Law Professor Answers Supreme Court Questions - Tech Support - WIRED
video description
Date: 2025-07-20
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
Nicksonian
Create nine slots on the court, each with a 16-year term. The beginning of each term would be separated by two years, meaning that every two years, the senior justice would retire and a new justice would be nominated. Each four-year term of POTUS would choose two justices and the Senate would be required to accept a president’s nominee prior to the start of the new opening on the court. If a justice dies or retires during his term, a replacement would only serve the remainder of that open term. The chief justice would be the senior justice meaning that office would change every two years. This churn would create a court much more varied and responsive to the American people and prevent long-term, ideological deadlock.
I pullled 16 years out of my head and by coincidence it turns out the average SCOTUS tenure has been just short of 17 years.
A transition would be required based on tenure. While this would impose mandatory retirement on current justices, each will have served much longer than average by the end of their term, and it’s unlikely all would serve out the term. The transition would look something like this:
2012-2028: Clarence Thomas, 36 years, age 80
2014-2030: John Roberts, 25 years, age 75
2016-2032: Samuel Alito, 26 years, age 82
2018-2034: Sonia Sotomayor, 25 years, age 80
2020-2036: Elena Kagan, 26 years, age 76
2022-2038: Neil Gorsuch, 21 years, age 70
2024-2040: Brett Kavanaugh, 21 years, age 68
2026-2042: Amy Coney Barrett, 21 years, age 70
2028-2044: Ketanji Brown Jackson, 22 years, age 73
reply
Create nine slots on the court, each with a 16-year term. The beginning of each term would be separated by two years, meaning that every two years, the senior justice would retire and a new justice would be nominated. Each four-year term of POTUS would choose two justices and the Senate would be required to accept a president’s nominee prior to the start of the new opening on the court. If a justice dies or retires during his term, a replacement would only serve the remainder of that open term. The chief justice would be the senior justice meaning that office would change every two years. This churn would create a court much more varied and responsive to the American people and prevent long-term, ideological deadlock.
I pullled 16 years out of my head and by coincidence it turns out the average SCOTUS tenure has been just short of 17 years.
A transition would be required based on tenure. While this would impose mandatory retirement on current justices, each will have served much longer than average by the end of their term, and it’s unlikely all would serve out the term. The transition would look something like this:
2012-2028: Clarence Thomas, 36 years, age 80
2014-2030: John Roberts, 25 years, age 75
2016-2032: Samuel Alito, 26 years, age 82
2018-2034: Sonia Sotomayor, 25 years, age 80
2020-2036: Elena Kagan, 26 years, age 76
2022-2038: Neil Gorsuch, 21 years, age 70
2024-2040: Brett Kavanaugh, 21 years, age 68
2026-2042: Amy Coney Barrett, 21 years, age 70
2028-2044: Ketanji Brown Jackson, 22 years, age 73
reply
inwalters
Here's how to resolve the Supreme Court question. The first step is to recognize we have political parities. So when there is a vacancy, the president would create a list of 25 candidates that they think are qualified and put the names on a list in a sealed envelope. The other party would also name 25 candidates and put that list in a sealed envelope. The clerk of the Supreme court would open the two envelopes and compare the lists. If there was one name in common, then boom! that person is on the court - no one can complain because both sides have said that person is qualified. If more than one, pick your method of selecting one of them at random and the winner is on the court. If there are no names in common, the clerk informs both sides and tells them to select 25 more names, with neither side being able to name anybody on their first list. Repeat until a justice is selected.
reply
Here's how to resolve the Supreme Court question. The first step is to recognize we have political parities. So when there is a vacancy, the president would create a list of 25 candidates that they think are qualified and put the names on a list in a sealed envelope. The other party would also name 25 candidates and put that list in a sealed envelope. The clerk of the Supreme court would open the two envelopes and compare the lists. If there was one name in common, then boom! that person is on the court - no one can complain because both sides have said that person is qualified. If more than one, pick your method of selecting one of them at random and the winner is on the court. If there are no names in common, the clerk informs both sides and tells them to select 25 more names, with neither side being able to name anybody on their first list. Repeat until a justice is selected.
