They also should be barred from lobbying for life.

@TheBrothergreen

11 ай бұрын

They, and any members of their household.*

@kitskivich

11 ай бұрын

And the same goes for all legislators.

@52flyingbicycles

11 ай бұрын

Everyone should be barred from getting paid to lobby politicians

@Smenchevieve

10 ай бұрын

@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

@kanderson-oo7us

5 ай бұрын

​@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.

It's absolutely insane that there isn't a code of ethics with consequences for the supreme court.

@johnlast6066

11 ай бұрын

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

@Mediumdoo

11 ай бұрын

Almost like it was meant to be

@eaglechawks3933

11 ай бұрын

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...

@ladydeerheart1

11 ай бұрын

We didn't think we needed one before now.

@sionbarzad5371

11 ай бұрын

@@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.

People need to take this seriously, and pressure our representatives!

@flyoverstateresident2890

Ай бұрын

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

@shannonbarber6161

Ай бұрын

No thanks socialist.

And no more "shadow justices" like "Justice Ginni".

@robfromladner726

Ай бұрын

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

THIS SHOULD GO FOR ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AS WELL

@PolferiferusII

Ай бұрын

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.

@sandykatz364

Ай бұрын

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

@MultiEviscerator

20 күн бұрын

Indeed , let Congress vote themselves subject to term limits, and then we could consider it for the scotus. NOT the other way around.

ONCE AGAIN,,, MONEY'S ABSOLUTELY,,RUINING OUR POLITICS!!!!! IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE !!!!!

@BertJacbobson

Ай бұрын

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

@driverman8615

Ай бұрын

AGREE 100%

@geridinewhite869

Ай бұрын

Money and Power !

@SergeDuka

Ай бұрын

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

@mikeb4650

Ай бұрын

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

Not just SCOTUS, all Federal Court Judges should have term limits!

The Supreme Court should ALWAYS have equal balance and at the very least, a code of ethics.

Since "Citizens United" the court has no credibility. Period.

@georgeberg2106

11 ай бұрын

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.

@loneprimate

11 ай бұрын

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.

@davidsantor1760

11 ай бұрын

Citizens United is a Corporate Collective?

@davidsantor1760

11 ай бұрын

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

@rationalpear1816

11 ай бұрын

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

Term limits would be a great start. They should apply to Congress as well.

@mikeb4650

Ай бұрын

How does moving trash around remove it.?

@mrpmrp226

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@mikeb4650

Ай бұрын

@@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?

@picdubois4620

Ай бұрын

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.

@funnyfarm5555

Ай бұрын

@@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.

They shouldn’t move to lower courts after 18 years. They should simply be done. Thanks for your service

@1SRCrockett

Ай бұрын

Agree! Go home when your term is up.

@brassman7599

Ай бұрын

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.

@grammaticopedanticus9727

25 күн бұрын

@siriusvoyager9271, I disagree. The judiciary over all might well be strengthened by Supreme Court experience in lower benches, and quality of Supreme Court decisions more measured by prospect of their consideration for Senate affirmation for subsequent bench. Or, maybe they stand for other office of public service, at federal, state or other level. One of the things I think likely we are going to see more and more is longer life in good health and increasing experience and maturity. As a society Americans would be fools not to avail of the benefit.

@siriusvoyager9271

25 күн бұрын

@@grammaticopedanticus9727the problem I see with it is that once they are on a lower court and make a bad ruling that is appealed, the higher judge is likely to not want to overturn the ruling of a former Supreme Court judge. Yes I agree experience is a good thing, but they can serve in a capacity other than a judge. I have no problem with lower court judges serving additional terms if their next term is in a higher court, but if you don’t move up, move out. In a government for the people and by the people, power should be spread to as many people as possible to prevent a ruling class.

@grammaticopedanticus9727

24 күн бұрын

@@siriusvoyager9271, thank you for your reply. To my mind your surmise that a higher judge is not likely to overturn a ruling of a former SCj is speculative, nor frequent circumstance.

