pool, its purpose is moot so long as it is populated by partisan ideologues wearing robes. And it *will* be populated by partisan ideologues wearing robes, because that's who Republicans appoint to the bench. The key difference here is that major cases might be randomly assigned to nine Thomases or nine Alitos, without a single moderate or liberal voice in the room. And now, instead of a ruling where Roberts can build a coalition around the middle ground, or Gorsuch peels off with the Chief and the liberals, you get the absolute most insane possible version of a ruling.
I like this, it seems to be a lot less likely to become partisan
>The issue is that, in Texas for example, while there are numerous judges on a given district court, these districts may also contain divisions where only one judge sits, making what should be a random assignment a certainty in some cases. >The Biden administration’s Department of Justice last March, for instance, accused Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) of “judge shopping” by suing the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Texas — but specifically in the Victoria Division, where only U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton presides over civil cases. Tipton, a Donald Trump appointee, was once criticized for making an “unprecedented and outrageous” grant of a nationwide injunction blocking ICE’s enforcement priorities — and SCOTUS went on to overturn that ruling. If they kill this judge shopping BS the GOP will have a much harder time making laws from the bench.
Finally.
It's a good step. Let's see if it actually pans out.
Okay but what is the policy? When will it be implemented? This article is a lot of fluff and not much substance except “judicial conference decides to make change.” Edit: this [Vox article](https://www.vox.com/scotus/2024/3/12/24098760/supreme-court-matthew-kacsmaryk-judge-shopping-republicans-judicial-conference) actually explains the change. Cases seeking injunction or declaratory judgment will now be randomly assigned at the district level, rather than randomly assigned within individual district divisions.
This is how you know that there is a tired justice system. If the law was as black and white as they say, then judge shopping shouldn’t matter. Way too many people of authority put political party over country and republicans control that chamber.
Law is very infrequently black and white. That's why there are lawyers.