@ISIDEWITHQuestionsDomestic PolicyStarted 6yrs agoActive 1wk ago

Should the Supreme Court be reformed to include more seats and term limits on judges?

In early 2020, several Democratic presidential candidates including Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Pete Buttigieg and Beto O’Rourke offered different proposals to reforming the Supreme Court. The proposals include adding 5 democratically elected judges to the current court and imposing term limits on current judges. According to the U.S. federal statute, justices have lifetime tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed from office. Proponents of Supreme Court reform argue that the current court will be filled with too many conservative judges for the next several decades and it is not representative of the US population. Opponents argue that the plans are unconstitutional, would upset the balance of power and reinforce the idea that there are Democratic judges and Republican judges.

+
Expand
+ Settings x  Congressional District 4

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 613 Congressional District 4 voters.

36%
Yes
64%
No
30%
Yes
19%
No
5%
Yes, but only reform to impose term limits on judges
44%
No, reforming the Supreme Court is unconstitutional and would upset the balance of power
1%
Yes, but only reform to include more seats
2%
No, and the Supreme Court should not be politicized

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 613 Congressional District 4 voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 613 Congressional District 4 voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Congressional District 4 voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9B6C78H from Oklahoma  answered…2yrs2Y

No, do not add seats and require judges to pass a mental competency test instead of setting term limits

 @8S3VK73 from Ohio  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, but I would prefer to abolish the Supreme Court

 @9CNX3B9 from Oklahoma  answered…1yr1Y

No, do not add seats and require judges to pass an annual mental competency test instead of setting term limits

 @8TH779G from Oklahoma  answered…3yrs3Y

No, do not add seats and set age limits instead of term limits

 @9C69K68 from Georgia  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, but I would prefer to abolish the Supreme Court.

 @ISIDEWITHanswered…1yr1Y

Yes, although abolishing the supreme court would be better

 @8NMTXR9 from Missouri  answered…4yrs4Y

I don't understand this question.

 @9L4Z23B  from Pennsylvania  answered…8mos8MO

Yes, 20 year term limits and total seats must match the total circuit courts. If Congress creates new courts, that seat cannot be filled until after the next presidential inauguration

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Supreme Court Reform” news articles, updated frequently.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2wks2W

Pete Hegseth Slams Gay Troops Policy

Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, has repeatedly criticized policies allowing gay people to serve openly in the US military, calling them part of a “Marxist” agenda to prioritize social justice over combat readiness.In his 2024 book “The War on Warriors” and in subsequent media promotions this year, Hegseth described both the original “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) policy and its repeal in 2011 as a “gateway” and a “camouflage” for broader cultural changes that he claims have undermined military cohesion and effectiveness.In a 2015 appearance on Fox News, Hegseth also argued these policies like repealing DADT “erode standards” in favor of political goals like social engineering.DADT was implemented under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s and allowed gay people and lesbians to serve in the military — provided they did not disclose their sexuality. Military officials were also barred from asking military members their sexual orientation. If a troop’s orientation came to light, it could lead to their discharge.The policy was repealed during the Obama administration, allowing openly gay service members.Hegseth writes in his book that he was initially ambivalent to the change but came to regret his passive stance, describing the repeal as a “breach in the wire” that opened the door for broader cultural and ideological changes in the military.On Thursday, Hegseth appeared to walk back his earlier remarks about DADT, telling CNN, “Oppose the repeal? No, I don’t,” and calling this report on his previous comments “more false reporting.”

▲  1811 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1mo1MO

Vetting Fiasco: Trump's Defense Pick Caught in Sexual Assault Allegation Storm

CNN commentator and New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman said President-elect Donald Trump’s team missed Pete Hegseth’s payoff to a sexual assault accuser when they vetted him to be secretary of defense.Hegseth is among a raft of cabinet picks facing tough confirmations, and who aren’t being subjected to the customary FBI checks, instead being vetted by private firms. Over the weekend, Hegseth’s attorney dropped the bomb that there was a confidential settlement with a woman who accused the former Fox News host of sexual assault. On Monday night’s edition of CNN’s The Source with Kaitlan Collins, Haberman revealed that her sources in Trump world did not know about the payoff, which was missed in the vetting “because it was a private settlement”HABERMAN: There’s more concern from some people around Trump than there is from Trump himself, about this whole issue. Trump has really dug in, and has told advisers that he is going to stick with Hegseth. Now, we’ll see if anything else emerges.They did do a vet, we are told. This did not show up, this issue, because it was a private settlement, according to the people, who were briefed on what took place. Trump really likes Pete Hegseth. But this did introduce the thing Trump doesn’t like, which is an element of surprise and a negative headline. And so, we will see where this goes.

▲  59 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2mos2MO

Inside the Podcast Revolution: Trump’s Unfiltered Strategy and Harris’s ‘Meltdown’ Risk

Tech billionaire Elon Musk attributed President-elect Trump’s election victory, at least in part, to the lengthy podcast interviews he did during the campaign.In an interview late Tuesday with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Musk said Trump’s podcast appearances showed the American public that he was a normal person.“I think it made a big difference that President Trump and soon-to-be Vice President Vance went on lengthy podcasts,” Musk said in the interview.“I think this really makes a difference because people look at, like, Joe Rogan’s podcast, which is great, and Lex Fridman’s and the All-In podcast, and, you know, to a reasonable-minded, smart person — who’s not, like, hardcore one way or the other — they just listen to someone talk for a few hours and that’s how they decide whether, you know, you’re a good person, whether they like you,” he added, according to a clip highlighted by Mediaite.Trump conducted many interviews with new media during his campaign, as well as with legacy news organizations such as Fox News.Last month, he joined Joe Rogan’s podcast for a 3-hour long interview. The celebrity host later endorsed his candidacy.His opponent, Vice President Harris, did not appear on Rogan’s podcast because, according to “The Joe Rogan Experience” host, the Harris campaign only had an hour and required him to travel to her. Rogan said he felt “strongly” that the “best way to do” an interview with the vice president would have been in his studio in Austin, Texas.Musk recalled posting on his social platform X account that “nothing would do more damage” to Harris’s campaign than going on Rogan’s podcast, “because she would run out of non-sequiturs after about 45 minutes.”“You can’t hide for three hours,” Carlson replied.Musk added, “Yeah, like, hour two and three would be a complete melted puddle of nonsense. So it would just be absolute game over. That’s why she didn’t go on.”“But on the other hand, Trump, he’s there, and there’s no, there’s no talking points,” the Tesla CEO continued. “He’s just being a normal person who’s having a conversation, and doing three hours of Rogan, no problem.”

▲  349 replies

Active 7hrs ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1wk1W

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  1914 replies3 agree