Robert Reich: This is why we love you. You've smoothly and seamlessly laid out reforms that we desperately need in SCOTUS. We must move this quickly should we take the House. No one should have cart blanche and endless time in a government job--and I say job--we pay these justices to torture us.

If we allow a President to only hold office for eight years, why would we allow a Supreme Court justice a lifetime job?

@ChrisLichowicz

Ай бұрын

Continuity of the law is their excuse.

@dangeorge1721

Ай бұрын

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..

@dwpetrak

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@Mike-li5yq

Ай бұрын

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

@robr1656

Ай бұрын

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

I have nothing but loathing for the Extreme Court.

@UTube4Junky

Ай бұрын

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

@Marcus_C51

Ай бұрын

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

@UTube4Junky

Ай бұрын

@@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.

i support this😀😀😀😀. Bring it on and I will vote for it.

Voting and pressuring lawmakers to make these all happen!

How these rules aren't already in place is bonkers. Serious oversight.

@StopWhining491

3 ай бұрын

Oversight or intent?

@expendable6595

3 ай бұрын

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

@darrennew8211

Ай бұрын

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

@sirimperialmike6398

Ай бұрын

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

@darrennew8211

Ай бұрын

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

Stop All Lifetime Appointments after a certain amount of years They Need To Go.

@lightshipchief

Ай бұрын

And the same with Congress.

@TomasG42

Ай бұрын

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

Definitely needs a serious investigation on our Supreme Court Justice!!!

Once again Robert explains complex issues in a manner that everyone should be able to understand and, as usual, he's spot on with his summaries.

@davidkirby9438

8 күн бұрын

he is actually a bean bag COWARD!!!!!!!!!!!

While these reforms are important, impeachment of certain Justices is a necessity.

@jon9103

11 ай бұрын

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.

@hudcat

11 ай бұрын

Sadly, impeachment is just another broken partisan masquerade.

@dritemolawzbks8574

11 ай бұрын

Clarence Thomas?

@richardpritchett4765

11 ай бұрын

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.

@mantramoon9

11 ай бұрын

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

Term limits AND age limits. I would suggest 70 and this should apply to the President, Senators and the Congress.

@spocksvulcanbrain

Ай бұрын

I think 75 might be a better age.

All these suggestions for laws over the Supreme Court would be great to be in place also for Congressman & Senators.

Very true Now its time to act on what you said, Mr Reich

13 federal disticts... 13 justices.

@patsyshafchuk5368

11 ай бұрын

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.

@dogfaceponysoldier

11 ай бұрын

Or we simply reduce the federal districts

@littlebitofhope1489

11 ай бұрын

14.

@woodstream6137

11 ай бұрын

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

@thesoundsmith

11 ай бұрын

Makes sense, so you KNOW the GQP is opposed.

Yes! 100% agree with you Mr. Reich.

@raymondschneider5217

Ай бұрын

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!

@chadhaire1711

Ай бұрын

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

@robr1656

Ай бұрын

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

@chadhaire1711

Ай бұрын

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

@chadhaire1711

Ай бұрын

then u r dumber than he is

These changes MUST occur...

Thomas should be fired!! 😠

@weird1600

Ай бұрын

Racist much?

@dr.braxygilkeycruises1460

Ай бұрын

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.

We can only hope the Court can be cleaned up from these corrupt, useless justices. They should be taxed on their "gifts".

@thefirm4606

10 ай бұрын

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

@wendywendymatson5251

10 ай бұрын

they should be FIRED from SCOTUS

@dwpetrak

6 ай бұрын

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.

@dwpetrak

6 ай бұрын

@@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."

@maryprater7693

3 ай бұрын

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.

Make them impeachable by the people directly vs protected by a partisan congress - or put them on EVERY presidential ballot - whether to retain them or not.

@TheBrothergreen

11 ай бұрын

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.

@froglady7491

11 ай бұрын

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.

@deannadelmar9863

11 ай бұрын

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.

@eugsmiley

11 ай бұрын

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

@TheBrothergreen

11 ай бұрын

@@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.

