Patriots Heart Network Media #phnm

"...what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” “A Republic, if you can keep it

Repairing the U.S. Supreme Court from 9 Justices to 13 Justices

 
An open discussion on how to overhaul the United States Supreme Court, from the current nine (9) Justices, 'repaired' to the proper number of thirteen (13) Justices - one from and representing each different Circuit, as earlier Congresses had always intended.


The goal?  Simple: to achieve a panel of Justices that are all constitutionally-compliant, thereby to achieve other goals.
 
Unhappy with progressively unconstitutional, often overtly-liberal rulings issued by the modern Terms of the United States Supreme Court?  Does it seem like many high court Justices over the past decades have acted like they were simply out of touch from most of the American citizens they serve?  In fact, that is actually and exactly what the problem has been:  Most modern U.S. Supreme Court Justices have routinely come from the more liberal States, instead of coming from any other demographic areas across America...  Many of those very same Justices were also last working at the Court of Appeals for DC..., again, that's in DC..., right before they got their own famous nod to ascend to that other, way more important DC courthouse just down the road a bit.  Can you spell "bias" and/or "undue influence"?
 
The current nine (9) Justices come only from a total of just four (4) of the fifty (50) United States, with a whoppingly-unfair four (4) of those nine (9) from New York, two (2) from next door New Jersey, two (2) more Justices from sister California, and then there is Clarence Thomas, the lone high Justice from anywhere else, Georgia.  In fact, a whopping FIVE (5) of the current Justices *also* all worked at that very same nearby U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, i.e., already there in DC.., before being nominated for their own new Supreme Justice role.  Five of the current nine!
 
Indeed, 62 of our total 112 Justices (55.4%) have all come from just these 11 Atlantic Coast States:
ME=1, NH=2, MA=8, CT=1, NY=18, NJ=6, PA=6, MD=5, VA=6, NC=2, SC=4, GA=3
 
While, 36 of the remaining 50 Justices (72%, or 32.1% of all 112) have come from these 7 States:
OH=10, TN=6, KY=5, CA=4, IL=4, AL=4, MN=3
 
Three other States (AZ, IA and MI) have had two Justices apiece, and just eight more States have had one.  But, a whopping twenty-one (21) of our fifty (50) States have NEVER had anybody eventually become a high Justice, ever...
 
As the federal court system goes, clusters of States divide the country into eleven (11) numbered "Circuits", plus there are also two more Circuits, one for the District of Columbia, itself, i.e., Washington, DC, and in DC also is the Court of Appeals for the "Federal Circuit", which does not have any geographical borders, but hears appeals from any (trial-level) District Court across the country in cases relating to patents.  It also decides appeals from the specialized trial courts in a few areas, including federal claims, international trade, and veterans' rights.  Altogether, there are thirteen (13) functioning Circuits.
 
That all translates into the fact, that of the current nine Justices, if you go by "birth State", only four of the thirteen different federal court system Circuits around the country (2nd, 3rd, 9th and 11th) are represented upon the high court, and none of the other nine Circuits has a single representative.  If you go by "the last Circuit working environment" of each of the current Justices, only five of the thirteen Circuits are now represented upon the high court - the DC Circuit, the 1st Circuit, the 2nd, the 3rd, and the just-as-often-liberal 9th Circuit, and none of the other eight Circuits has a single representative.
 
Either way, it is still a strongly-biased panel of Justices (read: "unlawful" panel of Justices), lacking full and equal input from the several different regional demographics, 13 different Circuits' case law history, and 13 other sets of legal knowledges and experiences, via thirteen representative Justices, so as to become the better skilled, homogenized, and fairer, balanced group of thinking, ideas, voices and votes upon our U.S. Supreme Court, a Court which belongs to all Americans, and to all of America, equally.  There is not one current Justice who comes from work experience in ANY of the other federal Circuits.  There are none from the Bible Belt federal courts, none from any federal courts in the Heartland, none from any court experiences either in the Great Plains or Rockies, and also none from either Circuit south of Washington, DC, not from the Virginias+Carolinas, nor from any of the Southeastern States.  Only the DC Circuit, plus all three of New England's highly-Democratic, more-liberal 1st, 2nd and 3rd Circuits, and the Pacific Coast's often-perplexing 9th Circuit, have any of their own previous employees now sitting as Justices, representing them upon the one and only United States Supreme Court...  This is exactly why the Supreme Court has often ruled liberally, in error, and also even arguably why the Supreme Court appears to be ruling in a seemingly increasing incidence of non-compliance with the Constitution.
 