reply
embreis2257
21: 50 [originalism] in constitutional law, this is a weird debate. interpreting the constitution through the eyes of its original writers is a sure way to create a fundamental disconnect between the law and the people it is meant to serve. our societies evolve, our needs change, technology advances and demands new solutions in law - interpreting all this with ancient concepts doesn't do anyone any good. if a supreme court justice thinks that is how they should serve their country and the people, then they are utterly mistaken. all they do is ruin the institution, their reputation and the commonwealth they pretend to serve.
is there a constitutional court in any other advanced western country whose judges would even dare to interpret their constitution according to the concept of 'originalism' probably only the US has weird, wacko judges like that.
reply
21: 50 [originalism] in constitutional law, this is a weird debate. interpreting the constitution through the eyes of its original writers is a sure way to create a fundamental disconnect between the law and the people it is meant to serve. our societies evolve, our needs change, technology advances and demands new solutions in law - interpreting all this with ancient concepts doesn't do anyone any good. if a supreme court justice thinks that is how they should serve their country and the people, then they are utterly mistaken. all they do is ruin the institution, their reputation and the commonwealth they pretend to serve.
is there a constitutional court in any other advanced western country whose judges would even dare to interpret their constitution according to the concept of 'originalism' probably only the US has weird, wacko judges like that.
reply
12thDecember
No mention of McConnell's excuse for not moving forward with Garland in 2016, i. e, too close to an election, when he did an about-face and went full speed ahead with Barrett in September 2020. George Washington warned about a two-party system controlling government, and he was right.
I'm surprised no one asked about the extremely influential role of the ultraconservative Federalist Society in the nomination of Supreme Court justices. Six of the nine justices are current or former members of that club: Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett.
reply
No mention of McConnell's excuse for not moving forward with Garland in 2016, i. e, too close to an election, when he did an about-face and went full speed ahead with Barrett in September 2020. George Washington warned about a two-party system controlling government, and he was right.
I'm surprised no one asked about the extremely influential role of the ultraconservative Federalist Society in the nomination of Supreme Court justices. Six of the nine justices are current or former members of that club: Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett.
reply
awakethemaster
Why you take seriously a Job that really has not impact in the way that world and USA it's conducting their system of law. Thinking and blind in their protocol and useless books that just have a common denominator; protect USA and functionaries against any COST. RIGHT NOW USA IT'S PART OF COMMITING CRIMES IN ALLIANCE WITH OTHER NATION, COMPANIES WITH THE USE OF MILITAR EQUIPMENT AND NOT LAWFUL DARK MAGIC PRACTICES AND ALL THESE WITH SOME CORP RELIGIONS
HOW YOU DARE TO LIVE IN USA TO TALK ABOUT JUDGES THAT ARE TORN
reply
Why you take seriously a Job that really has not impact in the way that world and USA it's conducting their system of law. Thinking and blind in their protocol and useless books that just have a common denominator; protect USA and functionaries against any COST. RIGHT NOW USA IT'S PART OF COMMITING CRIMES IN ALLIANCE WITH OTHER NATION, COMPANIES WITH THE USE OF MILITAR EQUIPMENT AND NOT LAWFUL DARK MAGIC PRACTICES AND ALL THESE WITH SOME CORP RELIGIONS
HOW YOU DARE TO LIVE IN USA TO TALK ABOUT JUDGES THAT ARE TORN
reply
alpaul
He espoused some foolish thoughts here. The idea that the supreme court has not been political or partisan has never been true. It always was and is. Id also argue the courts current issues date back much farther than 25 years. Id say at least 50, once the right lost the culture war. The right for decades has been trying to stack courts across the country. It is one of the reasons we have so easily become a police state and now a borderline failed state under authoritarian rule.
reply
He espoused some foolish thoughts here. The idea that the supreme court has not been political or partisan has never been true. It always was and is. Id also argue the courts current issues date back much farther than 25 years. Id say at least 50, once the right lost the culture war. The right for decades has been trying to stack courts across the country. It is one of the reasons we have so easily become a police state and now a borderline failed state under authoritarian rule.