This scotus is a complete sham! Alito Thomas should be jailed!

Thank God for Robert Reich! The voice of Reason in a world of Chaos!

On recusal, I'd like to add: Failure to recuse oneself properly will result in a required suspension of the opinion delivered in the case and initiate another hearing without the offending justice. Also, good behavior should mean that the justice follows the code of ethics, and it should imply that the justice should be sent home and his seat filled by another appointment. Thank you, Robert! I hope this video goes viral.

@deannasutterfield5950

11 ай бұрын

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

@davidmclean5895

11 ай бұрын

​@@johnlast6066

@yeildo1492

11 ай бұрын

Great idea!

@thesoundsmith

11 ай бұрын

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

@johnlast6066

11 ай бұрын

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

It is a no-brainer that this should be an important 2024 campaign platform issue.

@jhonshephard921

11 ай бұрын

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

@davidmclean5895

11 ай бұрын

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

@davidmclean5895

11 ай бұрын

​@@jhonshephard921< whatever fool 😅

@yourdaddy-mq4km

11 ай бұрын

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

@TheBrothergreen

11 ай бұрын

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

Thank you Dr Reich! I agree! One exception, Terms should’be no more than 10 years!

@judyodonnell878

Ай бұрын

How do we get these reforms done?

I'd prohibit former clerks from returning to any Court as a member.

In hindsight it’s hypocritical of them to not have a code of ethics. All that was described should also be applied to our politicians from now on.

@TheEvertw

9 ай бұрын

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.

@keithwinget6521

6 ай бұрын

@@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).

Oh Mr. Reight you are so Correct!!! Something desperately needs to be done!!! In all of my 78 years, I have never been so mistrustfull of the Supreme Court. What are they going to take away next?

@MossyMozart

Ай бұрын

He is named Robert Reich.

@chadhaire1711

Ай бұрын

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

@fubartotale3389

Ай бұрын

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

I completely agree!! Something needs to be done, AND FAST!!!

This was a superb presentation on the judicial turmoil we see today. Thank you!

Thank you Professor Reich

Robert, you are a great communicator. Well done.

@BK-xm5nf

Ай бұрын

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

Thank you! Great presentation & spot on concerning the major issues & problems we need to face to fix SCOTUS!! Now, just how to get it done. . .🤔 Vote blue- good start!💙

Here in the UK where the King still rules, our Supreme Court has 12 justices, the number being limited by statute. Parliament has nothing to do with their appointment, but they are chosen by the King via the Prime Minister who is advised by a selection commission. They are usually chosen from serving High Court justices, but in recent years a brilliant and much respected barrister (counsel) was appointed. They are usually middle aged or elderly when appointed and must retire at 75. Wisdom prevails over political views. Pity it’s too late to turn back the clock! 😂

I hope we both live long enough to see these changes Prof.

@bukketkid2567

11 ай бұрын

I feel the same way.

@radnukespeoplesminds

11 ай бұрын

I hope democracy lives long enough

@SuperCosmicChaos

11 ай бұрын

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

@radnukespeoplesminds

11 ай бұрын

@@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

At least two justices have crossed the line. They know it and have proven themselves to be unfit and should be held accountable. They know who they are.

@Redskirt

11 ай бұрын

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

@yourdaddy-mq4km

11 ай бұрын

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

@johndouglas4528

11 ай бұрын

Who else besides Justice Sotomayer?

@tristanalain9239

11 ай бұрын

​@@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.

@johndouglas4528

11 ай бұрын

@@tristanalain9239 glad you can recognize problems with Sotomayer.

Professor Reich, I always love the way you prepare a segment to get your idea across. You have gone through many possibilities and chosen solutions that could actually work for ALL of us! Thanks, and PLEASE keep these ideas coming.

and at this point there is no TRUST because of THEM!

I like the 18-year term idea. For 9 justices this would mean a regular schedule of appointing one every 2 years. It's fair to both parties; everyone would know from the outset that every president gets two picks per term. And 18 years is long enough to make an impact, but short enough that the future of our civil rights wouldn't be dependent on an 87-year-old's health.

