The Supreme Court in a Constitutional Democracy | Reforming the Supreme Court

Does the Supreme Court need reform? If so, of what kind? The past few years have seen renewed calls for court reform, with proposals ranging from adding new Justices to limiting their terms to reshaping the Court’s jurisdiction. Why has the issue come to the fore now, and what reasons are there for or against the proposed reforms? This panel of experts discusses the experience of the recent Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, along with proposed changes to the Court’s membership, structure, and powers.
Moderator:
Stephen Sachs - Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Panelists:
Rosalind Dixon - Professor, UNSW Sydney
Richard Re - Joel B. Piassick Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia, School of Law
Cristina Rodriguez - Leighton Homer Surbeck Professor of Law and Counselor to the Dean, Yale Law School
Maya Sen - Professor of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School
Neil Siegel - David W. Ichel Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science, Duke Law

[@CavalainHawkins]

great lecture

[@ad-zo6fk]

Hi I am from India

[@aristotelesribeiro3822]

In the US, do most law school students look forward to working for the government (as judges or federal prosecutors) or in the private sector as lawyers?

[@anustart1934]

There's honestly a good mix of both, some law schools are more geared to one area over the other

[@sheilamarler7488]

I've now heard the argument twice that the people's disapproval or approval depends entirely on whether their ideology is upheld by the court. That assumes there is no solid basis except political preference to judge the court's integrity. I think you must have confused the concerns of the people with the bias of the justice who actually made the ideology argument to defend his own ruling.

[@GypsyCurls]

I think the only way forward is for true court reform. All the ideas suggested here and elsewhere seems apropos. Term limits, code of ethics, court packing/stacking, no longer allowing one president to appoint 3 justices in one term. One only, stagger the term limits so that no one president can elect more than in his term and that not be infringed upon by congress ever again. I am not a lawyer or in the law field, just a lay person affected by the decisions that are made. They should be expanding rights, not taking them away from the individual. Especially one that they have held for half a century. Or else they run the risk of becoming irrelevant and even more obscenely unpopular. I personally already consider the last three appointed ones illegitimate. They lied during their confirmations and so much shadiness was going on with them. We’re not going to even talk about that freaking Clarence Thomas.

[@garrettkajmowicz]

My takeaway from both this event and the talking heads more broadly is that the Court's role is to oppose rightward shifts in law and lock in leftward shifts in policy. If courts are to reflect public policy, why bother with a constitution at all? We can simply leave everything to the elected legislatures who reflect the will of the people. Moreover, we'd see a lot more cheering over the popular will reflected in eg. California's Proposition 8 and opposition to SCOTUS overturning it. But we don't. Talk of Court-packing only exists when the Left doesn't get what they want. Looking at some easily-found data, it looks like something between 85%-95% of law school professors are Democratic supporters. I can't easily find data for political science professors. Maybe that's part of the problem.

[@-dash]

That’s almost certainly part of the problem.

[@respectamerica3728]

That is why most Attorneys and Judges are Federal Supremacists and don't believe in the States Rights under the 10th amendment. Because that is what they were taught in Commie Law Schools. And reenforced by BAR membership.

[@ninajefferson4018]

So you want to leave everything to the legislators in the court system and disregard the constitution all together yes? Only a democrat would suggest to throw the constitution out! Lololololol!!

[@ninajefferson4018]

The courts roll is to oppose rightward shifts in law and lock- in leftward shifts in policy.

[@damainemitchell6067]

Ok

[@rahmanarp4698]

As-salamuyalaikum Hello, Everyone

[@damainemitchell6067]

Up next efalling DC

[@lucachayer8745]

bro wtf

[@ninajefferson4018]

Dude you make no sense! What about prosecutorial immunity?