Reforming the United States Supreme Court
I have a better idea for US Supreme Court reform as to limited terms.
I suggest that instead of one 18-year term, there should be 9-year terms.
Each year one judge would be appointed to a 9-year term, and they would be eligible after that term to be nominated for only one more 9-year term. Here is how it would work if passed in 2025:
In 2025 Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito would be replaced with three new justices A, B, and C whose terms would be for 7, 8, and 9 years. After their terms ended, A, B, and C each would be eligible to be nominated for one more 9-year term.
In 2026 Sonia Sotomayor would be replaced.
In 2027 Elena Kagan would be replaced.
In 2028 Neil Gorsuch would be replaced.
In 2029 Brett Kavanaugh would be replaced.
In 2030 Amy Coney Barrett would be replaced.
In 2031 Ketanji Brown would be replaced.
In 2032 A would be replaced.
In 2033 B would be replaced.
In 2034 C would be replaced.
Each President would nominate one justice for each year and to fill vacancies caused by death or resignation.
We need to remove Clarence Thomas in 2025 because he will have served by then for over 33 years and because he has committed serious ethics violations with immunity.
We need to remove John Roberts in 2025 because he will have served by then for over 19 years and because as Chief Justice he has allowed serious ethics violations with immunity.
We need to remove Samuel Alito in 2025 because he will have served by then for 18 years and because he has committed serious ethics violations with immunity.
We need to remove Sonia Sotomayor in 2026 because she will have served by then for over 16 years. She could be eligible to be nominated for one more 9-year term.
We need to remove Elena Kagan in 2027 because she will have served by then for over 16 years. She could be eligible to be nominated for one more 9-year term.
We need to remove Neil Gorsuch in 2028 because he will have served by then for about 11 years. He could be eligible to be nominated for one more 9-year term.
We need to remove Brett Kavanaugh in 2029 because he will have served by then for about 11 years. He could be eligible to be nominated for one more 9-year term.
We need to remove Amy Coney Barrett in 2030 because she will have served by then for about 10 years. She could be eligible to be nominated for one more 9-year term.
We need to remove Ketanji Brown in 2031 because she will have served by then for about 9 years. She could be eligible to be nominated for one more 9-year term.
The term of the new A justice would end in 2032, and that person could be eligible to be nominated for one more 9-year term.
The term of the new B justice would end in 2033, and that person could be eligible to be nominated for one more 9-year term.
The term of the new C justice would end in 2034, and that person could be eligible to be nominated for one more 9-year term.
If any of these justices were to die or resign, they would be replaced until the year when they were to be replaced.
Those justices replacing them when their partial term ended, would also be eligible to be nominated for one 9-year term.
Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito would not be allowed to be nominated for another term.
The other six current justices (Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown) could be nominated for one more 9-year term.
Why this plan is better than one term limit of 18 years:
This is more democratic because Presidents, Senators, and people, who influence who is chosen for the Supreme Court, would be able to evaluate the first 9-year term before they nominate that justice again for a second term.
Also the US Supreme Court is greatly in need of reforms because of their numerous and consequential decisions that have violated the United States Constitution. In 2024 the violations of the Constitution have been extraordinary because of their effect on the convicted felon Donald Trump.
The US Constitution was designed to provide checks and balances between the three branches of government in order to protect human rights and prevent injustice. Only the Legislative branch can initiate new laws, and they can overcome a presidential veto with a two-thirds vote. The President and the Executive Agencies are responsible for enforcing the laws. The Supreme Court supervises the judicial system which is responsible for trying alleged violations of law. The Supreme Court is the last resort for ruling on trials by interpreting the laws made by the Legislature and the President. The US Supreme Court does not have the right to amend the Constitution nor does it have the right to amend laws or make new laws. In 2024 the US Supreme Court with six justices have been violating the US Constitution and changing laws to give themselves more power they have no right to have. The Chevron decision was also an outrageous power grab by the US Supreme Court from the agencies in the Executive Branch of the Government. The decision giving the President immunity for crimes was even more outrageous and extremely dangerous.