@Neuzahnstein

11 ай бұрын

to be honest 4 picks

@PixieoftheWood

11 ай бұрын

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.

@jasons5916

11 ай бұрын

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.

@Edwards-Videos

11 ай бұрын

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.

@huibwetzel9299

11 ай бұрын

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

This ethics code should also apply to all politicians that vote on any conflict or financial interest to their bebefit.

Make it illegal for the Senate to refuse to confirm a SCOTUS nomination.

@mountainman4859

Ай бұрын

No, it cannot be illegal to not confirm a nominee, otherwise there is no need for hearings or a vote. I think you mean make it mandatory that a nominee must be granted a hearing and a vote. McConnell never should have had the ability to deny Obama’s pick a vote.

@arianebarnes

Ай бұрын

My idea would be to only allow new justices to be picked from the circuit courts, and give the Senate 4 months to hold an up or down vote. If they miss the deadline, the previous vote to the circuit court counts as supreme court. This will end the appointment of partisan judges who have no judicial record.

@dr.braxygilkeycruises1460

Ай бұрын

@@arianebarnes Exactly. If your idea were in place, we would never have had *Justice Handmaid's Tale* on the SCOTUS.

Oh, my. I did not know this. Ethic Codes have to be a part of all levels of government. Accountibily is necessary. We have to fix it!

There should be a total of 13 judges. One representing each Circuit of the Federal Court. Each from that specific Circuit.

@drakecarter1780

11 ай бұрын

Liberal packing huh?

@shukilevyandbrookesheildsl2638

11 ай бұрын

@@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.

@TheMissingLink2

11 ай бұрын

​@@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.

@drakecarter1780

11 ай бұрын

@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.

@jjs1990

11 ай бұрын

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

I think 12 years is enough time on top of the US legal system. There should also be a set of requirements such as a minimum of 200 hours of actual trial judging experience before anyone can be selected to a federal judge post.

@Redskirt

11 ай бұрын

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

@bukketkid2567

11 ай бұрын

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

@CitizenPrime-tb7rp

11 ай бұрын

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.

@redhawk7002

11 ай бұрын

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.

@bukketkid2567

11 ай бұрын

@@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?

We the people should vote for supreme court justices. Term limits and the ability to be recalled by the people.

These are all reasonable suggestions. Let's work to make it so!

A lucid and rational idea from Mr. Reich and while it may not be ideal because of the religion packed into the courts, it is the best we can do, especially if there are strict penalties involved for breaking these rules.

@johnlast6066

11 ай бұрын

G9 get canadian Healthcare.

@davidmclean5895

11 ай бұрын

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

@johnlast6066

11 ай бұрын

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

@yourdaddy-mq4km

11 ай бұрын

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

@brucebasile5083

11 ай бұрын

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

Congress would have to uphold a cod of ethics before they could ever write one for the Supreme Court. The biggest problem is most of congress is owned by the same people that own the Supreme Court so nothing will happen like normal.

@RogerLewis-ey2tt

10 ай бұрын

THE UGLY TRUTH.

@darbyl3872

10 ай бұрын

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

@froglady7491

10 ай бұрын

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

@SSJvegito501

10 ай бұрын

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.

@froglady7491

10 ай бұрын

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

Hi Robert The code of conduct and term limits sound good. The number change no. You add 4 to get your way, the other side adds 5, … A total mess. We just need competent, ethical people on the court who follow the Constitution rather than what THEY think the Constitution SHOULD say. A lot of politicians today say “Constitutional right” for things that are NOT in the Constitution and would have most certainly been banned if they were majors issue at the time it was written. People have the right to AMEND the constitution if they want their positions to be “Constitutional Rights”.

Let’s get this done! Where do we sign? Where do we organize? NOW.

A number of the "justices" need to be put in JAIL! They've openly and unabashedly committed crimes !

