I think Biden very uncomfortable with the idea of adding justices and while I think his proposal of having a commission is a good answer I also suspect it might just be a dodge to stall the issue. If it does come to pass I am curious to see what comes out of it. I still don't think it's a good idea for the reasons that we could see the number of justices changing depending on what party is in power but I think the drive for it might be too much for Biden or others to resist. I will also say that if this does come to pass I will blame Mitch McConnell and the Republican Senate. I think if they had allowed Merrick Garland to have hearings and a vote this wouldn't be as much of an issue now.
What choice do they have with how important the courts are? LGBT rights? Environmental policy? Regulations?
It is absolutely a stalling tactic. I've seen this plenty of times professionally -- when a more influential party was trying to get a commission to rule a certain way and we knew we couldn't win, we'd stall by arguing it should really be studied more deeply. Then, who knows, a year from now the study is done but maybe there's a new set of commissioners. Maybe their priorities have changed. Biden doesn't want to say yes or no on packing the court until after the election so he's stalling. Which says to me the answer is no. Because if he did intend to do it, he'd want to be able to point to his campaign promise to do it and argue he had a mandate from the electorate to do it. He doesn't want to do it (which I think is the right call btw) but he'd look like a little b**** laying down to Mitch McConnell if he admitted it before the election. After the election, I expect some flowery stuff about taking the high road for the sake of preserving the balance of power and the republic.
Congress could do it's job and pass more regulation. Most USSC rulings are very narrow and there usually are ways around them. That said I think the pressure politically on a Biden Admin. and Democratic Senate might be too much to resists.
The Founders feared democracy and wanted to keep power for the slave owners and the very wealthy and away from the rabble i.e. ordinary folks. In your drive to be content with the status quo and I guess our ancient, flawed Constitution have you ever considered that? Hopefully that is not your position, too. There is no going back to the Happy Days version of the 50's.
These are life appointments. The current 6-3 majority can lay low until people have forgotten then take on trials they deferred months before. Strike now while the urgency is hot. Mitigate long lasting damage on the appellate courts
I never said go back to the 50’s. Further you do realize that once you start open up changing the court that could lead to the next time a party that you don’t agree with comes in can do the same thing. Constitution is designed to reach consensus and compromise. That’s one reason we’ve only had one civil war compared to many other countries.
Populist movements on both sides of the spectrum are frustrated at government intransigence. A large reason is because of how dysfunctional the Senate has become. Once government becomes deconstipated by shenanigans "rooted in tradition" and not the Constitution, there will be a huge outcry by the minority to become more devoted into politics, and to become more aware of what's being passed in the Senate where the results become more immediate. It's quite pathetic that Executive Orders have taken the place of laws and those EOs are points of partisan contention...only to be decided at the courts. These oblique measures are taken because the legislature has not taken responsibility for their duties of passing lasting laws (or even confirming/denying justices!!) and instead are holding their breaths, obstructing everything, and hoping the time will run out for the other side's possession. It's not sustainable. The digital and global era guarantees this more than ever.
This is a bigger issue. The Senate is completely broken...well not completely, but it's not working as it should. Sure we can blame Harry Reid for some of this, but I put the blame mostly at Mitch's feet. the only reason Reid eliminated the filibuster is because Mitch decided that his senate and his party would give 0 compromise to the Democrats.
is it possible for a president to end life time appointments ? why would anyone be allowed to hold a position for life ? seems ridiculous to me.
Another version of a classic contentment argument that goes: America is great. We are richer than Mexico, Haiti etc. etc. and we have more freedom than Russia, China, Cambodia, etc. less civil wars than Sudan, Afganistan, Yemen etc. When is the last time a modern developed country had a CIVIL war? We are perhaps the only democracy giving such power to an unelected small group of Judges with lifetime appointments.
Isnt that what the GOP has been doing all over the country? They simply manipulate the system to keep them and their minority support in power. Whenever the GOP have had the opportunity, they have taken it, all else be damned.
The framers intent I believe was to make the judges non-political so that they could not be removed by politicians that disagree with their rulings. Our failing is that we let the appointments become political. The framers assumed reasonable men would make their selections on merit not politics.
reiterate: 4 of the Justices were appointed by Presidents that did not win a majority of the vote https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-justices-president-popular-vote-1156542 Barrett will be the 5th
Confucius say, It is better to pack the court than to pack the fudge.* * Middle age has not dampened my childishness.
Yes. They have and strongly don't agree with them doing it. That doesn't mean I support moves on the side of the Democrats to do the same. For me personally I would like to see districts redrawn by bipartisan commissions.
