Add to the fixes, Rxan. I don't have any that are better than the four you provided... But i'd love to hear your readers weigh in. I'll try three
Fix 1: Independent Office of Court Ethics
Create a small, independent Office of Court Ethics (modeled loosely on inspectors general in other branches) with the power to investigate complaints, subpoena records, and recommend sanctions short of impeachment (such as fines or temporary recusal). This would give teeth to ethics rules without relying on the justices to police themselves or waiting for the slow impeachment process.
Fix 2: Real-Time Gift and Travel Disclosure + Automatic Recusal Trigger
Require justices to publicly disclose any gift, travel, or financial benefit above a low threshold (e.g., $500) within 30 days, with automatic recusal from any case involving the donor or their interests for a set period (e.g., 5 years). This closes the current loophole where undisclosed gifts create the appearance of influence without consequences.
Fix 3: Mandatory Written Explanations for Recusals and Shadow Docket Decisions
Require the Court to issue brief public written explanations whenever a justice recuses (or declines to recuse) in a high-profile case, and limit the use of the “shadow docket” (emergency orders without full briefing or argument) to only the most time-sensitive matters. This increases transparency and reduces the perception that major decisions are made in secret with no accountability.
The whole purpose of this community is to focus on the issues almost nobody in mainstream media, and not much of independent media, is talking about.
I could probably grow this publication much faster by feeding people daily outrage about Trump or writing stories that simply reinforce what the left or the right already believes. That's a successful business model, but it's a terrible model for finding the truth.
I started this publication because I watched too much independent media become just as partisan as the corporate media it criticizes. If we're only hearing stories that make "our side" look good and the other side look evil, we'll never unite around the structural reforms that actually matter.
That's why I spend so much time talking about things like Supreme Court reform. A well-informed public is much harder to manipulate. We don't fix America by replacing one set of heroes and villains with another. We fix it by changing the system so it's fair no matter who's in power.
That's where we begin: by changing the conversation from blaming individuals to demanding structural solutions.
Thanks, Heather! Speaking of everyone who votes…. What do you think about this one? I just released a post today that had the results to this but you should vote on it when you get back to me because all 14 ideas I brought up would make the government do a 180 as far as the effectiveness and accountability that would come along with the transparency and responsibility all 14 ideas cost nothing.
Yeah. The solution is "stop pretending". It's a mirror of our culture. It's no worse than your congressman. And no better.
I didn't follow all your logic here, but I'm old. I've heard conflict of interest stories for every one of these fat penguins except for Barrett. Maybe keep her and can the rest. But then you'd have to can all the congressmen on the take too. Suddenly, Washington is empty and you have to turn the lights off yourself.
Sure, start by canning Thomas. I'd fire him just for pretending that he--one of the nine supposedly adept legal minds in the country--had no idea what the conflict of interest rules were.
Abortion's always been a states-rights thing for me, so I don't get the big hubbub. However, to your point that it's hypocritical for a judge to come out against our present abortion laws. Since Roe Vs Wade, could any Supreme Court appointee clear his confirmation hearing by admitting he didn't care much for Roe?
I mean I'm sure that you've picked up some of the things that are negative results of my obsessive editing when you're reading that 25 part series because some hit in much more of a clear and linear fashion and others don't. Sometimes you get to a point where any further editing risks damaging the peace and you keep going I'm trying to improve it
😂 You have no idea how many times I thought, "What did Bob say again?" before I finally hit send. I must have read that thing a hundred times and kept staring at the four reforms thinking there was a fifth floating around in my head somewhere.
What's fascinating to me now is watching the reaction to the Supreme Court as a whole. I expected conservative media to spend most of its time celebrating the rulings that expanded executive power or sided with them on transgender sports. Instead, so much of the conversation has centered on the birthright citizenship case because they didn't get everything they wanted.
That's the same negative partisanship I write about all the time. The left does it. The right does it. Institutions are praised when "our team" wins and attacked when it doesn't.
