Sol Wisenberg pans Bernie Sanders' idea of rotating Supreme Court justices: It's 'idiocy and unconstitutional'

[Leroy N. Soetoro]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sol-wisenberg-pans-bernie-sanders-idea-
of-rotating-supreme-court-justices-its-idiocy-and-unconstitutional

Fox News contributor Sol Wisenberg said Friday that Sen. Bernie Sanders'
idea for rotating Supreme Court justices would be "unconstitutional."

During Thursday's Democratic presidential debate, the Vermont independent
said the current makeup of the court is "terrible" after the additions of
Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, but that he doesn't believe in "packing
the court."

"I do believe constitutionally we have the power to rotate judges to other
courts and that brings in new blood into the Supreme Court and a majority,
I hope, that will understand that a woman has a right to control her own
body and that corporations cannot run the United States of America," he
said.

Sanders' bizarre pitch was quickly criticized by many in the legal
community.


Preet Bharara
?
@PreetBharara
?? @BernieSanders wants to rotate SCOTUS justices to other courts? I’m
missing something.

5,568
7:16 PM - Jun 27, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
1,693 people are talking about this
Responding on "America's Newsroom," Wisenberg - a lawyer and former Deputy
Independent Counsel in the Whitewater/Lewinsky Investigation - called the
proposal "idiocy."

"It would be totally unconstitutional," he said, adding that "packing" the
court by expanding it to include more justices would not be
unconstitutional, though it's still a "radical idea."

Bernie Sanders floats idea of rotating SCOTUS judgesVideo
"President Roosevelt paid a heavy price for trying to do that. He was
unsuccessful in it, but the Supreme Court hasn't always had nine members,"
he noted.

Meanwhile, President Trump told the Hill earlier this week that he would
“definitely” fill another Supreme Court vacancy if one opened up prior to
the 2020 presidential election.

“We have the Senate. We have a great Senate,” the president told the Hill,
referring to a Republican majority on the chamber of Congress that rules
on Supreme Court nominees.

“We have great people. If we could get him approved, I would definitely do
it. ... If there were three days left [before the 2020 election], I’d put
somebody up hoping that I could get ’em done in three days, OK?”



--
No collusion - Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III, March 2019.

Donald J. Trump, 304 electoral votes to 227, defeated compulsive liar in
denial Hillary Rodham Clinton on December 19th, 2016. The clown car
parade of the democrat party ran out of gas and got run over by a Trump
truck.

Congratulations President Trump. Thank you for cleaning up the disaster
of the Obama presidency.

The Obama-led Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)
approved Uranium One in fall 2010. With a little luck, we'll see
compulsive liar Hillary Clinton in jail before she dies.

Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp.

Obama increased total debt from $10 trillion to $20 trillion in the eight
years he was in office, and sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood queer
liberal democrat donors.

[Peter Franks]

On 7/2/2019 2:17 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sol-wisenberg-pans-bernie-sanders-idea-
> of-rotating-supreme-court-justices-its-idiocy-and-unconstitutional
>
> Fox News contributor Sol Wisenberg said Friday that Sen. Bernie Sanders'
> idea for rotating Supreme Court justices would be "unconstitutional."

Instead, how about an impartial judiciary?

I could see some real benefits there.

[Just Wondering]

On 7/2/2019 3:17 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sol-wisenberg-pans-bernie-sanders-idea-
> of-rotating-supreme-court-justices-its-idiocy-and-unconstitutional
>
> Fox News contributor Sol Wisenberg said Friday that Sen. Bernie Sanders'
> idea for rotating Supreme Court justices would be "unconstitutional."
>
> During Thursday's Democratic presidential debate, the Vermont independent
> said the current makeup of the court is "terrible" after the additions of
> Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, but that he doesn't believe in "packing
> the court."
>
> "I do believe constitutionally we have the power to rotate judges to other
> courts and that brings in new blood into the Supreme Court and a majority,
> I hope, that will understand that a woman has a right to control her own
> body and that corporations cannot run the United States of America," he
> said.
>
> Sanders' bizarre pitch was quickly criticized by many in the legal
> community.

As it should be. Under Article III federal judges are appointed
for life. You would think a presidential candidate who has served
in Congress for many years would know at least that much about
the Constitution. Maybe we should start having candidates for
federal office take a basic civics exam and post the results.

[Just Wondering]

How would you achieve that? Appoint judges for life so they aren't
subject to partisan pressures? Oh, we already do that, at least on
the federal level.

[Peter Franks]

Have to devise a system that promotes impartiality prior to appointment
and/or (re)election.

I'm thinking...

[Peter Franks]

I'm not aware of the statement(s) nor the constitutional directive, but
I presume that if you were to appoint for life, but rotate assignment,
you'd be constitutionally sound. I don't support the idea, it is just
substituting one flaw for another, there has to be a better way to keep
the judiciary independent and one that honors the precepts of the
constitution, not partisan politics or public opinion.

