Thoughts on reforming the Supreme Court:
From the “1A” program on WAMU radio, and also, from 1A fan, candidate Kimberly Wilder
As I was listening to NPR on the radio the other day, I heard the host from 1A invite comments about the Supreme Court for the upcoming show. I was so excited to have lead time to submit something, that, I confess, my something became rather long.
I did not make the show!
Though, I did listen to their whole program on the court and it was very informative. One thread of the conversation was that a lot of folks are looking toward the idea of creating “term limits” on the Supreme Court as a good way to create some reform and some possibility of independence from the polarized politics of our current system. Additionally, this term limits idea seems to be more doable than other reforms, since it appears that both Democrats and Republicans support the idea.
Please consider listening to the whole 1A show for valuable insight and ideas about restoring trust in the Supreme Court.
Below is a slightly modified version of the comments I submitted, which did not make the show. I do believe that my thoughts on corporations are a fresh take which would be interesting for experts to examine as a possibility.
Dear Friends at 1A,
Thank you so much for your thoughtful programs.
I am very excited to hear what your experts and other listeners have to say about ways to reform the US Supreme Court.
I feel like the court is very out of touch with America, and also out of touch with the role they should be playing to support our democracy and to protect the rights of Americans.
I have done some research on the Supreme Court and the chances that the court might choose a case to consider. The amount of cases that they can take is so low. And, some of the cases they should be hearing are about profoundly important issues such as saving the environment or protecting prisoners from injustice and harm. The Supreme Court only has time to address a fraction of the cases for people pleading for themselves, their children, their communities, and the earth.
The first part of my idea to reform the court is that the court simply needs the ability to take more cases, because the number of people and businesses has grown so much, we need to have some matching proportion in the cases that the Supreme Court has the time, docket space, and ability to hear. Maybe that means that America needs to have two or three “sets” of justices and each set can have its own calendar and docket to hear cases.
Another idea of mine is a social innovation, which could incorporate the above.
When it comes down to it, what is the most important part of justice? Our rights and our dignity as living, breathing, human beings: “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The Supreme Court (and all our American courts) are bogged down by so many cases that involve corporations. Corporations are not people. Corporations should not be able to “gang up on human beings and the living” in order to protect wealth.
I think that we should rearrange the court in one of two ways to return the court to the protection of human beings, as opposed to money/capital:
- There should be a rule that corporations can not bring cases to the Supreme Court. It should be adequate justice for a corporation to stop at the US District Court. At that level, the corporation has already received a lot of our joint resources (and, when it comes down to it, tax dollars) and a fair chance to be heard. (Note that under this model, if a person or group of people wish — since they are human beings and participants in our democracy — they should be allowed to apply to the Supreme Court to consider their case AGAINST a corporation.)
or
- We should add justices and split the Supreme Court into two sections. One section would be for people, nonprofits, environmentalists, prisoners, and advocates to bring cases to protect humanity and keep our system just. The other section would be to take cases where a corporation is a plaintiff. In those cases, where it is about the profit of a corporation, there should be a high fee to file a case. Or, alternately, the whole “Corporate Supreme Court” system would be paid for by taxes on corporations.
The Supreme Court was created and designed when there were many less people in America. In addition, when the Supreme Court was created, there was less influence of money, wealth, lawyers, and corporations on our democracy. In order to return the Supreme Court to any semblance of service to humanity and our democracy, we need to help the Supreme Court have more time for the things which matter most: the right of living people to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
In addition, I believe in many of the ideas that others have proposed. [Term limits, which was proposed on the 1A show, seem to hold great promise if applied to The Supreme Court.]
Another important idea is to create a better system to make sure that justices do not have conflicts of interest. There needs to be a committee of lawyers or some other independent mechanism to ensure that justices recuse themselves when there are conflicts of interest, and that justices do not take gifts over a certain amount from anyone.
Another reform could be to allow Americans to vote on one Supreme Court justice. By having one member who clearly represents the voice of the people, there would be a kind of watchdog voice on the court.
[It is so heartening that so many regular Americans, lawyers, legal experts, and politicos are focused on how to rearrange the Supreme Court to put it back on mission for the American people.]
Many thanks,
Kimberly Wilder
Kimberly Wilder is a political activist, mom, and freelance writer who lives in Riverhead, Long Island, NY. Wilder is running for New York State Assembly, District 2 for the November 2026 elections.
