Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said on Saturday that she hopes the court’s decision granting former presidents broad criminal immunity will be overturned, saying her colleagues have done some “crazy things.”
Appearing for a civics education talk at George Washington’s Mount Vernon estate, the liberal justice also publicly commented for the first time on this week’s midterm contests, when Democrats swept control of both chambers of Congress.
The justice specifically singled out the court’s 6-3 decision along ideological lines that former presidents enjoy at least presumptive immunity for their official acts. At the time, the justice wrote that it made Trump and his successors a “king above the law.”
The only official that has a chance of getting booted before the new Congress is sworn in is Hegseth, because absolutely nobody likes him, and Republicans can make him into a scapegoat on the war. Then Senate Republicans can turn around and tell Trump to put a sane person in charge, or else they wont seat his replacement and Trump will have to work with Schumer to get a new guy in office.
Thomas definely needs to be impeached, I think all the evidence is there, but I doubt there will ever be enough votes in the Senate to do it, even after the new Senate is seated. We have a better chance of reforming the Court through an amendment than of impeaching Thomas. Republicans might as well be voting to dissolve themselves if they vote to boot Thomas.
I agree with everything you said, just want to point out that no amendment is needed. The Constitution explicitly grants that right to Congress without requiring non-standard approval such as a supermajority. It would just take a law.
The last overhaul was in 1869, which matched the number of Supreme Court justices with the number of (then) circuit courts. These are now federal district courts, and there are thirteen. I am all for doing the same thing they did in 1869: increasing the number of justices to thirteen to match the current number of district courts.
The amendment will be needed to impose term limits, which is sorely needed.
I don’t disagree. There is a strong argument that SCOTUS term limits can be constitutionally imposed with legislation. But I would be the first to point out that not everyone agrees and of course, SCOTUS interprets legislation, which gives them veto power over their own term limits if that specific reform is undertaken legislatively. Either way, it’s never even been tried, so who knows.
There is also an interesting proposal that instead of term limits, splitting the current roles of justices and attaching a length of service to specific judicial roles be used. In other words, have a justice sit on the general bench for eighteen years, and then move into an emeritus role where they remain a justice but take up specialized work for the court. They still “hold their Offices during good Behaviour” for as long as they like in this emeritus period, and thus fulfill the sole constitutional requirement, but others take their place on the larger bench. This idea too would require no amendment, but as good an idea as it is it will very likely never happen. (I think the Brennan Center link above covers this plan as well.)
For myself, I’d be happy if Congress just increased the number to thirteen to match the district courts without making any further provision, which would dilute the effect of the current corruption while opening no new loopholes for future McConnells to exploit. My concern is that if the number of justices are tied to anything, that thing – like district courts – will then become the football with which to game the court.