The United States Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court, but Article III authorizes the Congress to fix the number of justices.  The Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the initial appointment of six (6) justices.  However, as this Nation rapidly grew, geographically, Congress therefore increased the number of justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits.  Hence, the Supreme Court was expanded to seven (7) justices in 1807, nine (9) in 1837 and ten (10) in 1863.  However, at the request of then Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act in 1866, which provided that the next three (3) justices to retire would not be replaced.  Thus, the size of the Supreme Court should have eventually reached seven (7) by attrition.  Consequently, one (1) seat was removed in 1866, and a second in 1867.  However, this law did not play out to completion, for in the next legislation on the matter, the Judiciary Act of 1869, 16 Stat. 44, also known as the Circuit Judges Act, the number of justices was again set at nine (9), where it has remained without a single fix or change, ever since, for over 130 years now - an incredible delay and utter failure of Congress to remedy the growing problem, while another 3-4 Circuits built into the system, and when all Congress needs to do is simply pass yet another new version of 28 USC 1, the simple statute that Congress sets the number of high court Justices with.
 
The modernized United States Supreme Court, compared under the population growth from the most conservative ratio, i.e., from 1869’s approximate 37.5 million citizens in America, to 2010’s whopping 308+ million citizens, would ‘fairly’ indicate a ‘need’ for almost seventy-four (74) justices, in this new United States Supreme Court.  Obviously, such growth would be an outrageous expansion, and the true legal need, as evidenced by Congress’ periodic adjustments throughout earlier American history, was always in direct relation to the number of federal judicial Circuits, which, again, comprise thirteen (13) today.
 
So, merely due to its current number and makeup of justices, the United States Supreme Court can be said, in fact, to be unlawfully biased and prejudiced against *the majority* of the United States of America, and so that situation cannot legally be allowed to remain the case, since all of America is certainly entitled to a fair and balanced voice within and upon the very highest court of our Nation. The only solution, then, is that the Supreme Court must, therefore, be "rebalanced" pursuant to need, law, common sense, and to ensure an equality of fair representation by all of America's types of citizens, everywhere.
 
The simplest way to fix this deep, out-of-touch problem, is to merely overhaul the current crop of 9 Justices, by kicking off the pre-requisite selection process for "repairing" the panel of Justices on the Supreme Court up to 13, with 3 candidates per Circuit.  Whether by a legal case filed to compel Congress into doing so, or whether gained by popular push, the entire point remains the same - to purposefully "rebalance" the Supreme Court - and hence, no matter what, it still will result in:  Out with the old guard, in with the new fairer deal.  The People will have spoken: constitutional-compliance matters.
 
Therefore, the thirteen chosen Justices should each one emerge from the different thirteen Circuits, so that there is a proper, fair and balanced representation of experience and demographic values, from all across America "in harmony", upon a newly-restored and correctly-comprised United States Supreme Court.  To provide for the final worthy selection lists, three constitutionally-compliant candidates from each of the thirteen different Circuits are surely enough to suffice, and the main criteria must be their strong constitutional compliance - not gender, age, politics, or any of several lessor factors.  As long as the entire list is composed of strong constitutionally-compliant candidates, that's the key.  You can't be sure to win by arguing "conservative v. liberal", or other factors, upon any given candidate for inclusion into the list of three for that particular Circuit, but "constitutionally-compliant" is much harder to argue with, you see, and matches precisely to the goal.
 