_________________________
[Disclaimer: Georgiana Circle is a project of Kimberly Wilder. I am using my old blog about women, history, and politics to get some information up on the web about my current, political campaign. Thanks for your patience and, hopefully, your support.]
Did you ever feel like your idea could have saved someone in the news cycle?
May 9, 2026 by kwilder
My mother called me yesterday. One of her friends was very upset about the hack to the Canvas educational platform. So many students and educators have put so much sensitive data into that program. A hack could harm people over huge swaths of the country.
My name is Kimberly Wilder. I am running to be a member of the New York State Assembly in District 2 (Riverhead/Brookhaven). As writer, activist, and cultural worker, I have been having some wild ideas about reforming government, and specifically, about ways to improve New York State law.
I find it so frustrating that so many entities demand or encourage people to input sensitive data simply in order to participate in retail shopping or to get our needs met through healthcare and education. The reality of the Canvas hack and similar hacks over the years shows us that government should intervene to help.
What would it look like for New York state leaders to create more data privacy laws?
My future colleagues in New York State have already created some good ideas to protect consumer privacy. One recent law that I feel supported data protection was Chapter 584 of the Laws of 2025. This bill requires companies to accept cash at retail and food service establishments. Hurrah for New York State legislators who passed the bill and the New York State governor who signed the bill. The main purpose is to help New Yorkers who do not have credit cards. Though, it will also help everyone not have to share their credit data in order to buy a hot dog (or tofu dog in my case.)
My campaign hopes to put forward issues that go even beyond those proposals that Democratic and/or progressive lawmakers in New York may currently consider. I hope to be a bold and independent voice for New Yorkers, especially if I am elected. So, one of my first ideas is to apply the concept of “Social Innovation” to data privacy and other problems that New Yorkers face.
How could the strategy of “Social Innovation” used in Albany improve the life of New Yorkers? State Assembly Members and State Senators would choose a problem, and then get lawmakers, stakeholders, advocates, and nonprofits to see if there were new social patterns and creative angles that could be shaped into law. The flavor of this strategy would be like using engineering principles, mixed with a real concern for human beings and their relationships, as a backdrop for lawmaking.
My first idea for a social innovation resonates with the recent hack to Canvas educational platform. By exploiting the vulnerability of a corporate data system — a platform used by huge nonprofits, where people had been asked to input sensitive data — the hackers have done great damage.
How much information should corporations, government agencies, educational agencies, and health agencies “force” students/patients/consumers to input into the cloud?
Maybe these agencies should be more guided or controlled in their data demands by New York State laws? We already of volumes of consumer protection laws and student privacy laws. Yet, we allow a school to force you to do things such as use your birthdate or social security number when registering online for classes. And, we allow healthcare providers to make you put your child’s birthdate through the computer ethers just to confirm an appointment. I have been forced to put my child’s birthdate onto a form for roller skating, or turn around at the entrance and tell my child that she cannot go inside.
The first new law I have proposed — a law that I would try to create support for among my fellow, progressive and/or caring legislators if I am elected — is about protecting the data of a child’s birthdate from being overused.
Here is a blurb about it from one of my candidate flyers:
“More privacy for children’s data: Create a social innovation where children only input the season and year of their birth into most systems. Keep children’s birth dates off of the internet.”
If I am elected to the New York State Assembly, I know that I will find other legislators who will want to work on the idea of Social Innovation to protect data privacy and to help New Yorkers in other bold and creative ways.
__________________________________________
I hope you will consider signing my petition and then voting for me, so I can help envision wonderful, new, socially innovative legislation for New York State. Petitioning is happening now. The last date to mail in petitions for this Kimberly Wilder for Assembly campaign is May 12, 2026. Or, you can catch us in person and hand in by May 23, 2026. We would be honored by your support.
Posted in Women | Tagged 2026 Elections, Candidate Kimberly Wilder, Canvas Hack, Canvass Hack, Commentary on Canvas hack, Data Privacy, Data Privacy Law, how to legislate, Kimberly Wilder, Kimberly Wilder for Assembly, Long Island politics, New York politics, NY Assembly District 2, Political response to Canvas hack, Politics, politics-and-technology, social innovation, social innovator, technology, Who is running against Jodi Giglio?, writing | Leave a Comment »