{"id":627303,"date":"2024-07-11T14:30:00","date_gmt":"2024-07-11T11:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/en.buradabiliyorum.com\/dont-pack-the-supreme-court-instead-change-the-rules\/"},"modified":"2024-07-11T14:30:00","modified_gmt":"2024-07-11T11:30:00","slug":"dont-pack-the-supreme-court-instead-change-the-rules","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/dont-pack-the-supreme-court-instead-change-the-rules\/","title":{"rendered":"#Don&#8217;t pack the Supreme Court. Instead, change the rules."},"content":{"rendered":"<p><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/thehill.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/07\/supreme_court_06282024_GettyImages-2159012333.jpg?w=900\" \/><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>            <iframe title=\"Audio Article\" id=\"instaread_iframe\" name=\"instaread_playlist\" scrolling=\"no\" allow=\"autoplay\" style=\"display:block\" width=\"100%\" height=\"100%\" frameborder=\"no\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>When the Supreme Court makes a power-grab, the answer is for the democratic branches of government to push back. But the strategy seized upon by many of those dismayed by the current court is misguided.<\/p>\n<p>Don\u2019t pack the court. Instead, change the rules.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<aside class=\"ad-unit ad-unit--mr1_ab\">\n<\/aside>\n<p>Members of Congress know that if you have a choice between the rules and the substance, you will always win if you choose the rules. So court reformers need a new <a href=\"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/category\/download-scripts-themes-apps\/\" data-internallinksmanager029f6b8e52c=\"9\" title=\"Download Scripts &amp; Themes &amp; Apps\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">app<\/a>roach, a democratic agenda for the courts to restore the rule of law.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>No one is calling balls and strikes on the Roberts Court. The conservative justices have moved the strike zone and announced that they are more important than anyone else on the field.\u00a0They have changed the rule of law by fiat. Call a new approach to this crisis \u201cdemocratic rule of law reform.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Congress has the power to prevent the Supreme Court from picking and choosing the most politically charged cases. Change <a rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/tile.loc.gov\/storage-services\/service\/ll\/uscode\/uscode1988-03802\/uscode1988-038028081\/uscode1988-038028081.pdf\">the statute that created the process by which the court picks the cases it wants to decide<\/a>. <\/p>\n<p>The Constitution only requires that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in a limited set of cases of \u201coriginal\u201d jurisdiction. Congress has regulatory power over all other appeals.<\/p>\n<p>This is the\u00a0<a rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.archives.gov\/founding-docs\/constitution-transcript\">Constitution\u2019s text<\/a>: \u201cThe Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions,\u00a0and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Congress has the power to require lower court judges to recuse themselves from cases involving the president that nominated them; just amend the current recusal statute,<a rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/28\/455\">\u00a0<\/a><a rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/28\/455\">28 U.S.C. 455<\/a>, which has existed since 1948, to add this ground for recusal. Add in Supreme Court judges and ask them to put themselves on the record against such recusals.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<aside class=\"ad-unit ad-unit--mr2_ab\">\n<\/aside>\n<p>Congress also has the power to bar the nationwide injunction and to end judge-shopping. It can amend\u00a0<a rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/uscode.house.gov\/view.xhtml?path=\/prelim@title28\/part6&amp;edition=prelim\">the laws<\/a>\u00a0to provide that no single district or appellate judge can issue a nationwide injunction and pass the \u201c<a rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.democrats.senate.gov\/imo\/media\/doc\/end_judge_shopping_act_schumerpdf.pdf\">End Judge Shopping Act<\/a>\u201d to prevent individual judges from roiling national controversies on topics such as abortion or guns.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Congress has the power to reverse the Supreme Court\u2019s<a rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.law.nyu.edu\/sites\/default\/files\/tobia_walters_slocum_major%20questions.pdf\">\u00a0<\/a><a rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.law.nyu.edu\/sites\/default\/files\/tobia_walters_slocum_major%20questions.pdf\">major questions doctrine<\/a>,\u00a0a court-made doctrine used to counter majoritarian policies (think student loans and abortion medication). It can define a \u201cmajor question,\u201d as it has previously in the<a rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.gao.gov\/legal\/congressional-review-act\/FAQs-on-the-Congressional-Review-Act\">\u00a0Congressional Review Act<\/a>,\u00a0and copy the procedures in that act to allow Congress to review anything the court deems a \u201cmajor question\u201d on fast-track procedures and reject it on a majority vote.