Politics Dems plan bill to pack Supreme Court with four new justices

[SlyPokerDog]

Dems plan bill to pack Supreme Court with four new justices - erasing the GOP majority - one week after Biden announced a special commission to investigate issue 'under pressure' from left

• House and Senate Democrats will reportedly announce the plan on Thursday
• The plan will see four new justices added to the nine-member Supreme Court
• The Constitution does not specify how many justices should sit on the court
• Before 1869 Congress routinely changed the number to achieve its own goals
• The Supreme Court now leans conservative, with Trump appointing three
• Republicans warned during the election that Democrats would try and change it
• Biden in 2005 said packing the court with more liberal judges was 'power grab'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ion-pack-Supreme-Court-four-new-justices.html

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Now every administration will add justices to counteract what the previous administration did. 20 years from now SC rulings will be 542-540.

 

[HailBlazers]

No Shame. A la Republicans.

 

[Minstrel]

No Shame. A la Republicans.

Not that I think many Democrats will actually back the bill (from the article, it sounds like only a few Democrats are pushing it and the headline is sensational), but this is a "no shame" move I'd actually back. If you only let the other side do whatever they want, you swiftly end up with no power at all.

So, yeah, I agree this is kind of shitty behavior by Democrats, but after how Republicans acted with the Supreme Court, it's about the only option left.

 

[crandc]

McConnell held hundreds of federal court appointments and a Supreme Court seat for in some cases years, then packed them with hard right loyalists with minimal experience, many rated unqualified.

There is nothing magic about nine justices, the number has increased several times and had stayed the same even though population grew.

 

[donkiez]

At this point you have to assume the republicans are just waiting to do the same thing as soon as they have the chance, so you have to beat them to the punch.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Can they do it and then change the rules to be more equitable permanently?

Not that democrats necessarily would make it equitable, but assuming they wanted to, could they?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

We did nazi this coming.

 

[julius]

The Republicans and people who consider themselves a Republican, have no leg to stand on here.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Overthrow the government. The original "leveling the field".

 

[Stevenson]

Scorched earth politics. There's no turning back.

Well, the Dems did not invent scorched earth. Going back, we can blame Rush and Newt for that, and insofar as the Court goes, McConnell stole a court seat from the Dems when he wouldn't take up the Merrick Garland nomination. Similarly, they rammed through RBG's replacement right before the election.

I don't like any of it, but its pretty much just desserts for the Republicans.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

There needs to be a few dogs on the SC!

 

[calvin natt]

Good.

 

[Minstrel]

Can they do it and then change the rules to be more equitable permanently?

Not that democrats necessarily would make it equitable, but assuming they wanted to, could they?

They can do that, and I'd definitely appreciate such an approach. It's hard to figure out what a more equitable solution would be, though. I'd like something like an independent commission that selects the most qualified judges, but who's "most qualified" is very subjective and, no matter how much you try to nail it down with rules, it'll always come down to who appoints the "independent" commission--it could just be adding an additional layer with the same problems. Plus, what do you do with the existing Court?

Rules like there always have to be at least (n/2) - 1 justices, where n is the total number of justices, of Republicans and Democrats have a few problems. One is that it enshrines the two party system--while a two party system is a current reality and an inevitability with the current way we do elections, I wouldn't want to enshrine it permanently in law (let alone specific parties). Two is that it's counter to the whole point of judges, that they're supposed to be non-partisan, they aren't supposed to be "Republican judges" and "Democratic judges." Three is that justices being appointed by the President is part of the Constitution, so how do you replace one of the justices for the "out party?" Does the vacancy just linger until their party wins the Presidency?

Reform of the Supreme Court is probably necessary, but I have no idea how you do it.

 

[Lanny]

Dems plan bill to pack Supreme Court with four new justices - erasing the GOP majority - one week after Biden announced a special commission to investigate issue 'under pressure' from left

• House and Senate Democrats will reportedly announce the plan on Thursday
• The plan will see four new justices added to the nine-member Supreme Court
• The Constitution does not specify how many justices should sit on the court
• Before 1869 Congress routinely changed the number to achieve its own goals
• The Supreme Court now leans conservative, with Trump appointing three
• Republicans warned during the election that Democrats would try and change it
• Biden in 2005 said packing the court with more liberal judges was 'power grab'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ion-pack-Supreme-Court-four-new-justices.html

I can see adding two justices but I don't understand the other two. I'd be more interested in adding Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico as states.

 

[crandc]

A lot of circuit courts have 20 or more judges. Maybe a formula to increase the court corresponding to population increase?

One problem is Senate is so undemocratic. Half the population lives in 15 states and gets 30 senators. The other half, mostly whiter and less diverse, gets 70 senators. By mid century 2/3 of the population will be in those 15 states if present trends continue, so a third of the country will have 70 percent of the Senate.

 

[Chris Craig]

There needs to be a few dogs on the SC!

 

[Chris Craig]

I don't necessarily agree with the Dems doing this, but I get it

 

[barfo]

Get rid of lifetime appointments (or, alternately, execute a randomly chosen sitting justice every couple of years).

barfo

 

[Strenuus]

I don't necessarily agree with the Dems doing this, but I get it

I'm just feeling like everyone does all this to just show the hypocrisy of the other side.

 

[Shaboid]

Get rid of lifetime appointments (or, alternately, execute a randomly chosen sitting justice every couple of years).

barfo

I'm fine with that alternative, but can we have a contest to decide who goes to the gallows? Whoever eats the fewest hot dogs in 5 minutes or something?