How to Fix a Broken Supreme Court | Robert Reich 

Only if there's some form of lobbying ban, since they often run for congress with this plan in mind. Some or many have the job lined up before they even start their first campaign, pre-contracting million dollar contracts. I've heard the idea floated that a statute for no lobbying for two years after leaving, but that's way too flimsy. I'd prefer it be twenty, but I'd settle for eight or ten.

@@PolferiferusII 🤔Didn't know that. Thankyou 👍

What a ridiculous traitor wife And Thomas won’t re use Criminal

The Supreme Court has been far more competent than the other branches of government.

No thanks socialist.

No, Democrats and tech are in bed together. The court dockets are filled with certified documents demonstrating how Democrats rigged the 2020 election receipts: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.350905/gov.uscourts.mied.350905.1.15.pdf

AGREE 100%

Money and Power !

No shit! Show me someone who doesn’t know this. The question is how to fix this?

please do not insult other primates. They have the intelligence to keep politicians out of their communities.

They, and any members of their household.*

And the same goes for all legislators.

Everyone should be barred from getting paid to lobby politicians

@@johnmeigs719 Not commenting, lobbying. Any current or former justice or politician should have the right to their opinions and the right to share them, but donating money for political and legislative influence after they are no longer elected is, in my opinion, crossing the line

​@@johnmeigs719 no, because the point is that the decision-maker's family income shouldn't be influenced by those whose cases they are deciding. "I didn't take money from those involved, my spouse did" is a ridiculous dodge.

Agree! Go home when your term is up.

They shouldn't go automatically, but they shouldn't be prevented from serving in another capacity. Presidents must leave after two terms, but they can still be elected to any other office afterward and several have. The same could be true for justices.

..most of us feel nothing but loathing for the likes of you. So we’re even.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yes, that's the first time I've heard it referred to as such-The EXTREME court-Perfect!!

@@Marcus_C51 well… Sure, as long as princess ginsburg was alive, then yes - it WAS the Extreme Court! Now that the judge who disregarded the constitution and focused on the “feelings” and “intent” of the constitution is finally gone, the “extreme court” is slowly becoming the Supreme Court again.

Oversight or intent?

The law states that Congress can veto any Supreme Court Law by two thirds vote. Checks and Balances but we know that will NEVER happen.@@StopWhining491

What are you going to do to the judges that violate the code of ethics?

@@darrennew8211 Would be grounds for impeachment at the very least.

@@sirimperialmike6398 You don't need rules for that. :-)

HE IS A MORONIC DUMBOCRAT! HE WANTS TO PACK THE COURT SO HIS LIB BULLSHIT GETS PUSHED THROUGH! NO MORE JUSTICES, PERIOD!

How does moving trash around remove it.?

@@mikeb4650 Sounds like Mitch McConnell, who has been on Capitol hill since 1974. (49 Years), starting working under Gerald Ford as his Deputy United States Assistant Attorney General.

@@mrpmrp226 Yes!! A perfect comparison. nixon, a republican traitor, who left a mess behind. Trump, who is pure sewage! Why are republicans allowed to exist?

I agree with term limits for congressmen but not for the Justices. The Judges are free to retire when they want to, recuse themselves when they see fit, and to establish boundaries for themselves. It is a unique part of the government and these traditions are part of the checks and balances set up by the Constitution.

@@picdubois4620 Obviously Thomas, and Alito can't see fit to recuse themselves so as per the constitution 'We the people' will have to make that decision for them. There are no check and balances when Justices take partisan sides in their decisions. We need reform in more than one area in our government and it seems like the higher up we go from the local community the more twisted the system becomes and yes some local communities are locked into a corrupt government too. Beats a dictatorship though.

It's insane that he asked for things that politicians don't have to do. It's insane that you are a poor loser.

Almost like it was meant to be

If you think a Justice has done wrong, impeach him. The process is simple and straightforward and is the same for Federal Judges. As I remember Alcee Hastings was impeached as a Federal Judge for taking BRIBES before Democrats sent him to Congress...

We didn't think we needed one before now.

@@Mediumdoo ofc it was meant to be, the rules only apply at the bottom and the middle and if you fall out of favor (ala epstein and co) and even then, it's more justice by example than real justice.

Racist much?

Alito, Roberts, Lurch, Beer Bong and Handmaid's Tale are just as guilty and corrupt as Thomas. All six of them need to be removed.

Continuity of the law is their excuse.