@willmont8258

10 ай бұрын

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

@chadhaire1711

10 ай бұрын

any democrat needs to go to jail

@johnconroy3180

Ай бұрын

@@chadhaire1711 Please explain?

@chadhaire1711

Ай бұрын

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

As usual, Robert Reich is Right. There are two senior men whom I listen to, one is named Robert and one is named Bernard. I am seventy-three, old enough to have life experience and still smart enough to see the truth.

@kvm1992

11 ай бұрын

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

@yourdaddy-mq4km

11 ай бұрын

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

@brucebasile5083

11 ай бұрын

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

@markbenoit

11 ай бұрын

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.

AGREE. Because we are human, not supreme. Just because one is on the court does not mean the person elected is no longer mortal and turns into a supreme person.

I could not agree more. This seems to be the only way to ensure fairness at the level of the highest court.

They need to be reminded that it's a balance of powers. They are not the ultimate authority.

@markbenoit

11 ай бұрын

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.

@tesladrew2608

11 ай бұрын

​@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 agree with all that Robert said. The problem is the corrupt politicians who will do nothing, and voter apathy , a lack of participation from our citizens.

@sionbarzad5371

11 ай бұрын

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

@mjc0961

11 ай бұрын

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.

@TheBrothergreen

11 ай бұрын

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.

@silverwing5254

11 ай бұрын

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?

@RogerLewis-ey2tt

11 ай бұрын

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

My father was pretty cynical about government and politics, except for the Supreme Court. He believed they were above the fray and would voluntarily impose ethics on themselves. I'm so glad he can't see what's happening now. Thank you for giving us answers when everyone else presents questions and fears.

I fully agree with your suggestions. Further amplifying this, I’ve also read that the Supreme Court is not a court and the Justices are not judges. Even more reason to enact your suggestions.

Something else that needs to be done is that a law is passed which either states the quantity of days before a presidential election after which a nominee can no longer have a confirmation hearing or that one can happen right up to the election. No more having a moving target!

@trevormacintosh3939

10 ай бұрын

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.

@ryantetreault3447

10 ай бұрын

this is completely arbitrary, its just politics

@marckaufman2556

10 ай бұрын

@@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?

@ryantetreault3447

10 ай бұрын

@@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.

@marckaufman2556

10 ай бұрын

@@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."

They've made at least one ruling with no actual case. At this point, they're just legislating, and you don't want legislators you didn't elect. Hell, you barely want the legislators you *did* elect.

@TragoudistrosMPH

11 ай бұрын

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?

@joellenrhodes456

11 ай бұрын

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.

@TragoudistrosMPH

11 ай бұрын

@johnmeigs719 trolling

@renatocorvaro6924

11 ай бұрын

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

@JohnSmith-pm2gr

11 ай бұрын

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

Smart, and sensible presented in a calm manner! Thank you! Reminder how it should be.

You hit the nail on the head on every point you hit ! BRAVO ...getting your video out there !

This is the way I feel Supreme Court should be elected by the people not by Congress because that all for their own interest

@UncleKennysPlace

11 ай бұрын

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

@littlebitofhope1489

11 ай бұрын

Have you SEEN who people are electing?

@benjaminlehman3221

11 ай бұрын

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

@Magic818100

11 ай бұрын

Welcome to the United States of America

@bowtoy

11 ай бұрын

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!

Totally totally agree Robert!!! Without control of both houses nothing can change!

@yourdaddy-mq4km

11 ай бұрын

😂 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.

@markbenoit

11 ай бұрын

It was designed that way!

@josephsancartier6006

Ай бұрын

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

I would edit your proposal as follows: 1. Expand the Court to 13, one to supervise each of the 13 Appellate Districts. 2. Term Limit of 13 years with one Justice appointed annually. A Justice may be reappointed only once. 3. No justice may be appointed before age 45 nor after age 70, including reappointments. 4. Any Justice who has served out their term(s) (to be referred to as a Justice Emeritus(a)) may serve as a Special Master or FISA Judge on a case by case basis and can be requested as a judge or solicitor on a case where National Security concerns are present AS LONG AS said Justice Emeritus meets all other qualifications for that clearance. 5. Justices Emeritus may also be appointed to such International Judicial Tribunals and Commissions as the President and Senate may propose and dispose respectively. 6. The Judicial Code of Ethics WILL apply in all respects to Supreme Court Justices and Justices Emeritus.