[Just Wondering]

While you're thinking, (a) think of a definition of "impartiality"
that you can get everyone to agree on, and (b) think of how to
apply that definition to potential appointees such that you can
get everyone to agree that a particular one is or is not impartial.

[Just Wondering]

You can't "rotate" a Supreme Court Justice out of the Supreme Court.

[Peter Franks]

What prohibits that, constitutionally?

[Peter Franks]

The only thing that I can think of is that selection and appointment is
completely anonymous, and at no time are the identities divulged, and if
they are, the judge is removed from the bench. Logistically, difficult
to do, at best.

Secondly, as I've advocated for before, unanimity in (supreme)
decisions. A law that can't be equally understood in its application is
null and void.

[Just Wondering]

The fact that it's a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.
The fact that we have three coequal branches of government. That
wouldn't be true if one of the branches had the power to

[Just Wondering]

The fact that justices are appointed to the Supreme Court for life.
The main reason is to shield judges from partisan pressure that
would inevitably result if their tenure depended on the good graces
of politicians.

If someone (who?) could do as you suggest, Congress could remove a
SCT Justice from his lifetime appointment by creating a new court,
say a "Section Eight Court" with jurisdiction limited to review of
congressional grants of Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which
never happens. A lifetime-appointed SCT judge could then be removed
from office by "rotating" him into such a court with nothing to do.

Also, Article II Section 2 grants the President power to appoint
judges "with the advice and consent of the Senate". A rotation
would be tantamount to appointment to a different office. Even
if it was possible to rotate a SCT Justice out, a replacement
could not simply be rotated in, it would require a presidential
appointment and Senate consent.

Who would do the rotating, anyway? The President? Congress?
Either or both Houses? A simple majority, or a supermajority?
A panel of other judges? How would any of that increase judicial
impartiality? Do you think either of the other branches would be
nonpartisan in the exercise of such a power if it existed?

A better idea: Let's not let Bernie Sanders anywhere near the
Oval Office.

[PaxPerPoten]

Impeachment can be used. Supreme Court Justice(exGovernor of California)
had many distractors that tried to impeach him in the early 1960's
>


--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster

[Just Wondering]

Impeachment is limited to removal for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Good luck with that, let us know how it works out for you.

[Peter Franks]

I don't agree with the concept of rotation, nor do I defend it, nor do I
support Bernie in any way, shape, or form -- he is an avowed socialist
which is an enemy of freedom. Enough said.

I'm asking what, Constitutionally, prohibits rotation?

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme
Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time
ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior
Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, ..."

Are inferior and supreme justices different offices? If yes, then
rotation not permissible. If no, then rotation would be permissible.

Office: a position of responsibility or some degree of executive authority

Federal (inferior) judges can issue national injunctions, so it could be
argued that they have the same executive authority as a supreme court
justice.

[Just Wondering]

Yes, they absolutely are different. If they were the same, the
Senate would not have the right to vote on Supreme Court nominees
if they were already lower court judges. The President could
simply "rotate" a District Court or Court of Appeals judge onto
the Supreme Court. If they were the same, we never would have
had the Bork, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh (or any other SCT
nominee) Senate hearings.

> Office: a position of responsibility or some degree of executive authority
>
> Federal (inferior) judges can issue national injunctions, so it
> could be argued that they have the same executive authority as
> a supreme court justice.

Courts don't have executive authority. They have judicial power.
Constitution Article II Sec. 1: "The executive Power shall be
vested in a President of the United States of America."
Article III Sec. 1: "The judicial Power of the United States,

shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts
as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Constitution Article III Sec. 2: "2: In all Cases affecting
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in
which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have
original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned,
the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to
Law and Fact ..."

Therefore, lower courts DON'T have the same judicial authority
as the Supreme Court.

[Peter Franks]

Thx.

I wasn't really interested in the topic, just wondering what idiotic
steps Sanders (or others) would take to attempt such an effort.

Seems that 100% of what Democrats propose is constitutionally unsound,
but a lot of it still happens nonetheless.

[Paul Jackson]

There is no provision *for* it.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme
Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time
ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior

Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at
stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall
not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

"Hold their offices" - they aren't appointed to some general judges. They
are appointed to particular court seats - offices - and they hold those
during good behavior, which translates to life or until they decide to resign.

[Peter Franks]

Well then what's Sander's way around that to legitimize his position?

[Just Wondering]

All Sanders has is a middle-finger salute to the Constitution.

[Paul Jackson]

Why do you think Sanders knows the Constitution? I don't think he does. I
think he's making crap up.

[Paul Jackson]

No. A judge is appointed and confirmed to a particular court.

[Peter Franks]

In all honesty, I've yet to encounter anyone that knows the
Constitution, regardless of station in government or political
persuasion. Unfortunately, unconstitutional made up crap keeps getting
legitimized. I'd at least like to know their justification so that I
can attack it from a reasoned and constitutionally-sound foundation.
It's hard to fight against what you can't define...