In Canada we have a mandatory retirement age of 75 years - it should be 70 years..maybe the USA should consider doing the same..just a thought..

@@ChrisLichowicz Negative, Ghost Rider… looking at Article III Section 1 of the Constitution (and reading some history), the Founding Fathers (“constitutional authors” for the haters) wanted to make it as hard as possible for the Legislative and Executive branches from being able to manipulate the SCOTUS justices. Neither of those groups can do things like create term limits or make pay cuts for the justices. Now for a logical step: if we want moral justices we need to elect moral Presidents who appoint them and Congressmen who approve them. Failure to do so is ultimately the fault of those eligible to vote who do more make their parties (Democrats and Republicans) present moral candidates for these elections. Sadly, most of the vocal complainers find it easier to make snide comments (easy) in lieu of trying to actually change things (not easy). If we each started to “be the change we want to see” this great nation would indeed be great.

@@dangeorge1721 In Australia the mandatory retirement age for Justices is 70.

​Mike-li5yq You just worry about what YOUR country does. WE Americans will tend to OUR business, PERIOD

And the same with Congress.

Term limits for congress..then we can discuss term limits for the Supreme court.

I think 75 might be a better age.

Am unable to find one argument to Mr. Reich's case; all excellent places to start with making the US Supreme Court more responsive AND responsible. Thank you, Mr. Reich. Y'all Be Safe!

@@raymondschneider5217 that is because u r just as stupid as he is

Would you happen to be a U.S. citizen? If so, who did you vote for in the 2020 presidential election?

@@robr1656 Reich was and always will be a braindead marxist who is wrong about eveything

then u r dumber than he is

100% correct!! If a corporation is the same as a person, how come the top officers can't be held criminally libel for misdeeds committed by corporations? A few CEO'S serving 20 years in federal prison would go a long way towards better corporate ethics.

Yeah, that was the one that first dropped my jaw. Money equals free speech? The only "persons" who'll be heard from then on are corporations.

Citizens United is a Corporate Collective?

PS , if corporations can form a union, why can't the American labor force ?

Since bush v gore when they chose the president, they lost all credibility.

If you and I aren’t allowed to accepts ‘gifts’ then neither should they. There’s a massive conflict of interest.

they should be FIRED from SCOTUS

I'm sure we coudl all come up with an ordered list of who we would like to see gone, but even with only 9 I'll bet they diverge rather quickly. For example, my least favorite is Justice Sotomayor.

@@thefirm4606 You allowed to accept "gifts." Someone can pay for your vacation, give you things, etc. Some of them will attract attention if you are a public figure, but it is a bit of a stretch to say you and I cannot receive "gifts."

This will never happen. It is way too late. The government should have dealt with many issues such as monopolies, guns and more but its all talk and no action.

Something tells me that certain justices won't start being ethical just because it's finally required. These reforms may very well lead to impeachments.

Sadly, impeachment is just another broken partisan masquerade.

Clarence Thomas?

Really? And turn them into political enemys as what was done to trump and now desantis? Wake up to leftist ideology and wokism would be much more effective.

Trump was impeached twice and didn't lose his job - impeachment seems worthless to me.

How do we get these reforms done?

I'd go a step further failure to recuse from a case requires immediate removal from the court for misconduct.

​@@johnlast6066

Great idea!

Hell, I hope the JUSTICES go viral - as in, catch a fatal virus and leave six openings for actual Justice.

@davidmclean5895 Look how easily triggered the left are. What's wrong? Are you mad that you can't discriminate based on race anymore?

This is the most interesting option I've heard in these comments. That being said, giving one president the power to appoint 4 Justices in a single term seems like a recipe for trouble, and would all but invalidate the purpose of the court, to serve as a check against the other two branches. Either the justices would need to spend a term ghost voting and essentially auditioning for the court, so we could see how they would vote if they were allowed, Or we'd need a rule that prevented any president from filling more than one vacancy per term. And of course, with all THAT being said, it's not the court's job to BE political and play politics in the first place. It's their job to be fair and consistent and to settle matters of law where the system broke down somewhere, or where the law was misapplied. That's it. That is their intended role in government. Making them into kings who can collectively rewrite laws and decide cases based on how popular a case is would be a catastrophe.