Congress should vote the Supreme Court out!!!

Honestly, in a well functioning democracy this should be easy...

@u686st7

11 ай бұрын

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

@zoyadulzura7490

11 ай бұрын

@@u686st7 The U.S. is both.

@davidmclean5895

11 ай бұрын

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

@johnarnold893

11 ай бұрын

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

@thesoundsmith

11 ай бұрын

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

We need a 13 member court. There are 13 federal districts.

@eaglechawks3933

11 ай бұрын

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.

@loneprimate

11 ай бұрын

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

@ScenterSquare

11 ай бұрын

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.

@aycc-nbh7289

11 ай бұрын

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

@dmnemaine

11 ай бұрын

@@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.

Wow. I'm shocked that these rules don't already apply. You're right, they're essential

Each president should only be able to nominate one Supreme Court Justice per term, and the minimum age should be 55.

@naomihatfield3015

11 ай бұрын

With a minimum of 20 years experience on the bench.

@chey7691

11 ай бұрын

​@@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.

@elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770

11 ай бұрын

⁠@@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!

@chey7691

11 ай бұрын

@@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!

@renatocorvaro6924

11 ай бұрын

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.

You are great, Mr. Reich. I've been living for years in the USA, working 6 to 7 days a week, and didn't know about these real facts. Thanks for showing us the truth. YOU ARE A GODS GIFT. THANKS FOR THE EDUCATION THAT I'M SURE WILL FREE US ALL.

This video should be at the top of KZread's feeds for all time

I totally agree, I wish you had a video showing how the people can lobby for this change.

A good lawyer knows the law. A *GREAT* lawyer knows the judge!!!

10 years sounds good if not expanded.

@aycc-nbh7289

11 ай бұрын

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

Thank You Robert!! 🤗🥰

WOW- THIS WAS POSTED 9 MONTHS AGO, & HOW RELEVANT IT IS TODAY. GREAT ADVICE AMERICA.

"We have the best government money can buy." Mark Twain

Agree 100%... thank you for your continued efforts to work toward the greater good for our great country... you and your educational programs are vital to our continued progress!!!

@luisfilipe2023

9 ай бұрын

Let me guess you’re a democrat

Brilliant mind, thank you Mr Reich.

Thank you for doing this video, now let’s get it done!

One idea is every president can nominate only 1 justice per term. Then limit their term to 16 years.

@davidsmith385

11 ай бұрын

12 yrs at the most or age limit.

@davidsmith385

11 ай бұрын

Minimum age limit and yrs of experience, same thing with Federal Judges.

@aycc-nbh7289

11 ай бұрын

If we have term limits, though, potential conflicts of interest could emerge if justices want to keep their positions on the bench or make their political factions more attractive choices to pick judges from.

Dr. Reich, thank you! So true! So eloquent! America needs you more than ever. We appreciate all that you do!

@Soma81

10 ай бұрын

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

Well said, Mr. Reich. This is exactly what most of us have been hoping for for many years. However, in my most humble opinion, with the way this country is operating now, it will take at least another 75/100 years for us to actually accomplish this.

I absolutely agree on everything you outlined.

Robert I agree with you whole heartedly

I’m so glad you’re active in politics. I read Locked in the Cabinet when it was first published and even got one of my little brothers in high school then to read it. It was so funny yet made so many serious points. We have been ardent fans ever since!

Superbly done!

This is an excellent short video with an important message: failure to hold SCOTUS to the same high standards as all the other judges is an invitation to corrupt people to take advantage, rather like the opened petty cash box in a busy office.

Among all the important videos that you have made, Secretary Reich, this is a very important video. Thank you for your time, effort and dedication!