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Congress has the power to reverse the\u00a0<a rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/23pdf\/22-451_7m58.pdf\">Loper Bright<\/a>\u00a0decision\u2019s refusal to defer to agency expertise in implementing the law.\u00a0<a rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/wex\/chevron_deference#:~:text=The%20scope%20of%20the%20Chevron,made%20by%20the%20administrative%20agency.\">Chevron<\/a>\u00a0was a judicial doctrine. It was\u00a0reversed\u00a0this term on the theory that it contravened the<a rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/laws-regulations\/summary-administrative-procedure-act#:~:text=The%20Administrative%20Procedure%20Act%20(APA,on%20notices%20of%20proposed%20rulemaking.\">\u00a0Administrative Procedure Act<\/a>. But Congress\u00a0<a rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/118th-congress\/house-bill\/1507\">can amend that act<\/a>\u00a0to say that courts \u201cmust defer to the expertise\u201d of an agency\u2019s fact determinations and the agency\u2019s application of law to fact\u201d and further shall \u201cpresume that an agency\u2019s statutory interpretation is entitled to presumptive validity\u201d if reasonable judges could or have disagreed about its meaning, and the statute is silent or ambiguous on the application.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Congress has the power to stop all courts, including the Supreme Court, from blinding themselves to Congress\u2019s documents in filling gaps in statutes and making up their own rules to rewrite statutes.<\/p>\n<p>Current courts treat Congress\u2019s documents (known as legislative history) as dubious public documents because they are not statutory \u201ctext.\u201d This means that judges, not representatives, end up using their own judge-made rules, or biases, to fill statutory gaps.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Congress must simply add a sentence to every existing law, and future bill, stating that the \u201cofficial public documents such as committee reports and hearings and the legislative debates on this measure\u201d are hereby incorporated into the text.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<aside class=\"ad-unit ad-unit--mr3_ab\">\n<\/aside>\n<p>Congress has the power to bar the federal courts from creating new rules of interpretation (sometimes called canons, like the major questions canon) that do not reflect majoritarian values.\u00a0<a rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/constitutionalgov.us\/Citations-Longer\/CodifyingCommonLaw-Georgetown-Scott.PDF\">Every state has these codes<\/a>; only in the federal system do federal judges regularly create new canons that have no legislative, democratic imprimatur. If a court wants to create a new canon or apply an old canon, it must find that the canon is deployed in states constituting a majority or more of the population.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Congress has the power to dictate that the rules of evidence do not allow a court to rely upon ancient British or any foreign common law, to interpret either the American Constitution or current American statute law. The Supreme Court does this regularly in the name of a bogus originalism (e.g.\u00a0<a rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/21pdf\/19-1392_6j37.pdf\">Dobbs<\/a>,\u00a0<a rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.google.com\/search?q=rahimi+v+united+states&amp;oq=rahimi&amp;gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqEggBEAAYQxiDARixAxiABBiKBTIGCAAQRRg5MhIIARAAGEMYgwEYsQMYgAQYigUyDAgCEAAYQxiABBiKBTIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIQCAUQLhivARjHARiABBiOBTIHCAYQABiABDIGCAcQRRg90gEIMzkxOGowajeoAgCwAgA&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8\">Rahimi<\/a>,\u00a0<a rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/20pdf\/19-292_21p3.pdf\">Torres<\/a>).\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>This does not violate the court\u2019s power to \u201csay what the law is,\u201d it simply eliminates a form of evidence. Congress has in the past created new rules of evidence, and rejected evidence proposals by the courts.\u00a0<\/p>\n<aside class=\"ad-unit ad-unit--mr4_ab\">\n<\/aside>\n<p>Congress can require yearly \u201caudits\u201d by former judges of the consequences of Supreme Court decisions. The current court repeatedly says it does not care about the consequences of its\u00a0<a rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/20pdf\/19-863_6jgm.pdf\">decisions<\/a>\u00a0as if this were judicially virtuous. Yet we have considerable \u201c<a rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/scholarship.law.nd.edu\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=5046&amp;context=ndlr\">disruption<\/a>\u201d in the courts.