reply
RangeOfSubjects
Packing the court is loaded language and inaccurate. Enlarging the court would make it less controlled by a single political party. Adding four members would be appropriate for many reasons. This would allow better reviews of potential cases. To decrease political or party nature of this enlargement, it would start two years after the seating of the president. At that point one additional justice would be added every 18 months.
reply
Packing the court is loaded language and inaccurate. Enlarging the court would make it less controlled by a single political party. Adding four members would be appropriate for many reasons. This would allow better reviews of potential cases. To decrease political or party nature of this enlargement, it would start two years after the seating of the president. At that point one additional justice would be added every 18 months.
reply
kinggoldark3853
3: 00 Well, yes, that's precisely the political gamble Mitch McConnell made. Had Trump lost the 2016 election, Garland would have been swiftly withdrawn and someone young and progressive like Jackson would have been nominated, with McConnell having essentially no power to stop the nomination. Was it a contributing factor to Republicans losing the Senate two years later Probably, but not as much as a lot of other factors.
reply
3: 00 Well, yes, that's precisely the political gamble Mitch McConnell made. Had Trump lost the 2016 election, Garland would have been swiftly withdrawn and someone young and progressive like Jackson would have been nominated, with McConnell having essentially no power to stop the nomination. Was it a contributing factor to Republicans losing the Senate two years later Probably, but not as much as a lot of other factors.
reply
ulujain
We here in Australia voted in a referendum (how we amend our constitution) in 1977 to introduce a mandatory retirement age of 70 for all federal judges, including those who sit in the High Court (our version of the SCOTUS. The referendum was carried with an 80% yes vote. If you guys had referenda to amend your constitution, I wonder what percentage of Americans would vote to introduce a retirement age for the SCOTUS
reply
We here in Australia voted in a referendum (how we amend our constitution) in 1977 to introduce a mandatory retirement age of 70 for all federal judges, including those who sit in the High Court (our version of the SCOTUS. The referendum was carried with an 80% yes vote. If you guys had referenda to amend your constitution, I wonder what percentage of Americans would vote to introduce a retirement age for the SCOTUS
reply
KilloreTroute
I wonder if maybe there should be a rule on achieving a threshold to be affirmed to the court. Instead of a simple majority, let's say you had to get 75%. It may take longer affirming people, but I think it could make the court better.
Addendum: Regular citizens have an indirect say who gets to be on the court. By voting for the President and our Senators, you can help shape how the court looks.
reply
I wonder if maybe there should be a rule on achieving a threshold to be affirmed to the court. Instead of a simple majority, let's say you had to get 75%. It may take longer affirming people, but I think it could make the court better.
Addendum: Regular citizens have an indirect say who gets to be on the court. By voting for the President and our Senators, you can help shape how the court looks.
reply
kckprince
I honestly believe that this country needs a balanced Supreme Court to end all racism and promote equality and positivity. The fact that it has equal justice for all is ironic because this country hasn't truly provided equal justice at all! Why did the Supreme Court even allow Trump to run and become president again, knowing that he is twice impeached and damaging this country
reply
I honestly believe that this country needs a balanced Supreme Court to end all racism and promote equality and positivity. The fact that it has equal justice for all is ironic because this country hasn't truly provided equal justice at all! Why did the Supreme Court even allow Trump to run and become president again, knowing that he is twice impeached and damaging this country
reply
wired
This is both an interesting topic, and one that has a very straight forward actual single question and single answer.
Why is the US Supreme Court such a clusterfork
The criminals that stole a country off their King and fellow British Subjects with the aid of the filthy French, were not half as smart as they thought they were.
reply
This is both an interesting topic, and one that has a very straight forward actual single question and single answer.
