Random Thoughts – Randocity!

If Joe Biden has ever had a strong incentive to add more seats to the Supreme Court, the recent Supreme Court decision against Joe Biden’s loan forgiveness program is just that incentive. Let’s explore.

Legal Merit and Standing

The Supreme Court is, at this point, simply going through the motions. This once seemingly impartial entity is simply pretending to be a fair and just body, but is now an almost completely Republican owned and partisan entity targeting the Democrats (and Democracy) at every turn. It can do this because of the way the court is now packed across party lines, in a highly partisan way.

However, it’s easy for these Republican Justices to pretend to use legal jurisprudence in the guise of their fully partisan agenda. It’s sickening and disheartening that people who have been put in a significant position of supposedly unbiased power in the United States can become yet another pawn of biased politics; wielding their judicial power like a weapon and targeting it firmly against the opposing political party and ultimately using their power against the very American people they swore to protect. That’s not justice.

If anyone has weaponized anything, it’s Donald Trump. With his court packing of the Supreme Court, this is exactly where the United States firmly sits. The Republicans have now firmly weaponized the Supreme Court against the Democrats and, more importantly, against the American people. It’s a sickening turn of events. It also signifies, once again, the destruction of the American people, America’s Democracy and the further erosion of America’s constitution.

Democrat Party

I’m not a Democrat by any stretch. I am also not a Republican. I’m a non-partisan writer who sits somewhere in the middle. I also don’t identify with either of these current two political parties. I don’t like how either of these two entities operate; neither of which actually perform their services on behalf of the American people for which they were elected. Both parties certainly make bold claims about what they are doing is “for the American people”, but the reality is, they do not and they haven’t worked for the betterment of America in a very, very long time.

With the above said, I can sniff out partisan politic antics instantly. This recent Supreme Court ruling against Biden’s loan forgiveness has the guise of seeming legit and above board, but underneath that legal facade, this SCOTUS ruling is 100% driven by partisan politics and is about as far against American betterment as one can get.

The Democrats don’t deserve to be harangued by Republicans any more than Republicans deserve to be harangued by Democrats. However, Republicans have been much more actively on the offensive against the Democrats (and ultimately against America) than vice versa. The Democrats have mostly been attempting to stay out of the Republican’s childish fray. Yet, the Republicans constantly keep pushing the Democrat-bad buttons, with Fox News Network taking this Republican button pushing to entirely unnecessary extremes.

Being nasty and vile towards anyone else is not what politics is about. It’s not what America is about. Yet, here we have supposedly conservative Christians taking this “nasty game” as far as they possibly can. How can ANYONE proclaim to be a conservative Christian and hold these nasty, vile and disgusting behaviors dear? Disgusting.

Both parties have lost sight of the true agenda of elected (and appointed) representatives. Instead of spending inordinate amounts of time in-fighting with one another, that time could be better spent actually producing legitimate, workable fixes for America, America’s Economy and the American people. Instead, we have the SCOTUS, who incidentally should have even declined to accept this case entirely, is instead poking their mostly Republican heads into a case were they have no business… and worse, making biased political statements with their actions.

Biden’s Supreme Court Revision

It’s time for Joe Biden to wake up. He can’t afford to sit idly by while Republicans run roughshod all over America, the American people and America’s constitution. Instead, Biden has a way to bring balance back to the Supreme Court. I’m not saying that the Supreme Court will be in any way fixed by Biden packing this court. Oh, no no no. That will take much more effort and changes. However, giving equal balance back to both liberals and conservatives alike on this court will at least make this court’s rulings much more fair and take this now unfair balance of power back out of the hands of the now Republican packed Supreme Court.

Right now, the court has 9 justices. However, there are 13 Federal circuit courts that sit directly under the Supreme Court. At the time when 9 justices were implemented, there were 9 circuit courts. This meant there was 1 justice for every circuit court. Since the circuit courts have increased to 13, our justices are now out of alignment against the circuit courts. This means that to put the SCOTUS back into balance against our now 13 circuit courts, 4 more justices must be added to the Supreme Court.

If Joe Biden pushes to have 4 new justices added to this court, he may even choose to nominate these justices, making the balance of the court change to 6 Republicans and 7 Democrats. That could possibly bring some semblance of balance back to the court, but also possibly push it back over to the Democrats. That’s a small price to pay to get this court out of its current heavy Republican imbalance. One extra Democrat justice is way more balanced than the current 3 extra Republican justices.

But the Court Isn’t Partisan?

No court should be partisan or hold with any partisan politics. Yet, we know that every person in the United States has their own opinions and must be allowed to vote in elections. This means that, yes, even these Supreme Court Justices have their own political affiliations… if even just at the moment of entering the ballot booth. Unfortunately as humans, we are fallible and subject to subjective personal whims. Sometimes those whims are of our own making and sometimes those whims are of others making.

Unfortunately, because these justices are appointed by politically affiliated and motivated Presidents, this places a political burden on top of the person being appointed to that judicial role. Meaning, if a Democrat President appoints a Justice, this likely means that that appointed person is also of a Democrat leaning persuasion and vice versa with the Republicans and conservatism. It may further mean that the Justice may feel the need to repay that appointment over time. This further means that as this person rules in their position as Justice, their political persuasion is likely to become part of that thought process when producing judicial opinions; thought processes that might actually help out the person who appointed that Justice to the bench.

Joe Biden’s Debt Absolution

I would be remiss by not bringing up this point. Some have argued that Joe Biden, as President, didn’t (and doesn’t) have the authority to forgive student loans in that large of a quantity; that the amount of money being forgiven by the government should have needed Congressional approval.

