Do you agree or disagree with RBG stance on “packing” Supreme Court?

[JMR]

It was technically not posthumous. And the principle is the same: Once you start packing the Courts, the other side has no reason not to start packing the Courts when they take power. Then it is no longer about filling Court Seats. It is about which party has taken the Presidency, Senate and the House in order to expand the Court. The Democrats can add four seats in 2021. And when the Republicans eventually take Congress and the White House, their first order of business will be to add fourteen seats to the Supreme Court and fill them with Federalist Society justices. Then the Democrats will add twenty eight seats to the Supreme Court when they take power. We can end up having a Supreme Court bigger than the Senate. Hell, perhaps our Supreme Court will sit more justices than the House of Representatives. When political power is all that matters, why the Hell not?

IMO the Republicans have already been quite busy "packing the court" by refusing hearings for nominees rightfully nominated by Obama. So the process has already started.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

It was technically not posthumous. And the principle is the same: Once you start packing the Courts, the other side has no reason not to start packing the Courts when they take power. Then it is no longer about filling Court Seats. It is about which party has taken the Presidency, Senate and the House in order to expand the Court. The Democrats can add four seats in 2021. And when the Republicans eventually take Congress and the White House, their first order of business will be to add fourteen seats to the Supreme Court and fill them with Federalist Society justices. Then the Democrats will add twenty eight seats to the Supreme Court when they take power. We can end up having a Supreme Court bigger than the Senate. Hell, perhaps our Supreme Court will sit more justices than the House of Representatives. When political power is all that matters, why the Hell not?

So just let Mitch have this one, just this ONE, and he promises he will never ever EVER do it again?

 

[Felis Leo]

I know congress has the ability to restructure the court. Whether it could is not concern I had. I was wondering about whether the senate could legislate that any future legislation altering the structure of the court takes a 60-vote majority instead of leaving it to a rule.

That's important. The idea was to first expand the court and add justices (and admit PR + D.C.), but then to make sure the GOP couldn't turn around and do it right back once they have a majority. But, to do this via legislation, so that things are not dependent on the GOP honoring a rule. And further, to not only legislate that future changes to the court's structure take 60 (or 64, were two states admitted), but to legislate that the very statute that required that vote count itself cannot be repealed without the same 60 or 64 majority.

That way, we fix the damage done by the GOP cheating and lock the fix in place going forward. Without that, if we expand the court they'll just undo it, or they'll expand it even further themselves.

I have a more direct idea, and please tell me why, in principle such an idea would be wrong (or right if you agree). Since Turkish-style permanent single-party rule seems to be the ultimate goal of the Democratic Party (or at least those of many of its voters if the statements here are heartfelt), what exactly would be wrong with passing legislation making the Democratic Party the only legal party to take office in any Federal Election? It would certainly withstand scrutiny in the Supreme Court if enough of the correct justices are appointed and confirmed, i.e., nakedly power-hungry, partisan Democratic Party ideologues (perhaps even chosen from the ranks of the House of Representatives itself).

We could have a more technocratic Federal government in which people get to decide among local candidates chosen by the Democratic Party. What, in your opinion would be wrong with this? And if you consider it wrong, how is it functionally different than what you are proposing?

 

[X Factor]

There is no reason to believe they would, except for your love of conspiracies.

I have exactly zero reason to believe in restrain from Dems.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

that is why I said we need to implement the 60 vote requirement to change the future seats of the court and 60 votes for any confirmation after this and as well 60 votes to change the rules...aka no filibuster.

That is fine we just get rid of the republican party all together, and anyone else who thinks other than the democrats and choice as well. Heck there is no need for a vote. We just have the democrats run things however they want. Tear up the constitution and the Bill of Rights. We will just do whatever Pelosi wants. You know the do as I say not as I do leader.

 

[JMR]

I have exactly zero reason to believe in restrain from Dems.

That inability to think critically might damage your credibility.

 

[X Factor]

At this point, f*** the GOP.

They deserve all the fallout from this manipulation of SCOTUS judges.

This was the last straw for me. No need to worry about which candidates to vote for - I can go straight Democratic ticket with no second thoughts.

Ive never done that before, but I kinda wonder now if I'll ever vote for a Republican again- national, state or local.

Well, I’ve been in the **** Dems mode for awhile now and you supporting them in every aspect of everything they do is hardly a surprise. If Dems were in power now you’d support them filling the seat so spare me your phony indignance.