The reason that they are not on a ballot is to prevent them from becoming partisan, and I have to agree with that. If they are on the ballot, they would spend more time campaigning than they would doing their job. They are impeachable now, but it takes a super majority of the Senate to convict them. Unless we have a Code of Ethics in place for the Justices, though, what grounds do we really have? Apparently, it is ok for a nominee to lie to Congress. It is ok to take monetary gifts and then not recuse yourself. These should be spelled out like they are for every other judge in the country and be impeachable offenses. I think all of this just may take a constitutional amendment. It would be nice if amendments could be proposed by the people and put on the ballot like many states do for their amendments.

Amen… but must eliminate gerrymandering and electoral college who have been manipulated by the GOPs who are owned by the millionaires and their Dark Monies.

I call this "The Vote of No Confidence', I think it should happen every Congressional ballot and if the voter approval is

@@eugsmiley At that point you might as well make the actual term 2 years. There is essentially no difference between that and what you propose.

He is named Robert Reich.

@@MossyMozart They wont take away his brain,,he doesn't have one...nor does anyone else that listens to Reich a clown loser

Birth control, in vitro, marriage equality, free and fair elections, abortion (nationally) free speech, free press, seperation of church and state, etc.

Good news is Biden responds if people yell loud enough. Bad news is, he wont do it unless you do yell.

​@@johnlast6066< Liar. Troll. Spreads misinformation. Promotes terrorism.

​@@jhonshephard921< whatever fool 😅

This is a campaign issue for you because you want the courts stacked in democrats favor.

Imagine a republican campaigning on an actual issue, rather than rage porn.

I like this idea. This would give the congressional committee a history of rulings to present to present to Congress at large. Since this information is public, lawyers in Congress and out of Congress can paint a fairly accurate picture of the nominee.

Or we simply reduce the federal districts

14.

That's a nice counter to the just packing the court argument which can segue(sp) into a reason for term limits.

Makes sense, so you KNOW the GQP is opposed.

I feel the same way.

I hope democracy lives long enough

i just want to die before the world combusts in flames, maybe have a little fun before then.

@@SuperCosmicChaos im so glad I have cancer because i really want to stop having a job but I cant afford to be unemployed. Im so fucking tired of living in this hellscape

Politicians are directly elected by the Voters. And they are subject to the Law. And their party scrutinizes them. That makes for three mechanisms for their removal. SC judges have none of those scrutiny / oversight mechanisms.

@@TheEvertwAgreed, plus impeachment exists. Even if it's become a charade lately. However, I think a process for removing politicians being in the hands of other politicians is far less than ideal, and I would submit that a better process for electing those politicians (such as ranked choice voting or proportional party representation) are both a more agreeable way of handling things (ranked choice gets the gold star here).

If they were to admit things, we might have more justices on the ropes than we expected. I don't see them admitting, though.

Y'all love minorities until they are conservative. Learn to cope.

Who else besides Justice Sotomayer?

​@@johndouglas4528Thomas and Alito. So that is 3. Sotomayer has definitely crossed that line as well. However, Thomas and Alito have poll-vaulted the line and flew past it with jetpacks. Since only 1 impeachment can happen at a time (to my knowledge), you start with the worst offender, which is definitely Thomas. We have all the receipts there. Then Alito. By then Sotomayer would have hopefully do the right thing and step down.

@@tristanalain9239 glad you can recognize problems with Sotomayer.

More fake crimes made up by the left to remove from office people they don't like?

any democrat needs to go to jail

@@chadhaire1711 Please explain?

@@johnconroy3180 Blackmail, extorsion, voter fraud, thefts, perjury, money laundering.......and all the other activities from their playbook.......

to be honest 4 picks

That would be great. That way you don't have a one term, extremely unpopular president get a disproportionately high number of picks just because of a corrupt party delaying one pick, and getting lucky when it comes to the timing of justices dying.

If someone retires or dies, it could mess up that rotation. Maybe you would have to appoint someone to complete the term and they would only have however many years were left.

And when you consider other factors such as the time it takes to become a lawyer, then a lower court judge, etc. before becoming a Supreme Court Judge, after 18 years the Judge could likely retire as well. Or teacher/lecture afterwards.

@@Neuzahnstein MAGA ANSWER; BE STRAIGHT WITH YOUR COMMENT, CALL NAMES !!!!!!!!!!!!

G9 get canadian Healthcare.

​@@johnlast6066< yes, we should get Canadian Healthcare. Far better than what we have now.

@@davidmclean5895 Lol, the leading cause of death in Canada is medical suicide. It's essentially genocide, you don't get the comment.

​@@davidmclean5895I disagree with that entirely. Healthcare in Canada is extremely expensive for the taxpayer and the quality of healthcare sucks.