On the 14th Amendment specifically, I think people oversimplify history. It was unquestionably adopted to guarantee citizenship for formerly enslaved people after the Civil War. Whether its broad language also extends to the children of immigrants is the constitutional question people are debating today. Those are two different questions, and too many people treat them as if they're the same.
That's exactly why I try to focus on the institution rather than the outcome. If we only trust the Supreme Court when it reaches the result we wanted, we've stopped treating it like a court and started treating it like another political branch.
O BUSHWAH! You “both sided this!” Yet all the graphics and all the examples you proffered were committed by REPUBLICANS. We don’t have a SCOTUS problem. We have a GOP problem. Until we can say that forthrightly, we’re not going to fix anything
Come on Bob. First off… thank you for reading. But as far as the feedback… hear me out. We need more people like me if we want to govern ever again…
I'm a journalist. My job isn't to defend a party. It's to challenge power, wherever it sits.
Yes, many of the examples in the article involve Republican-appointed justices. That's a fact. Republicans deserve criticism for allowing the Trump justices to even be floated and for not calling out the partisan authoritarian moves… they also deserve criticism for refusing to even hold a hearing on Merrick Garland in 2016, yet confirming Amy Coney Barrett just days before the 2020 election… after arguing election-year vacancies shouldn't be filled literally four years earlier… That inconsistency deserves scrutiny.
But stopping the analysis there is how we repeat history.
I'm just as interested in asking what Democrats could have done differently. Why did party leaders use superdelegates in 2016 to help stop Bernie Sanders despite his grassroots momentum? Why was Joe Biden presented as the only viable option in 2020 after nearly 50 years in politics? Why wasn't there a truly competitive primary in 2024 before Kamala Harris became the nominee, despite her struggling in the 2020 primary and with public approval?
Obama showed Democrats could build a broad coalition. Instead of building on that success, the party often chose establishment continuity over open competition. Those are strategic decisions that matter.
My solution isn't to stack the Court for Democrats any more than I support what Republicans did. If the answer to one party abusing power is giving the other party more power, we've learned nothing. I want structural reforms that reduce the ability of either party to game the system.
That's the difference between journalism and partisanship. One asks, "How do we beat them?" The other asks, "How do we fix this?"
If you're interested in challenging assumptions instead of defending teams, subscribe and join the movement. The goal isn't left versus right. It's evidence over ideology, principles over parties, and a system that serves people instead of political tribes.
I like the 4 step fix approach. I would offer a couple of modification to consider. First, make the terms staggered but 12 years not 18. Make the judge selection a popular vote, 3 every mid-term election. No electoral college and get the confirmation out of the senate. Have at least three candidates for each election and if none gets majority, the court runs one short until the next mid-tern election. Just my opinion!
There's a reason why the Supreme Court is filled with political appointees and not wise old constitutional scholars.
Trump is the corrupting branch, & Congress is the corrupted branch. The Supreme Court consolidated. The enemy is domestic. They have betrayed us. Betrayal of the American people can be broken down to one word, tyranny, and tyranny can't stand in America. When law is lawless, Revolution becomes mandatory. Get brave, start up the militias.
Good rundown, Rxan . . . I will try to spread this around! Thank you.
Thanks S.A.! And thanks for spreading the word
Me too, Rxan.
Perfect!
this is real answered for the current real problems
Add to the fixes, Rxan. I don't have any that are better than the four you provided... But i'd love to hear your readers weigh in. I'll try three
Fix 1: Independent Office of Court Ethics
Create a small, independent Office of Court Ethics (modeled loosely on inspectors general in other branches) with the power to investigate complaints, subpoena records, and recommend sanctions short of impeachment (such as fines or temporary recusal). This would give teeth to ethics rules without relying on the justices to police themselves or waiting for the slow impeachment process.
Fix 2: Real-Time Gift and Travel Disclosure + Automatic Recusal Trigger
Require justices to publicly disclose any gift, travel, or financial benefit above a low threshold (e.g., $500) within 30 days, with automatic recusal from any case involving the donor or their interests for a set period (e.g., 5 years). This closes the current loophole where undisclosed gifts create the appearance of influence without consequences.