 

[Mr Person]

I have a more direct idea, and please tell me why, in principle such an idea would be wrong (or right if you agree). Since Turkish-style permanent single-party rule seems to be the ultimate goal of the Democratic Party (or at least those of many of its voters if the statements here are heartfelt), what exactly would be wrong with passing legislation making the Democratic Party the only legal party to take office in any Federal Election? It would certainly withstand scrutiny in the Supreme Court if enough of the correct justices are appointed.

My statements are about correcting the GOP's cheating. If they'd voted honestly on Garland, I wouldn't be here saying this. But they made up some bullshit rule tied to something Biden said thirty years ago that wasn't acted on in order to block a nominee for nearly a year, and now they're making up more bullshit to excuse themselves from not following their own made-up rule. I'm sick of that. I want to correct the damage and lock things in place so they can't do that kind of thing. Correct the seat stealing, set rules via legislation for when nominees are and are not voted on, and lock those rules in place.

If you want to pretend that means I want one-party rule, I can't stop you. But it's really not what I'm driving at and it's not what would result.

"Let the GOP kick you in the balls again because if you stand up for yourself, something bad might happen later" doesn't really resonate with me, especially when the bad thing that might happen is rather far-fetched. Admit two states and the GOP couldn't ever get a majority in the senate? History proves that wrong. As it is, they already have outsized power thanks to the way things are set up. Power seesaws 50/50, but this country is more like 45/55 when it comes to right-lean/left-lean. And hey, the GOP always could change its platform. It's not my fault if they've spent the last year hyper-focused on a smaller than normal base and would suffer in the short term.

 

[post]

I certainly agree with RBG's statement yet the Democrats are threatening to blow it all up if the Republicans get a nominee confirmed to replace RBG as soon as they take control of the Senate. So now we are not just threatened by the leftist Democrat voters on the street protesting and threatening people to conform or else, they will burn it all down. Now we have Democrat Congress critters threatening to do the very same thing.

Democrats have at least been consistent about leveraging the reasonable, legal if legislated, option of increasing the size of the SCOTUS.
See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

Why would you expect any sitting member of the court to agree to have his or her vote, IOW influence, diluted, as a result of increasing the number
of voters on the court panel?
You seem misinformed, when it suits your perspective. Nothing wrong with "shrinking" the size of the court, except when ......?

From a political protest web page. October 26, 2016:
" Ted Cruz said on Wednesday that there is precedent to limiting the Supreme Court to just eight justices. "
Earlier this week:
"Sen. Ted Cruz, who is on Trump's list of potential nominees, warned of a "constitutional crisis" if a nominee isn't confirmed by the Senate before Nov. 3. (2020)"

]http://cruz.senate.gov.help

This Is A Political Protest Website Showcasing Dishonest, Corrupt, Hypocrisy of U.S. Senator Ted Cruz.

The web address of this site ends in the "dot help" TLD. Help protect America from Ted Cruz and his corrupt Trump party colleagues
and those who support and vote for them and impeached, unindicted "individual one", Trump.

TedCruz was for a Supreme Court of only eight justices before he was against it!



https://www.foxnews.com/us/supreme-court-operate-only-eight-justices
Fox News How the Supreme Court operates with only 8 justices Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who is on Trump's list of potential nominees,warned of a "constitutional crisis" if a nominee isn't confirmed by the Senate before Nov. 3.
September 20, 2020

2016 :

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/cruz-supreme-court-blockade-230363
Cruz: GOP may block Supreme Court nominees indefinitely Oct 26, 2016 - 162610-ted-cruz-ap-1160.jpg.Ted Cruz said on Wednesday that there is precedent to limiting the Supreme Court to just eight justices.

 

[mrjurrs]

I know congress has the ability to restructure the court. Whether it could is not concern I had. I was wondering about whether the senate could legislate that any future legislation altering the structure of the court takes a 60-vote majority instead of leaving it to a rule.

That's important. The idea was to first expand the court and add justices (and admit PR + D.C.), but then to make sure the GOP couldn't turn around and do it right back once they have a majority. But, to do this via legislation, so that things are not dependent on the GOP honoring a rule. And further, to not only legislate that future changes to the court's structure take 60 (or 64, were two states admitted), but to legislate that the very statute that required that vote count itself cannot be repealed without the same 60 or 64 majority.

That way, we fix the damage done by the GOP cheating and lock the fix in place going forward. Without that, if we expand the court they'll just undo it, or they'll expand it even further themselves.

