Biden said he’s against stacking the court also. He said he’s concern about it getting out of control, where each time a new admin is in power with congress on their side, they would stack again. Just because he can and has the power to do it, doesn't mean he should. Given now that McConnell and the Republican had gone back on their word and is now arguing that they will do it because they have the power to, disregarding any integrity, honor, principle, consideration of consequences to the institution and more. If this is how Congress should now operate, why should Biden and the Dem not also go back on their word, if elected, to stack the court? They would the power to do it. There will be a lot of pressure for them to stack. If there continue to be restraint on one side and no restraint on the other side, it would eventually lead to a total power loss of one side. It may take a few decades but it will eventually get there. Should the Dem bet on future restrain, be willing to give up power, or fight back? Hard for them. But I would completely understand them fighting back. In which case we can get into an escalating power for power move without any consideration of consequences - it could end up tearing the country apart. Personally, I want a Biden admin to figure a way to reform the court so it's less partisans.
Impeachment to stop the nomination? https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nancy-pelosi-impeach-scotus-nomination_n_5f675d92c5b6b9795b1244a9
They don't have enough time to confirm a new pick before the election. They first have to just vote on hearing the person out. By the time that is done, it's election day. Senate has to take up impeachment once it reaches them. Mitch can try to dismiss it as fast as possible but at this point we're just playing silly games here to delay it. I think too it's a lot easier to get those 3 votes knowing a few things... 1. That your party lost and won't have power by the end of Jan 2. The other party can pack the court, it might be hard to do but it's going to have a lot more support if Mitch goes through with this. Again, all this only matters if the Democrats win the Senate and Presidency while holding Congress. At this point, no one is going to accept that Judge, and I think there will even be Republicans that deny her the seat. Why? Because Trump lost. Not only did Trump lose, but he's likely going to face some kind of prosecution. A lot of them will flee that ship once its sunken. Once it's confirmed he's lost, you're going to find less of his staunch allies about.
It's a boogeyman that apparently some on the right very much believe in as they continue to push for personhood laws and amendment at the local and state level. It isn't exactly a secret that their intention is to push it up to the Supreme court to overturn RvW. There is intention. There is personhood (and may other anti-abortion) laws and amendment being pushed by those in power. There are judges that do not honor precedent. This court itself has ignored precedents in Citizen United. I think some on the right very much disagree with you that it is simply a boogeyman.
Curious, what do you propose happen if there is a 6-3 court that's right wing? Should Biden say - ok, let's all be friends and forgive and forget? Since you are against stacking the court to correct for what has happened, what is the alternative?
The check in the court is the other branches especially the Legislative. The court wields a lot of power but they shouldn’t be in the position of making all the decisions they make John Roberts has said that himself. Legislation needs to be crafted more carefully and if the court rules against someone craft a different law. Most USSC rulings hinge upon a very narrow items and in many cases just because one portion of a lest is invalidated it’s always possible to come back with a changed law. The court and the executive branch have gotten so much more powerful at the expense of the Legislative. Obviously the court is very important should be taken seriously but if the Democratic Senate starts packing the court what’s to stop the next Republican one from packing it and or stripping Justices. Again the number of justices isn’t fixed and it can go either way. Without certainty or consistency on the number of justices the stature of the court will just be diminished and will be viewed as even more a political entity than it is now.
To add to my last post personally I’m not too bothered by a small “c” conservative court. The court actually should be conservative in how it views the Constitution. What I’m against is the idea of a Rightwing activist court like the Rehnquist court so far while not agreeing with everything I think the Roberts court has been less activist And Roberts is clearly far more cautious than Rehnquist was. That very well could change with the next justice. As much as I think it is wrong for McConnell to abuse the Senate’s responsibilities for ideological gain I think adjusting the number of justices is also a bad idea. If the Democrats do stack the court I think it will come back and bite them just like doing away filibusters in appointments has come back and bit them.
By expanding/altering the court it absolutely accomplishes the goal of returning power to the legislative bodies, insofar as term limits and diluting votes makes the president and justices less powerful. Please stop calling it "court packing" or "stacking" or whatever. The court right now is laughably packed with shitbirds who at best align with maybe 40% of Americans, though honestly you can argue that down to 5%, because most of their pro business rulings that nobody talks about are ludicrously unpopular, to the extent you poll the policies without partisan labels. If anything, a much needed expansion of the federal court system (from the district level all the way up) is court unpacking, and makes future court packing less likely and consequential.