@@yourdaddy-mq4km Nobody is buying this new user name Zachoff. Hit the bricks troll.

Liberal packing huh?

@@drakecarter1780 or, each region of the country will be represented by someone like Senators represent a state. This could result in a conservative or a liberal judge representing a given circuit. This is the minimal that should happen. Personally, the way Justices are selected for the Supreme Court now needs to be gutted and changed in a way that involves politicians as little as possible. I'm looking at the way The U.K. does it.

​@@drakecarter17809 Justices isn't even the most justices we've had before dude....13 makes sense for the reason stated. 1 justice to represent each federal district.

@TheMissingLink2 again, you want liberal court packing. Yes it use to be 13. Other 150 years ago. Admit it, you are a liberal, you hate the Conservative near super majority on the court and you want more justices in their so you will get the rulings you want.

Expanding the court, simply because they have issued rulings against your political affiliation is childish.

THE UGLY TRUTH.

A cod of ethics sounds fishy, and appropriate for Congress.

Congress wrote one for all the other judges in the judicial system, why not just extend that to include SCOTUS? But please don’t write a cod of ethics, I never did like that fish

That's the unfortunate part. Farron Cousins from the ring of fire explained this as well. Nothing will happen with the current Congress for the next 10 years and that's being optimistic.

@@SSJvegito501 You are probably right, much as I hate to admit it?

or worse, popular classes voting against themselves and their interest thru sheer stupidity ala trumpsters

I can't blame citizens for being apathetic and not participating when everything is so corrupt and consequence free. One of those corrupt, consequence free things is red states constantly gerrymandering and doing things to make it harder for non-white people to vote. I certainly can't hold it against anyone who has the system rigged against them so that they can't participate even if they want to.

Voter apathy comes from the Texas secretary of state throwing out hundreds of thousands of ballots because they came from Austin and bragging about throwing the election to trump. Voter Apathy comes from 10 hour waits and having your right to vote literally thrown in the trash without notice, and having the clerk at the voting spot shrug and say try again in 4 years! Voter Apathy comes from legislative districts that have to be redrawn 4 times before the supreme court admits that they aren't so overtly racist that they need to be thrown out and drawn again.

How exactly are we supposed to vote on an issue which is only allowed to be voted on by our so called "representatives" and no one on EITHER side of the aisle is willing to tackle this problem?

Just saying, the Supremes decreed that the DNC, as a private corporation, does NOT have to let us voters choose the candidates. And BOTH parties serve the same billionaire donors, not us. Voting for the lesser evil doesn't inspire enthusiasm

😂 nothing will change because the government cronies like Joe biden have rigged the system to control everything. Sad you think giving them full control of the government will do anything but fill their pockets.

It was designed that way!

And if tRUMP GETS IN, WE WILL NEVER BE FREE AGAIN

Except at this point, twelve years sounds long to me...

For sure. 200+ hrs of experience is a must.

I agree with the 200+ hours of judicial experience, but the term of office should be ten years. Anything longer just invites more f*ckery.

Trial experience has little bearing on the quality of an Appellate judge and you would be losing other great candidates from both the left and the right based on an arbitrary hurdle.

@@redhawk7002I think the 200 hrs would be more for the public, like, we can see thru their ruling if they are neutral or not. But, if that's not a good way to go about things, what would you like to see instead?

If it could be proven that members of sCOTUS knew the case was fake (the news did first come out a little beforehand) could some legal action be taken, I wonder?

They made another ruling based on taking words out of context from a 13th century misogynistic opinionist. In the defense of this man, 13th century woman were property.

@@johnmeigs719 trolling

@@johnmeigs719 Do your own homework, I'm not your mom.

@@renatocorvaro6924 Nor do you know what you are talking about.

They are just making sure laws don't interfere with the constitution. It's liberal judges that have used their power to ignore the constitution, because democrats don't have the votes to change the constitution.

​@@johnmeigs719the executive branch enforces it. I present you with Andrew Jackson and the trail of tears. "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."

I think you’re missing the point. Being too close to an election was a lie. It always was. The truth was, republicans just didn’t want to elect Obama’s pick, and since they controlled the house they didn’t have to. They said it was too close to an election because that sounds better than “we just don’t like him”. In reality, there is no problem with electing a judge to the supreme court really close to an election.

this is completely arbitrary, its just politics

@@ryantetreault3447 It levels the playing field. No difference in timing based on which party controls the Senate and White House. So, how do you consider that arbitrary?

