At this point Democrats don’t have a choice but to support court changes. The Republicans under McConnell have completely destroyed the courts credibility. Congress has the power to act by design of our constitution for this very reason.
How is passing a law with the support of both Houses of Congress and the President "changing the rules"? Isn't it the definition of Democracy? Is there some rule against Congress passing laws? Did you complain when various states have changed laws to do the same thing in state Supreme Courts?
I think there is a difference between breaking norms and altering the constitution. Everyone does the former to varying degrees, few do the latter. Changing court populace has dated back to our 2nd president, lol. There have been multiple judiciary acts increasing and decreasing the size of courts. And the Supreme Court size has changed throughout this nation's history because the number was not set in the Constitution. All that stated, I don't think there's going to be a change in number, but who knows?
That any of us speculate in advance about this is a shiny object victory for FOX News. Suggest dropping it and getting back to the present. Lots of vital events in real time.
You mean like preventing the senate from even having a vote on a President's SCOTUS nominee like the constitution states?
That one side is called the majority. Now Republicans are all, democracy is baaaaad. If Biden wins he'll have every right to add 6 justices to the court and every right to prevent an expansion thereafter and every right to do all kinds of stuff you guys will whine about hysterically after you watched Donald Trump run roughshod on the country for four years. The many faces of a BS'er.
I'm already on record here against packing the USSC by adding more seats, or reducing seats for the that matter. I think if Democrats add more very likely Republicans when they take charge add more or remove the seats that were added. Then we end up in a situation where the number of seats changes when a party takes power and court cases get questioned on the basis of how many seats were on it at the time of the ruling. I do support term limits and mandatory retirement but would like to see how they are done as currently the Constitution says that Justices can serve on good behavior but nothing about age or terms. All of that said I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats do add seats. I think the situation with Merrick Garland and now with Amy Comey Barrett has so poisoned any sense of comity I think there will be a lot of pressure to increase seats. Even if Biden doesn't support that if there is enough pressure for it in Congress I think he will go along with it. Finally just to rehash Merrick Garland. The situation with that was the creation of a new rule that now the Republicans refuse to honor themselves with all sorts of rationalizations. If it was a matter of that the Republicans had the votes to not approve then Merrick Garland should've at least gotten a hearing and then defeated on a vote. That McConnell didn't even have hearings shows that this wasn't a matter of the votes not there but a power play that changed the rules and now they are being changed again.
This is a really interesting idea. I'm not sure if this would be supported much by any side or realistic but it's a very novel idea.
I feel like the rubicon was crossed with Merrick Garland. Once MM broke the spirit of governance by denying the vote, this has to be a direct consequence. I don't understand his calculus here as surely he knows that by pushing ACB through he's basically forcing Dems to blow-up the SCOTUS in some way. Perhaps that's his ultimate plan
I think his calculus is that the Democrats aren't going to able to add seats or might not be able to win the Senate so it's better to take this opportunity to add another conservative justice rather than worry what the response might be. He also might figure that once Republicans are back in power they will just add or remove seats themselves.
Whether you “pack the courts” in the FDR sense or “pack the courts” in the Trump/McConnell sense, the outcome is the same.... trying to instill your ideology into the courts which ultimately affects legislation.
Every president ever has nominated a judge who shared their views on the constitution. You arguing that trump doing this is some form of 'packing the court' is silly and dishonest. You lost elections . In a democracy that has consequences such as the government resembling those who won the needed elections. Get over it.
If that's the case he will be remembered for making the Supreme Court just an extension of the legislative branch.