I don't think that is possible w/o a Constitutional amendment. Both the house and the senate can set their own rules (Article 2, Section 5, Clause 2)

 

[AmNat]

“Nine seems to be a good number and it’s been that way for a long time. I have heard that there are some people on the Democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges. I think that was a bad idea when Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the court … [and] I am not at all in favor of that,” Ginsburg said.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposes liberal court-packing and praises Trump appointees

In an NPR interview released on Tuesday, liberal icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disappointed the radical left when she opposed packing the court and imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices. Many of the front-runners for the Democratic presidential nomination have advocated for one or both…

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Disagree. The federal judiciary is the most malignant part of the formal government. I support any measure that tends to delegitimize it.

 

[Overitall]

Disagree. The federal judiciary is the most malignant part of the formal government. I support any measure that tends to delegitimize it.

What would you replace it with?

 

[Felis Leo]

My statements are about correcting the GOP's cheating. If they'd voted honestly on Garland, I wouldn't be here saying this. But they made up some bullshit rule tied to something Biden said thirty years ago that wasn't acted on in order to block a nominee for nearly a year, and now they're making up more bullshit to excuse themselves from not following their own made-up rule. I'm sick of that. I want to correct the damage and lock things in place so they can't do that kind of thing. Correct the seat stealing, set rules via legislation for when nominees are and are not voted on, and lock those rules in place.

To what end? If this were a clubhouse, it might make sense. When we are talking about the upper house of our federal legislature where decisions that affect our rights and liberties are made, the stakes are slightly higher wouldn't you say?

I argue that easy institutional obstructionism in which little can be accomplished without a high degree of consensus and horse-trading is safer to live under nine times out of ten than unchecked untrammeled lawmaking power.

If you want to pretend that means I want one-party rule, I can't stop you. But it's really not what I'm driving at and it's not what would result.

"Let the GOP kick you in the balls again because if you stand up for yourself, something bad might happen later" doesn't really resonate with me, especially when the bad thing that might happen is rather far-fetched. Admit two states and the GOP couldn't ever get a majority in the senate? History proves that wrong. As it is, they already have outsized power thanks to the way things are set up. Power seesaws 50/50, but this country is more like 45/55 when it comes to right-lean/left-lean. And hey, the GOP always could change its platform. It's not my fault if they've spent the last year hyper-focused on a smaller than normal base and would suffer in the short term.

By all indicators we are pretty evenly split, by the last polling done in 2019 with Americans identifying 37% Conservative, 24% Liberal and 35% Moderate with both the left and the right claiming the Moderate swathe in the middle agrees with them and thus putting their views in the majority. But taken in the aggregate, America has become more pro-gay rights, more pro-gun rights and more pro-life (on a personal if not legal level). I think a Democratic Party which is seen to engage in such a naked, cynical power grab (whatever their stated intentions at correcting Republican cheating) will be seen to be attempting the establishment of monopoly party control the likes of which we see in Venezuela and Turkey, and they will face a backlash that will cost them far more dearly and far more quickly than they anticipated.

After all remember what happened after the Affordable Care Act was pushed through a decade previous and the backlash the Democrats faced over that. And while a major change, the ACA was positively anodyne in comparison to admitting new states into the Union for no other reason than to gain safe Democratic seats and packing the Court with politically left-leaning judges and then propose changes to put the voting threshold at 60 in the Senate. That is a pure power grab. But not on behalf of a branch of government or even of a constituency. It only benefits the party in control and nothing more.

 

[Threegoofs]

Well, I’ve been in the **** Dems mode for awhile now and you supporting them in every aspect of everything they do is hardly a surprise. If Dems were in power now you’d support them filling the seat so spare me your phony indignance.

Thanks for letting me know what I would think in that hypothetical situation.

Youre wrong, as usual.

 

[Taylor]

I am for reducing the court to 7...eliminate the last 2 seats taken. It returns it to the original framework.

Actually, we don't have enough justices, which makes it so high stake at this point and so few cases are heard, because it is only 9.

Anything that tilts the court in favor of Democrats, right?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

I definitely agree. We should work to make the Supreme Court non partisan

l don’t see how the current set up serves anyone. It needs to be blown up end rebuilt. Court will just be how R’s legislate as they increasingly become a niche party.

 

[AmNat]

What would you replace it with?

Constitutional democracy. The people elect a President, and the President decides what the executive branch of the government does and does not do. If the co-equal Supreme Court disagrees, the President gives their opinion all the consideration it deserves.

 

[aociswundumho]

Constitutional democracy. The people elect a President, and the President decides what the executive branch of the government does and does not do. If the co-equal Supreme Court disagrees, the President gives their opinion all the consideration it deserves.