Fix 3: Mandatory Written Explanations for Recusals and Shadow Docket Decisions
Require the Court to issue brief public written explanations whenever a justice recuses (or declines to recuse) in a high-profile case, and limit the use of the “shadow docket” (emergency orders without full briefing or argument) to only the most time-sensitive matters. This increases transparency and reduces the perception that major decisions are made in secret with no accountability.
Good beginning!! How do we make it happen??!!
The whole purpose of this community is to focus on the issues almost nobody in mainstream media, and not much of independent media, is talking about.
I could probably grow this publication much faster by feeding people daily outrage about Trump or writing stories that simply reinforce what the left or the right already believes. That's a successful business model, but it's a terrible model for finding the truth.
I started this publication because I watched too much independent media become just as partisan as the corporate media it criticizes. If we're only hearing stories that make "our side" look good and the other side look evil, we'll never unite around the structural reforms that actually matter.
That's why I spend so much time talking about things like Supreme Court reform. A well-informed public is much harder to manipulate. We don't fix America by replacing one set of heroes and villains with another. We fix it by changing the system so it's fair no matter who's in power.
That's where we begin: by changing the conversation from blaming individuals to demanding structural solutions.
Ryan, this is brilliant. Everybody who votes needs to understand this. Everybody needs to share this broadcast it everywhere.
Thanks, Heather! Speaking of everyone who votes…. What do you think about this one? I just released a post today that had the results to this but you should vote on it when you get back to me because all 14 ideas I brought up would make the government do a 180 as far as the effectiveness and accountability that would come along with the transparency and responsibility all 14 ideas cost nothing.
https://uncomfortable.rxansmithmedia.com/p/youre-writing-americas-next-chapter
Thank You. Will definitely pass this around. 🙏
Yeah. The solution is "stop pretending". It's a mirror of our culture. It's no worse than your congressman. And no better.
I didn't follow all your logic here, but I'm old. I've heard conflict of interest stories for every one of these fat penguins except for Barrett. Maybe keep her and can the rest. But then you'd have to can all the congressmen on the take too. Suddenly, Washington is empty and you have to turn the lights off yourself.
Sure, start by canning Thomas. I'd fire him just for pretending that he--one of the nine supposedly adept legal minds in the country--had no idea what the conflict of interest rules were.
Abortion's always been a states-rights thing for me, so I don't get the big hubbub. However, to your point that it's hypocritical for a judge to come out against our present abortion laws. Since Roe Vs Wade, could any Supreme Court appointee clear his confirmation hearing by admitting he didn't care much for Roe?
Pack the court.
21
Revolving terms
Term limits.
Code of Conduct
With teeth
With teeth should be the top of your list…
By the way did you know that in addition to Bourbon Kentucky also invented the toothbrush? Otherwise it would be called the TEETHbrush
🤣
I was also wondering over the last two or three weeks…. if you were going to send a message:
hey Rxan.. you've been holding on to that Supreme Court post that you designed into a professional web page and showed me 5 weeks ago…
What kind of nonproductive editing are you doing?
Nah. I figured you & Claude were feverishly writing away, trashing paragraphs & writing again.
writing these comments is easy.
Long form essays?
Harder.
I mean I'm sure that you've picked up some of the things that are negative results of my obsessive editing when you're reading that 25 part series because some hit in much more of a clear and linear fashion and others don't. Sometimes you get to a point where any further editing risks damaging the peace and you keep going I'm trying to improve it
The complete 25 is pretty dense. There is some over writing, but all in all it hangs together.
The problem for me is that there’s so much there.
I’m re-reading & making notes.
I think W a little pruning & editing, it’s ready to go.
“The Pursuit of Liberty” is giving me some new perspectives.
Write on Claude … sorry I meant Rxan. 🤣
😂 You have no idea how many times I thought, "What did Bob say again?" before I finally hit send. I must have read that thing a hundred times and kept staring at the four reforms thinking there was a fifth floating around in my head somewhere.