I have experienced the injustices of the US Supreme Court in my efforts to stop and prevent the crimes of our militaristic government that has been waging wars, killing millions of people, and preparing weapons that could even destroy our human civilization. I have been arrested about 58 times for attempting by nonviolent means to indicate that these serious crimes and dangerous policies need to be reformed. In my nonviolent challenges of United States crimes I have also been tried in federal courts. Yet in federal courts I have not been given my constitutional right to a jury trial because the US Supreme Court has decided that a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of six months does not have a serious effect on one’s life. Yet the United States Constitution states in two different places that the trials of all crimes will be by juries. In Article III it states, “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by jury.” Amendment VI states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”
In 1983 I was arrested twice with many other people for trespassing at the Vandenberg Air Force Base where MX missiles were being tested. I requested a jury trial and defended myself. Judge A. Wallace Tashima refused to grant me my constitutional right to a jury trial. I had served 9 days in custody when I was arrested, and Tashima ruled that no more jail time was needed. He imposed six months on probation even though I refused to cooperate with that. I think he was affected by my defense, and I received no more punishment on that case. In the spring of 1983 I helped organized a nonviolent protest at the Point Mugu Naval Base where they tested cruise missiles as part of the Pacific Missile Test Center. I talked with an official at the base and told them that we would not enter the property if we knew where the federal property ended. They decided to paint a line on the highway marking that, and we handed out leaflets outside their gates and were not arrested. On Nuclear Disarmament Day on June 20 about a dozen of us blocked traffic going into the Base, and we carefully stayed outside the line painted to show the border of the federal property. We were peacefully arrested. Somehow the Base claimed that we were on federal property, and we were brought before Federal Magistrate Robert M. Stone who refused to give us a jury trial. He also would not consider the defense of necessity nor international law. I defended myself again and refused to accept probation or pay a fine or do community service. He sentenced me to 21 days minus three days served. Also in 1983 I was arrested in a Catholic Worker action protesting nuclear weapons by a business in Los Angeles. In that case I was given an unfair jury trial and was sentenced to 120 days, and eventually that sentence was reduced.
In 1987 and 1988 I was arrested about forty times for protesting weapons shipments from the Concord Naval Weapons Station. I was given the first trial by many protesters with a co-defendant who had a lawyer. In that case a California judge provided a jury trial, and I was acquitted in March 1988.
On May 6, 1989 I joined a Pax Christi action protesting the Trident Missile System at the Kings Bay Submarine Base in St. Mary’s, Georgia. Several dozen people were nonviolently arrested, some of them for blocking traffic while I was one of those who stepped over an imaginary line on the sidewalk outside the gate of the Base. Only myself and an elderly lady Miriam Hope asked for a trial. We both defended ourselves, and the Federal Judge Alaimo did not allow us to have a jury trial. All the others in that action received sentences of seven days or less. Alaimo sentenced Miriam to 500 hours of community service and a $500 fine that could be paid to charities. I figured he was going to give me a maximum sentence for refusing probation, and at the sentencing I made a long speech. Then I was sentenced to six months in prison, the maximum sentence for a misdemeanor. They ended up sending me to the federal prison at Lompoc, California, and after six months of incarceration I was released in January 1990. As a political prisoner I had refused to work, and they had sent me across the street to a maximum security prison.
During the first few days of the illegal war against Iraq in March 2003 I was arrested again for trespassing at Vandenberg Air Force Base two times. In my trial I learned from Magistrate Walsh that I no longer had a right to ask for a federal judge, and there was no jury trial. I had been arrested a third time near the site of my arraignment in Los Angeles, and Walsh allowed me to have a public defender to help me with my cases. I got along very well with the lawyer Davina Chen in my trial. I stayed in jail to start serving the time I was sure to get without a jury trial. Judge Walsh indicated I would not get additional time in jail, and I accepted release until the sentencing hearing. At that time he imposed probation even though I told him I would not accept that. I called the probation office and told them I would not cooperate, and they scheduled me for another sentence hearing. At that hearing Walsh threatened to sentence me to several more months, and I said that he could not sentence me to more than the maximum six months. He looked it up and realized I was right. Then he sentenced me to four more months. A lawyer there to assist me persuaded him that that was a rather severe sentence for a nonviolent protest, and Walsh reduced it to two more months. All together in my life I have spent about a year in jails and prison, and most of it was because I was not given jury trials by the federal government in violation of the US Constitution.