[Political Junkie Too]

Here is my take on the bullet items in the summary of this bill:

1. Expands the Supreme Court to 15 justices.
   • This is apparently within the purview of Congress.

   • It could be the left's "abortion repeal" issue for the right to drive turnout in the next election.

2. Establishes a new ⅔ supermajority threshold to overturn Acts of Congress on a constitutional basis at both the Supreme Court and Circuit Court level.
   • This strikes me as being unconstitutional at the Supreme Court level due to separation of powers. Congress cannot tell the Supreme Court how it must rule. It can limit the jurisdiction of the Court, but cannot make conditions for the way the Court must rule.

   • This would need a Constitutional amendment to enact at the Supreme Court level.

   • Congress has jurisdiction over all inferior courts in the United States.

3. Requires that relief granted by lower courts in cases seeking to invalidate an Act of Congress expire upon the issuing date of an opinion by the Supreme Court.
   • Congress has jurisdiction over all inferior courts in the United States.

4. Establishes a new process for Supreme Court nominations that are not reported out of committee within 180 calendar days to be automatically placed on the Senate calendar.
   • This does not need a bill to enact. Each chamber can establish its own rules of operation. Confirmations are an exclusive power of the Senate and does not need approval of the House of Representatives or the President to enact.

5. Expands the number of circuit courts to 15 and returns the practice of one Supreme Court justice per circuit.
   • Congress has jurisdiction over all inferior courts in the United States.

6. Expands the number of circuits by splitting the Ninth Circuit and establishing a new Southwestern Circuit.
   • Congress has jurisdiction over all inferior courts in the United States.

7. Expands the number of Circuit Court and District Court judgeships to improve access to justice.
   • Congress has jurisdiction over all inferior courts in the United States.

8. Requires all justices to consider recusal motions and make their written opinions publically (sic) available. Any justice may be recused from a case upon the affirmative vote of ⅔ of the justices.
   • "Requires" to "consider?" The "consideration" would be "no" in most cases.

   • This is another separation of powers issue. Congress cannot tell the Supreme Court how it must operate. If Congress believes that a Justice of the Supreme Court is abusing "good Behavior," then the House of Representatives can impeach that Justice and the Senate can convict and remove that Justice.

9. Requires the public disclosure of how each justice voted for any case within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
   • This is a separation of powers issue. Congress cannot make the rules for how the Supreme Court must operate.

10. Requires the IRS to initiate an audit of each justice's income tax return (and any amended return) as quickly as practicable after it is filed. Within 90 days of filing, the IRS is required to publicly release the returns and provide an update on the status of the audit. Every 180 days thereafter, the IRS is required to update the public on the status of the audit. It will also release the ultimate findings of the audit.
    • This strikes me as an unconstitutional bill of attainder. No other person who holds an "Office of Trust or Profit under the United States" is subject to such a condition.

11. Requires that those nominated to the Court include their most recent three years of tax returns in their publicly-available financial disclosure filings. In the case that a nominee does not disclose the tax returns within 15 days after nomination, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts is instructed to obtain the tax returns from the Secretary of the Treasury and make them public. The Secretary of the Treasury is instructed to redact certain personal identity information.
    • This strikes me as an unconstitutional bill of attainder. No other person who holds an "Office of Trust or Profit under the United States" is subject to such a conditi on.

    • If the Senate wants this information they can request it as part of their "advice and consent" power. If the nominee refuses to comply, the Senate can take that into consideration along with everything else when they vote to confirm the nominee.

-PJ

[Phlyer]

I really appreciate your post. It's based on an analysis of what the Constitution says, point by point, and as literal as possible (meaning you look for the answer in the literal words, rather than look for ways to make the words fit your agenda). However, I do have one (recurring) concern:

You said Congress has jurisdiction over all inferior courts in the United States.

Can you tell me where this comes from? The Constitution itself says that Congress shall "ordain and establish" inferior courts, but that does not mean it continues to have jurisdiction over them once they are established. At least, not to me.

It's not even explicit that they can 'de-ordain and dis-establish' a court once it has been established, though perhaps this is implied.

Other than impeaching rogue judges (just as they can impeach the Supreme Court justices), it's not clear that you (meaning, the nominal person, 'it's not clear that one . . ') can just resolve all the issues on lesser courts with the appeal to authority argument - where Congress is that authority.