yeah, that was my stance. they need to use a phrase other than “packing the courts” here. “restoring balance” seems more fitting.
This is why the court must not be packed in a way that simply turns it into a political tool for Ds instead of Rs. Instead the court must be reformed to make it less central in deciding some of these questions that can instead be decided by the legislature. This may involve expanding the number of justices.
If the Democrats pack the court, wouldn’t you worry that the Republicans would do the same thing? It’s opening up a can of worms…
When Biden says he will set up a commission to give views on this topic, does that mean he is undecided currently or that he doesn’t want to say his stance on the topic?
Biden wants to make sure he doesn’t appear to be acting with purely selfish political aims.
Rebalance the court, and then figure out way to keep it balanced going forward.
Balanced <> 50% far right radicals + 50% liberals. The last three justices named by Trump are as radical as it gets.
1 Like
the republicans opened up several cans of worms already.
1 Like
To be clear, I meant the following. If the Democrats pack the court, it is opening up a can of worms that the Republicans would do so as well by adding more judges.
Let’s pretend Biden does nothing to the courts, except add judges to fill vacancies. He does nothing to expand courts at all, and Clarence Thomas dies, and is replaced, and Roberts becomes a swing voterswho sides with the liberals on key court cases.
Then a Republican wins in 2024 when a disaffected Democratic electorate stays home, and McConnell gets his majority back, and the Republicans get a narrow lead in the House.
There would be nothing keeping Republicans from expanding the court. Their excuse? Democrats THOUGHT ABOUT IT.
You can’t run a country based on what your corrupt opponents MIGHT do. If there’s anything we should have learned from the past decade, is people who argue in bad faith will do whatever they want regardless of justification, BECAUSE THEY CAN.
1 Like
Expand the court. Require a 2/3 senate majority to confirm all judges. I think those are an easy sell: SCOTUS has become a political arm and this is move toward UNpacking the court.
I’m indifferent to term limits for SC justices. If we do the above, we don’t need them.
I think Biden, particularly if Dems have the senate and the house, needs to take the gloves off and get some shit done.
Use the GOPs philosophy: These are the consequences of winning an election.
If Dems take the WH and the senate, I take that as a clear message that the PEOPLE WANT what the Dems/progressives are bringing to the table. That’s the sell.
I think this can be done without unduly pissing off the middle. The far right will throw their tantrums but tough shit.
We should not expand the SCOTUS.
I could see possibly expanding some of the Circuit courts or even adding another one because the workload has gone up.
One thing we as a nation cannot do is start treating every aspect of the law as a political football. You want to change things? Great, get out there and advocate for it. Convince others you are right and win elections using the rules in place. Don’t whine about the rules and then change them first chance you get to make sure you always win. Then change the laws through the legislatures and make sure the new laws a constitutionally valid.
A big part of the reason that amendments to the Constitution are hard to pass is that they cannot be controversial. They must have overwhelming support and not just a narrow majority. Part of the courts job has always been to prevent a slim majority from running roughshot over the right of the minority. Also occasionally protecting from a significant majority Brown vs Board of Education anyone? This is a feature not a bug in the courts.
Yes, exactly. Is there an :iatp: emoji here? Hmm, apparently not. But if there was, :iatp:
Paging Glenn and Traci: we need :iatp: !!!
I like that idea a lot. I also wouldn’t be opposed to giving the House a say in confirmations, although I’m not sure how exactly that would work.
Might have to add an “if the number of Supreme Court justices gets below ‘n’ the entire senate is disbanded and replaced in a special election” clause to make sure they don’t just sit on open seats though…
Congratulations on giving McConnell victory for the next 40 years.
The guy broke every norm in the book for a decade. You don’t tip your cap and say ‘well played, sir’. You undo the disaster he created. THEN you provide for a world where another McConnell can’t recreate the past decade.
1 Like
I like the 2/3 majority for SCOTUS. I’m not sure I’d want it for all appointments as that might bog things down a bit… perhaps not?
I don’t know that I’d want the House to weigh in also. That’s a lot of bandwidth devoted to judges / justices.
Although I suppose every minute spent evaluating judges & justices is a minute they’re not cramming idiotic legislation through, so perhaps there’s merit to the House thing after all.
But only for that reason… not because I think it’s necessary for both chambers to have a say on appointments.
Any permanent change to the SC will need to be through the amendment process. Otherwise, a repeat of the 2016-2017 Congress just undoes any of the changes.
As long as you can either pull that off quickly enough or avoid spooking the electorate into putting the other guys back in charge before you are done.
The Dems absolutely should not consider making changes to the court without making a constitutional amendment about it. Whether a constitutional amendment would actually pass is a different question though. You’ve got to get 37 states on board, which is a tall order, and requires that you have both solidly red and solidly blue states in agreement. That said, if they offered up something that didn’t reek of partisanship, it would have a decent chance.
Obviously expanding the number of justices and having Biden name all of the additional justices is never going to fly with 37 states.
Fixing the number at 9 and putting in an 18 year term limit for any justices not yet appointed, and assigning each existing justice to an 18 year term (that would be applicable whenever the exiting justices die or retire) and provisions for how to fill vacancies (such as “Senate must vote within 90 days”) is the kind of non-partisan reform that both sides could agree to.
It wouldn’t address the current 6-3 situation though… I honestly think the Dems just have to suck that one up and focus on making sure that no future Senate Majority Leader can ever get away with what Mitch McConnell got away with.
1 Like
ACB recused herself on judgment in a case today involving voting in PA, so thus far, she hasn’t pissed me off yet on the court. It sounds like voter suppression efforts involving mail in voting there failed because she recused herself if I heard right.
An amendment that would obviously hinder the Republican Party would be dead n arrival. You’d have to be subtle about it, and the Rs have a way of turning subtlety into their favor…
I hear what you’re saying; I really do. But I disagree.
You can’t undo the disaster he created any more than you can undetonate a bomb. As ridiculous as McConnell’s actions were, they were also legal.
Change the laws so that it can never legally happen again. Don’t set off another bomb. That won’t undo the damage.