Why is the US Supreme Court such a clusterfork
The criminals that stole a country off their King and fellow British Subjects with the aid of the filthy French, were not half as smart as they thought they were.
reply
SonofRuss95
I don't think calling a Bryon White a Democrat nominee paints a full picture. Democrats and Republicans flipped ideology in 1964. White was selected in 62. JFK was a wealthy, white, catholic; JFK, while progressive in part, was largely centrist. White was likely not very progressive and I think that is reflected in his dissent.
reply
I don't think calling a Bryon White a Democrat nominee paints a full picture. Democrats and Republicans flipped ideology in 1964. White was selected in 62. JFK was a wealthy, white, catholic; JFK, while progressive in part, was largely centrist. White was likely not very progressive and I think that is reflected in his dissent.
reply
johnydriessen6813
I think SCOTUS should consist of a rotating panel of Federal District Judges. I believe this would prevent judge shopping and tailoring SCOTUS cases to appeal to a select few judges. Also place term limits on the federal bench such that, perhaps, one-third of the national bench is replaced every 8 years.
reply
I think SCOTUS should consist of a rotating panel of Federal District Judges. I believe this would prevent judge shopping and tailoring SCOTUS cases to appeal to a select few judges. Also place term limits on the federal bench such that, perhaps, one-third of the national bench is replaced every 8 years.
reply
ChumblesMumbles
Sorry, my man, but as a fellow lawyer, I can definitively say that there is no law anymore. Not any that matters. It's whatever 5 (6 now) idiots on the Supreme Court says it is, and whatever the craziest fever dreams of the current President says it is. Checks and balances are dead and so is the law.
reply
Sorry, my man, but as a fellow lawyer, I can definitively say that there is no law anymore. Not any that matters. It's whatever 5 (6 now) idiots on the Supreme Court says it is, and whatever the craziest fever dreams of the current President says it is. Checks and balances are dead and so is the law.
reply
logansky4902
At the very least Supreme Court nominations need to be voted on right away and need to have at least a 60% vote to be confirmed. It WOULD allow them to be filibustered and we would have a lot less justices for a long while. But it would force nominees to be far more by partisan than it currently is
reply
At the very least Supreme Court nominations need to be voted on right away and need to have at least a 60% vote to be confirmed. It WOULD allow them to be filibustered and we would have a lot less justices for a long while. But it would force nominees to be far more by partisan than it currently is
reply
readyforlol
So if the senate had done its job, Obama would have elected a moderate supreme court justice and Trump wouldn't have gotten them to greenlight everything he wanted regardless of its consequences on americans and beyond
Add the senate to the list of people with blood on their hands.
reply
So if the senate had done its job, Obama would have elected a moderate supreme court justice and Trump wouldn't have gotten them to greenlight everything he wanted regardless of its consequences on americans and beyond
Add the senate to the list of people with blood on their hands.
reply
Ou8y2k2
The naivete of saying that partisanship was only relevant since 2010 belies the fact that the Court has always been partisan since, generally, WASP presidents have nominated people who preserved the power of old rich men. The perpetual delusion of the officers of the court is fascinating.
reply
The naivete of saying that partisanship was only relevant since 2010 belies the fact that the Court has always been partisan since, generally, WASP presidents have nominated people who preserved the power of old rich men. The perpetual delusion of the officers of the court is fascinating.
reply
stevefurrier9932
Can a politician make a decision to make all the Senate the Congress, and the Supreme Court not exist anymore
Is that protected by the Constitutuion
And what if they try to get rid of the Constitution
What is a rule on these cases
Is there any rule
reply
Can a politician make a decision to make all the Senate the Congress, and the Supreme Court not exist anymore
Is that protected by the Constitutuion
And what if they try to get rid of the Constitution
What is a rule on these cases
Is there any rule
reply
Rkcuddles
10: 00 but you just told us the senate can pretty much refuse to allow a new judge to be picked by the president without consequences. So had she retired early, there is no evidence that she would have been replaced by Obama, in fact the evidence suggests otherwise
reply
10: 00 but you just told us the senate can pretty much refuse to allow a new judge to be picked by the president without consequences. So had she retired early, there is no evidence that she would have been replaced by Obama, in fact the evidence suggests otherwise
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
