No, but people might support expanding the court (or other reforms) to make it less ideological, less corrupt, more trustworthy, and so on through the ”popularity” democratic process.
Ah yes, nothing makes the court less ideological, less corrupt, and more trustworthy than partisan actors adding their own partisan justices when they don't get their way. When the Democrats push for adding justices while there is a Republican President and a Republican majority in the Senate (or vice versa), I will believe they have some other justification than simply overriding the court to get their way.
I see you (and many others) have your own disregard and feelings about this. I would like to think everyone is against a corrupt and ideological court. I have heard from my very conservative family members that the millions in gifts accepted by Thomas aren't okay.
You just described the Republicans who appointed the newest members of the court. Good for you on blatantly ignoring the corruption of this SC compared to years past.
Expanding and/or reforming is a pretty drastic, understandable, and democratic process that is only supported once enough people see the court as needing that type of change. We might be getting there with the recent polling on the court.
50-70%? I doubt there are that many from the Democratic Party. 2024: 70% think justices are not independent, but ideological. Gallup on trust and confidence of the Supreme Court: 2022-2023: 21% not at all, 32% not very much; total - 53%
I think the answer lies in rotating term limits for Supreme Court justices. I've read opinion pieces that lay out how this could work and reduce the zero-sum political approach to vacancies and nominations. Justices who rotate off could then go back down to a federal position if they don't want to retire like David Souter. The crux is that "with nine justices on staggered terms, each presidential term would carry the right to make two appointments."
I didn’t comment on adding justices, I made a statement directly about the corruption of the Republican appointed justices which you of course ignored.
I'm not saying there aren't ideological factors involved in the federal judicial system, and I'm not dismissing it as a problem. That stated, there's a lot of nuance that y'all overlook in general with these cases. Also, I strongly believe that the federal judiciary is the most fair and orderly system in our Constitutional government today. Yes, Cannon is terrible, for more reasons than partisanship - many of her staff quit on her a year ago. And yes, Thomas has issues, but I personally think he really believes in his positions already and just takes the money from his friends, who wouldn't be his friends otherwise, but he doesn't see that. He's been somewhat delusional for decades, but we all are to a certain extent, depending on your perspectives. Overall though, everything else is just such worse imo: state legislatures, state governors, state courts, Congress, and presidents. They don't act in any constrained manor and have little regard for the Constitution. Maybe it's sad that it's the best division, but I do believe federal judges and prosecutors are actually trying to do their jobs and not play games. I tried adding context a few months ago, but just have been too busy to really contribute. Apologies for that. I'll try to catch up. And please, the Trump Immunity delay is no crazy delay. It was already started late and any decision will be sent back down to district with instructions and then appealed again. The Colorado one was wrong, and they all got it wrong. They all created a new interpretation of presidential elections, but that's a week-long debate for another thread and another time.
I agree. The topic of 'reforming the SC' didn't arise in this thread (perhaps earlier, but I'm referring to now) until a poster (@Os Trigonum - nothing against OS but he's sometime a bit reactive) reacted negatively and dismissively to data showing increasing distrust and negative perceptions of the Court (such as being ideological and less trustworthy). The reality is, there's a political process for reforming the Court, and if enough people support it, change can occur. With over 50% expressing distrust in the court, momentum for reform may be building.
I'm referring to this: https://bbs.clutchfans.net/threads/ussc-decisions.305529/page-104#post-15257829