I won’t get into the nitty-gritty of this argument here because that’s an argument that cannot be decided by an independent blog. Suffice it to say, however, that as President of the United States, the person elected to this position has tremendous power over the American people. Whether that extends to forgiving student loans or other types of debt relief, that will have to be up to the courts to decide.

Clearly, though, if Franklin D. Roosevelt was given the broad authority to implement his “New Deal” to reinvigorate the then flagging economy, then Joe Biden should have had similar authority to implement his “Student Loan Debt Relief” program for the same reason amidst COVID. Let’s move on.

Re-balancing The Court

It’s clear that without a rebalance of the Supreme Court that this so-called conservative court will continue to run roughshod all over the United States of America and America’s Constitution. If we’re trying to heal this partisan divide, then the only way to do this is through bringing balance back to this court.

Thus, the only way forward is then by increasing the number of seats by 4. This increase also makes more sense when looking at the now 13 Federal Circuit courts that exist just below the Supreme Court. As stated above, increasing the number of SCOTUS seats to 13 would be firmly in-line with the current number compared to the 9 justices we was had when there were only 9 circuit courts. One Justice should exist for every circuit court that exists. That also means expanding the SCOTUS each time a new circuit court opens.

Biden must seriously consider rebalancing the court so that four new Justices are added to offset the conservative imbalance now held on this court. The only way the American people can be properly served is if the balance of conservative justices and liberal justices is near equal. This way, opinions written (even if of a specific political persuasion) cannot imbalance justice in the favor of one side or the other.

Taking Bias Out of the Justices

This is actually impossible. There is no way to do this short of forcing Justices to give up their ability to vote after they take their oath as Justice; that and having nominations come from anonymous sources, not the President. When Justices can’t vote in elections they shouldn’t be swayed by political actors. Unfortunately, that’s never likely to fly with the Justices. Even then, they’ll have spouses and children who can vote and who can sway the thoughts and minds of these Justices at home.

Political influence is everywhere. Even were Justices to give up their right to vote simply to take their seat as Justice, that wouldn’t remove years of ingrained political persuasion before they ever took their seat. It also won’t remove outside influences from those nearest to these Justices. It also won’t remove undue influence by those in political power near to the SCOTUS, including the President, Vice President and Congress.

Further Court Balance

One idea that clearly needs to be implemented is term limits. If four additional seats are added to the bench, these new seats should come without lifetime appointment. In fact, all of the current seats’ lifetime appointments should end after the next person is appointed. Lifetime appointments for the Supreme Court need to end completely.

How long should Justices be allowed to serve? They should be allowed to serve no longer than 10 years or until they are aged 65. If a Justice is appointed to a seat and they are aged 58, they will only have until age 65 to serve. After that, forced retirement and a new appointment is required.

More than this, every four years each Justice (including the Chief Justice) must be brought before Congress for a reconfirmation hearing. This allows Congress to vacate a Justice seat should the need arise. If a specific Justice has made rulings in inappropriate ways and/or having taken inappropriate largesse, having reconfirmation hearings every four years would allow Congress to vacate that seat, giving better checks and balances over inappropriate situations.

Once a seat is vacated, it is on the President to find and appoint a new person. If a Justice is forcibly vacated from their seat, they are no longer allowed to hold a seat on the Supreme Court Justice again nor serve in any other Federal court. They may join lower non-federal courts as a judge, but may no longer hold other federal judicial roles. Once removed, it’s permanent removal from all federal judicial positions. This is effectively federal disbarment for judges.

Such reconfirmation hearings should further entice the current Chief Justice to both police and take internal action against inappropriate Justices instead of waiting for Congress to take action. If Congress is forced to vacate that seat, that person cannot serve nor be appointed to work in the Federal judicial system again.

Such actions above may seem punitive, but that’s clearly what’s needed. Right now, only the Supreme Court can police and punish itself and clearly that is not happening. Leaving it up to people to police themselves clearly means no policing at all. This means that, as has been shown, the SCOTUS is unwilling to take action against its own. This same goes for Congress as Congress is also unwilling to take action against their own (an article for another day).

Fair and Balanced Court

Bringing all of these changes to the SCOTUS means a much more fair and balanced court. If there are ramifications to wrongdoing, making the wrong choices or, indeed, taking actions of malicious intent, there should be severe consequences.

Today, there are no consequences. It means that enterprising hackers can hack this court and use its lack of governance against it. This is exactly what’s going on right now. Hackers have infiltrated this court and are using the lack of checks and balances, lifetime appointments in coupling with this court’s lack of internal governance against not only the court, but against the American people. This was not intended by the framers of the Constitution.

The Constitution intended and “trusted” for appointees to be of highly upstanding, moral and ethical fiber in taking on these roles. Unfortunately, it didn’t foresee people of ill intent and of questionable morality and ethics to be appointed to these roles. A person who is willing to sit in a grey area of intent can subvert and use the court’s “trust” against it, particularly when there are multiple Justices colluding in this nefarious role. Worse, the court’s highly lax internal punishment structures when combined with lifetime appointments makes it ripe for this kind of abuse. In other words, it only takes one person of criminal intent to become a Justice on that court and the United States can crumble from within.

Again, none of this was intended, nor foresaw by the framers of the Constitution. Yet, here we are and here we sit. Court reform is in order and the above is a good, solid way of getting this ball rolling. Unfortunately, the current lifetime appointees seem guaranteed in their roles. However, eventually they will retire, relinquishing their seat. Until then, adding four more seats all serving without lifetime appointments and with forced reconfirmation every four years ensures that at least the newest seat-holders should remain of upstanding moral and ethical fiber, else their seat can be vacated and reassigned to someone who is willing to uphold the highest ethics and values.

↩︎