Possible candidates could well include (in no certain order):
  • Judge Andrew Napolitano, a former New Jersey judge who hosts "Freedom Watch" on Fox Business News, and is a lawyer.
  • Judge Roy Moore, famous for his $5000 Ten Commandments display at the Alabama Supreme Courthouse, and the subsequent standoff with the Federal Courts and the ACLU, etc., while he was still Chief Judge there.
  • U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson (VA, ruled ObamaCare unconstitutional recently)
  • U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson (FL, next ruled ObamaCare unconstitutional recently)
  • Judge James DeWeese, Richland County Common Pleas Court, OH, similar Ten Commandments display standoff.
  • U.S. District Judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr., a federal judge in Delaware, who ruled in February that it is constitutional for the Indian River School Board to open its meetings with Christian prayers, a ruling that could broaden what's allowed at school board meetings throughout the state.
  • Judge Edith Jones of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, a prominent judicial conservative.
  • Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, another prominent judicial conservative.
  • Judge William Pryor of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, another prominent judicial conservative.
  • Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Carlos T. Bea, who recently upheld the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance.
  • Michael McConnell, a former federal judge who heads the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University.
  • Curt Levey, the Harvard-trained executive director of the conservative Committee for Justice.
  • Donald Devine, the editor of Conservative Battleline Online, see http://www.conservative.org, who was the director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management from 1981 to 1985, and is also the director of the Federalist Leadership Center at Bellevue University.
  • Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), himself a former judge and one of the 31 congressmen who weighed in on a National Day of Prayer case ruled unconstitutional by naughty Judge Crabb, a federal district judge in Wisconsin.
  • U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn, who in Jan 2008 upheld the constitutionality of TX schools' moment of silence, ruling that the 'primary effect of the statute is to institute a moment of silence, not to advance or inhibit religion.'
  • The Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior U.S. District Judge, Charleston, SC.  Duffy is a fine judge, and received his B.A. from The Citadel in 1965.  The Citadel vigorously trains all students in honor, ethics and integrity.
  • Most of the candidates who were up for possible nomination by former President Bush can be seen here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/04/AR2...
  • And, etc., as long as the winning criteria remains their consistency of constitutional compliance.

Whether any of the currently-sitting Supreme Court Justices could be claimed as "strong" in their own constitutional compliance, and therefore be on the lists, too, is problematic at best, due to each of their own individual involvements with the Obama faux "Presidency" thingy, i.e., strict constitutional negligence, at the very least, they have all clearly committed.
 
Once the 13 lists of 3 candidates are finalized, and assuming a court case is filed against Congress, and/or maybe also against the current U.S. Supreme Court panel of Justices, themselves..., the plan is to present the total list of thirty-nine (39) candidates to the remainder of the *2008* Term of Justices [the last fully legally valid set of SCOTUS Justices - Obama is not valid, ergo, neither Sotomayor nor Kagan were valid nominations, etc.], with the equal input of their now-retired Honors, Mrs. Justice O’Connor, Mr. Justice Souter, and Mr. Justice Stevens, and along with a balanced set of instructions for them to all fairly arrive at their final selections of thirteen new Justices, including the new Chief Justice as the last selection made from that new panel of 13, and such transformation would occur during the following Summer recess of the high court - which *could* be yet still later this year, if enough activists pulled together in chorus to blanket other tea party circles, and so out to general America, fast enough... or, no later than next year, with relative ease.
 
I am looking for empassioned activists to help participate, and I am also still seeking any and all recommendations for the strongest constitutionally-compliant candidates out there, and your given candidate may be either a state or federal judge, a professor of law, or anything similar.  I mean, we DO want to have VERY experienced people in there, of course..  The primary considerations are for high morality, high integrity, consistent adherence to the written federal Constitution, and so forth and so on.  If you have such a fine candidate in mind, please feel free to suggest the same person to me right away.

Views: 50

Comment

You need to be a member of Patriots Heart Network Media #phnm to add comments!

Join Patriots Heart Network Media #phnm

Comment by Torm Howse on March 21, 2011 at 9:56am

Hi, Chalice

While the SCOTUS should be, in fact, overhauled as described, I believe you will actually be even more interested in the content of my newer blog post, as it should help your active case.

Cheers,

Torm

Comment by KD on March 21, 2011 at 4:35am

J M J

We only need 7 which means according to seniority, dump the last TWO !   :o)

 

GB,

Comment by Chalice on March 21, 2011 at 2:53am
Very thought provoking article.

© 2020   Created by Chalice.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service