What's fascinating to me now is watching the reaction to the Supreme Court as a whole. I expected conservative media to spend most of its time celebrating the rulings that expanded executive power or sided with them on transgender sports. Instead, so much of the conversation has centered on the birthright citizenship case because they didn't get everything they wanted.
That's the same negative partisanship I write about all the time. The left does it. The right does it. Institutions are praised when "our team" wins and attacked when it doesn't.
On the 14th Amendment specifically, I think people oversimplify history. It was unquestionably adopted to guarantee citizenship for formerly enslaved people after the Civil War. Whether its broad language also extends to the children of immigrants is the constitutional question people are debating today. Those are two different questions, and too many people treat them as if they're the same.
That's exactly why I try to focus on the institution rather than the outcome. If we only trust the Supreme Court when it reaches the result we wanted, we've stopped treating it like a court and started treating it like another political branch.
Robert says, government works best when politics is confined to the Legg & the bureaucracy acts fairly for all.
W/O fear or favor.
& when SCOTUS is not controlled by Reactionary Loons.
We’ll get there. Or our democracy is doomed.
Unless every politician wakes up and decides they have some type of professional Integrity that they owe us.
Anything that you know of that can create this phenomenon?
Pay attention
Vote
O BUSHWAH! You “both sided this!” Yet all the graphics and all the examples you proffered were committed by REPUBLICANS. We don’t have a SCOTUS problem. We have a GOP problem. Until we can say that forthrightly, we’re not going to fix anything
Come on Bob. First off… thank you for reading. But as far as the feedback… hear me out. We need more people like me if we want to govern ever again…
I'm a journalist. My job isn't to defend a party. It's to challenge power, wherever it sits.
Yes, many of the examples in the article involve Republican-appointed justices. That's a fact. Republicans deserve criticism for allowing the Trump justices to even be floated and for not calling out the partisan authoritarian moves… they also deserve criticism for refusing to even hold a hearing on Merrick Garland in 2016, yet confirming Amy Coney Barrett just days before the 2020 election… after arguing election-year vacancies shouldn't be filled literally four years earlier… That inconsistency deserves scrutiny.
But stopping the analysis there is how we repeat history.
I'm just as interested in asking what Democrats could have done differently. Why did party leaders use superdelegates in 2016 to help stop Bernie Sanders despite his grassroots momentum? Why was Joe Biden presented as the only viable option in 2020 after nearly 50 years in politics? Why wasn't there a truly competitive primary in 2024 before Kamala Harris became the nominee, despite her struggling in the 2020 primary and with public approval?
Obama showed Democrats could build a broad coalition. Instead of building on that success, the party often chose establishment continuity over open competition. Those are strategic decisions that matter.
My solution isn't to stack the Court for Democrats any more than I support what Republicans did. If the answer to one party abusing power is giving the other party more power, we've learned nothing. I want structural reforms that reduce the ability of either party to game the system.
That's the difference between journalism and partisanship. One asks, "How do we beat them?" The other asks, "How do we fix this?"
If you're interested in challenging assumptions instead of defending teams, subscribe and join the movement. The goal isn't left versus right. It's evidence over ideology, principles over parties, and a system that serves people instead of political tribes.
I like the 4 step fix approach. I would offer a couple of modification to consider. First, make the terms staggered but 12 years not 18. Make the judge selection a popular vote, 3 every mid-term election. No electoral college and get the confirmation out of the senate. Have at least three candidates for each election and if none gets majority, the court runs one short until the next mid-tern election. Just my opinion!
Thanks. A lot. Well said. Cheers.
Do you want a massive story? Contact me
Betrayed to cartels then Blackmail
There's a reason why the Supreme Court is filled with political appointees and not wise old constitutional scholars.
Trump is the corrupting branch, & Congress is the corrupted branch. The Supreme Court consolidated. The enemy is domestic. They have betrayed us. Betrayal of the American people can be broken down to one word, tyranny, and tyranny can't stand in America. When law is lawless, Revolution becomes mandatory. Get brave, start up the militias.
Liberty or Death ain't no joke.