The Senate can still hold committee meetings and vote on a SC nominee in the morning and an impeachment trial In the afternoon. Even if Trump loses in a lame duck session it’s not about Trump. It’s about the ideological alignment of the nominee. The senators could care less in the lame duck session if Trump loses in a landslide. He won’t matter but the future justice will matter in years or even decades to come. The soonest voter can punish Senators at the polls will be in two years and if there is a Democratic majority coming in that gives them even more reason to get another pick in.
You have a right-wing activist court that bends interpretation to get to the right wing ruling - we've seen that on many issues. So what you are saying is that the Dems should just write better laws and accept what McConnell did passively. That will never happen. Given how the SCOTUS decides on many issues that determine amongst other things - who votes count, who is eligible to vote, and what laws can be use to stop people from voting - some could argue the appointment of a right-winger would give the right a 5-4 advantage on the court even if Roberts becomes a moderating justice. The Dems will never accept this.
Court packing is increasing the number of justices for an ideological end. That the court is how it is has to primarily to do with the inability of Democrats to win elections at both the Senate and presidential levels. Elections do have consequences. That you’re saying that the court is too packed already with “shitbirds” shows that for you this is ideological also. If it was 5-4 liberal and a Republican senate was talking about adding more seats would you be for it?
If not stacking then having them term limited with each 4 yr president allowed to appoint two. To avoid Constitutional Q about appointment for life that under the f’d up system the S act justices themselves would rule on! you can allow the judges to remain as judges but on lower CT’s for instance. They just cannot continue to be voting judges on the S Ct As an aside 11 or 13 might not be bad and maybe they could dispose of more cases per year. There are plans to modernize and democratize this Constitutional flaw.
Is this going to be as embarrassing and dumb as you arguing that the filibuster is the intent of the founders? Why don't you just concede that you're being biased by calling judiciary reform court packing or stacking or whatever. .You only decided against it because in the world's most predictably boring development, you gauged where we're heading, got out a slide rule and staked out a position 50 percent of the way there. You should be more creative and less lazy in your centrism. Judicial expansion and de-escalation is a good thing - the federal courts have been overstuffed for decades. Right wing federalist society types are laughably overrepresented. To oppose reform is not a neutral position, it is flying with the shitbirds.
It is not that often I totally agree with Sam. I like his mention of business rulings on such issues as anti-trust, not to mention the bs legitimating of political bribery w. Citizen's United, the ruling allowing the 23% of Americans who have any guns to essentially allow us all to be terrorized by gun violence etc. etc. As an aside some have suggested giving the currently thrilled Republicans one last ultimatum to avoid packing (though I prefer to expand the judiciary due to increased cases and population)-- accede to reforms such as listed in my last post or pack the Court.
I disagree that GOP senators could care less, their rep is still on the line. Some of them will want to run for president in 2024 and they are not going to want the stain of Trump on them just like how they all ran away from Bush and Bush was not as toxic as Trump is...especially if Trump is prosecuted, they will flee. We already have a few saying they will oppose the vote until after the election, I think at this point, those people will just vote no, you say they actually have a lot more to gain looking rational and distancing themselves from a one term president that won on a fluke. Why would you appeal to voters that lost you Senate, House, and Presidency? The GOP was trying to reform itself and appeal to more voters before Trump came along, he loses, it's a complete rebuke on his presidency. One term, lost congress and local elections in 2018 to ultimately lose it all. E It'll be clear there will be a democratic majority, pushing a SCOTUS judge through a lame duck session is going nuclear against the party that will be holding the majority of power for the next 4 years and you're basically daring them to go nuclear right back.
That’s nearly 40pts https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-ginsburg-poll-idUSKCN26B0TN The national opinion poll, conducted Sept. 19-20 after Ginsburg's death was announced, suggests that many Americans object to President Donald Trump's plan, backed by many Senate Republicans, to push through another lifetime appointee and cement a 6-3 conservative majority on the court. The poll found that 62% of American adults agreed the vacancy should be filled by the winner of the Nov. 3 matchup between Trump and Democratic former Vice President Joe Biden, while 23% disagreed and the rest said they were not sure.
That she would be replaced by trump is sad and PAINFUL for her. Why hope for it as her last dying thoughts?
The supreme Court is just as political as the other institution. Pack it with 100 people. Let's make it ridiculous so it can be changed. Having a bunch of old white dudes from Harvard or Yale deciding the future of this country doesn't seem ideal.