@@marckaufman2556 Is there any logic behind a date. 100 days? 101 days? Or 1 day? Why does it matter? The correct answer is that it should be filled as soon as it becomes vacant. Otherwise 8 justices can cause ties.

@@ryantetreault3447 The only reason I'm saying a date is because the legislative branch and president have to pass a law that either says that the president can nominate anytime during her/his term, or up until the election, and the Senate must grant hearings and, if qualified, confirm before the election or end of term regardless of which part has control of what. However, you should know that there will be wrangling about setting an actual date or time period. They, esp the Republicans, aren't going to say, "Ok, it can be done whenever regardless of which party seems likely to win the WH in the coming election."

No he is wrong and my concern is he doesn't understand and will never.

🤣 if you think liar reich is truth you need your eyes and ears checked.

@@yourdaddy-mq4km That's funny coming from someone who was removed from RU-vid for misinformation Zachoff. Buzz off you phony.

How do you get to that age and not learn how to spot partisan zealot? he had me fooled at 1st but then I gathered some facts.

Bad idea. "The government you elect is the government you deserve" comes to mind.

Have you SEEN who people are electing?

The current track record for people who were elected hasn’t been good

Welcome to the United States of America

The PEOPLE voted for those in congress and the President, they all still suck, how will voting for justices fix anything. Actual consequences are in order for all of those who serve The People!

We don't actually NEED 13 districts. The 1st district is ME, NH, MA. The 2nd is NY, VT, CT. The 3rd is PA & NJ. The entire NorthEast should be combined into 1 district.

@@eaglechawks3933 So 11? That's still an odd number so there wouldn't be a hard split decision, yeah.

Increase even more. Add 2 judges per circuit and make it a random lottery which 9 judges hear a case. It’s hard to control the randomness of who hears a case, and hella expensive to buy so many. More judges on the court make it harder to keep the secrets hidden.

If we expand the court now, the Republicans would simply do it again and have a court of 15 justices total.

@@eaglechawks3933 This is because the NE is a heavily populated area of the U.S. Also, you forgot RI, DE, PR, and the U.S Virgin Islands. RI and PR are part of the 1st district. DE and the Virgin Islands are part of the 3rd district. You might have a case for breaking this up into 2 districts -- the 6 New England states and New York in one, and Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, The Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico in the other.

We are a republic, not a democracy. Educate yourself.

@@u686st7 The U.S. is both.

​@@u686st7< you are a troll and irrelevant. Educate yourself! 😅

@@u686st7 All you Mangolini Morons want to turn the US into a Fascist Dictatorship.

Ya got one handy? It sure as hell isn't in THIS Disfunctional State of America. Maybe Norway?

Let me guess you’re a democrat

With a minimum of 20 years experience on the bench.

​@@naomihatfield3015nah at least ten. We need varied ages and generations involved with the process. Half of the current supreme court doesn't understand how the internet works and barely understands anything introduced in the last three decades.

⁠@@chey7691do Zoomers “understand” how the internet “works”? I know I don’t. Do you? I don’t think anyone does, except for some weirdo science dudes. All I know is “magic wires!” I guess. Who knows how anything works? How does television work? How does electricity work? I have no idea!

@@elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770 I hope I understand the internet, I had high school classes that explained the basics. (Not to mention IT later on) They are incapable and refuse to properly understand what they try to regulate however you cut it, therefore absolutely undeserving of their seats. As with everything else don't try and regulate or dictate what you don't understand! Those dinosaurs shouldn't be driving let alone leading precedent in anything!

Age is a poor requirement; it truly says nothing of value, the only thing it indicates is that someone has been alive for a certain amount of time. I would much rather have a 30 year-old with five years of actual court experience on the Supreme Court, than a 60 year-old with no actual court experience.

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. What action steps we could take now to put this in motion?

Very very little. About the only thing you can do is to vote in all elections and vote for progressive democratic for a long time until we can finally get rid of all this corruption.

@@ZincOxideGinger that's great except the powers that be are making sure the number of ACTUAL progressives stays minuscule.

So what you and I can do is, we can vote! Vote, and get anyone you have influence with to vote and you can start by sending them this video. You could also write to your congressional representatives and ask them. Do they have a position on this issue? If they don’t, ask them whether or not, they would support such an initiative? That way you know where they stand on this issue. Cheers 🥂

How would we prevent conflicts of interest arising from term limits?

We need him barefoot in a prison cell for the remainder of his miserable life