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Former judges can be asked to supervise nonpartisan assessments of the judicial consequences of the Supreme Court\u2019s decisions on the courts, the federal government and the states, and report to Congress.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>If nothing else, Congress has plenary constitutional power over the\u00a0lower courts\u00a0to set these rules. The American public is now awake to the danger. More extreme reforms are not feasible. Franklin D. Roosevelt could not pack the court, even with 67 votes in the Senate. And term limits will do nothing now.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<aside class=\"ad-unit ad-unit--mr5_ab\">\n<\/aside>\n<p>It is time for members in the Senate and the House to play for rules. Republicans have done this repeatedly and won:\u00a0<a rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/dsc.duq.edu\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=2751&amp;context=dlr\">habeas corpus reform<\/a>\u00a0(which was really death penalty reform);\u00a0<a rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.law.berkeley.edu\/files\/United_States_Tort_Reform_Wars_A.TORTS.pdf\">tort reform<\/a>; repealing\u00a0<a rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/21pdf\/21-499_gfbh.pdf\">Miranda<\/a>\u00a0rights.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>If nothing else, if you really care about curbing out-of-control lawyers, this court is the fullest corporate law firm giveaway in our lifetime \u2014 not to mention setting up a dictator from day one.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p><em>Victoria\u00a0Nourse\u00a0is the Ralph V. Whitworth Professor of Law, former chief counsel to Vice President Joe Biden and the founder of the Georgetown Center on Congress and Democracy.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>Copyright 2024 Nexstar <a href=\"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/category\/social-mediaa\/\" data-internallinksmanager029f6b8e52c=\"1\" title=\"Social Media\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Media<\/a> Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff6600;\">If you liked the article, do not forget to share it with your friends. Follow us on\u00a0<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"><a style=\"color: #ff0000;\" href=\"https:\/\/news.google.com\/publications\/CAAqBwgKMN63nwsw68G3Aw\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener noreferrer\">Google News<\/a><\/span>\u00a0too, click on the star and choose us from your favorites.<\/span><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>If you want to read more <a href=\"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/category\/news\/\" data-internallinksmanager029f6b8e52c=\"2\" title=\"News\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">News<\/a> articles, you can visit our <span style=\"color: #ff9900;\"><a style=\"color: #ff9900;\" href=\"https:\/\/en.buradabiliyorum.com\/news\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">News category.<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"color: black;\"><a style=\"color: #ff9900;\" href=\"https:\/\/thehill.com\/opinion\/judiciary\/4762238-reform-courts-democratic-rule\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Source<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>When the Supreme Court makes a power-grab, the answer is for the democratic branches of government to push back. But the strategy seized upon by many of those dismayed by the current court is misguided. Don\u2019t pack the court. Instead, change the rules.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Members of Congress know that if you have a choice between the&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":627304,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thehill.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/07\/supreme_court_06282024_GettyImages-2159012333.jpg?w=1280","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[70897],"tags":[150871,150872,72394,150873,52214,150874,150875,103600,150876,150877,141939,150878,71404,150879],"class_list":["post-627303","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-28-u-s-c-1259","tag-28-u-s-c-455","tag-chevron","tag-chevron-deference","tag-congress","tag-congressional-authority","tag-congressional-review-act","tag-franklin-d-roosevelt","tag-loper-bright-decision","tag-part-vi-of-title-28","tag-politics-of-the-united-states","tag-recusal","tag-supreme-court","tag-supreme-court-expansion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/627303","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=627303"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/627303\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/627304"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=627303"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=627303"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=627303"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}