In that scenario, what would be the check on the executive branch's power? Seems to me the president already has way too much power even with judicial review.

 

[Overitall]

Constitutional democracy. The people elect a President, and the President decides what the executive branch of the government does and does not do. If the co-equal Supreme Court disagrees, the President gives their opinion all the consideration it deserves.

Are there checks and balances in this Constitutional Democracy? The purpose of the judicial branch is to determine the constitutionality of laws in order to protect the public from the abuses of the other two branches. If you leave it up to the opinion of the President he takes on the status of a tyrant. Imo.

 

[Overitall]

In that scenario, what would be the check on the executive branch's power? Seems to me the president already has way too much power even with judicial review.

Maybe I should defer to you. You’re quicker.

 

[Jean-s]

IMO the Republicans have already been quite busy "packing the court" by refusing hearings for nominees rightfully nominated by Obama. So the process has already started.

What the Republicans did to President Obama was wrong and they are showing how hypocritical they are by reversing their argument now that Donald Trump is in the White House. The solution is not for the Democrats to act like Republicans. Instead, the members of the Supreme Court ought to become less partisan and deal only with rare interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Naturally, given the politically conservative appointments by Republicans, for the court to act as the Founders intended, this might take another generation. Partisanship has already ruined Congress and it is close to doing the same to the Supreme Court. The Founders feared this development.

 

[AmNat]

In that scenario, what would be the check on the executive branch's power?

The President. Currently the federal bureaucracy is checked by the courts. They do not seem very effective at it (nor is there any reason to expect good oversight from people who explicitly deny personal responsibility for their actions).

Seems to me the president already has way too much power even with judicial review.

Have the last four years born this assessment out? It seems to me that the President has very little power over his alleged subordinates. Perhaps the bureaucracy would be less malignant if it had a single source of coherent purpose (as opposed to the natural tendency of a bureaucracy to grow solely for the sake of growth)?

 

[Mr Person]

To what end? If this were a clubhouse, it might make sense. When we are talking about the upper house of our federal legislature where decisions that affect our rights and liberties are made, the stakes are slightly higher wouldn't you say?

I argue that easy institutional obstructionism in which little can be accomplished without a high degree of consensus and horse-trading is safer to live under nine times out of ten than unchecked untrammeled lawmaking power.

By all indicators we are pretty evenly split, by the last polling done in 2019 with Americans identifying 37% Conservative, 24% Liberal and 35% Moderate with both the left and the right claiming the Moderate swathe in the middle agrees with them and thus putting their views in the majority. But taken in the aggregate, America has become more pro-gay rights, more pro-gun rights and more pro-life (on a personal if not legal level). I think a Democratic Party which is seen to engage in such a naked, cynical power grab (whatever their stated intentions at correcting Republican cheating) will be seen to be attempting the establishment of monopoly party control the likes of which we see in Venezuela and Turkey, and they will face a backlash that will cost them far more dearly and far more quickly than they anticipated.

After all remember what happened after the Affordable Care Act was pushed through a decade previous and the backlash the Democrats faced over that. And while a major change, the ACA was positively anodyne in comparison to admitting new states into the Union for no other reason than to gain safe Democratic seats and packing the Court with politically left-leaning judges and then propose changes to put the voting threshold at 60 in the Senate. That is a pure power grab. But not on behalf of a branch of government or even of a constituency. It only benefits the party in control and nothing more.

Admitting PR and DC would definitely gimp the GOP a bit. But there are also separate legitimate reasons for admitting them as states. I just didn't bother mentioning them.

That aside, I simply do not think that admitting them would convert the GOP to a permanent minority party. When the people have had enough of Dems, they go overwhelmingly for the GOP, and the GOP ends up in power. It's 4 senate votes, however many house votes. And to me "well, this new state is probably going to vote Dem most of the time" is not a great argument for keeping them out. If the Dems had those votes now, they'd have a one-vote majority.

As it is, the structure of things already favors the GOP, especially the electoral college. The GOP is the party who already exercises outsized power. It's why Bush and Trump could take the presidency despite losing the popular vote. Admitting PR and DC would balance that out more. I don't see it turning us into one-party rule. I see it as leveling a playing field that allows a minority of the total population to operate like it's half the population, and when it operates - or at least, the last 20-25 years of operation - cheats whenever it can.

Others have pointed to Reid's "nuclear option" as justification for other power-plays. But why'd he do that? Because the GOP was playing Garland with all sorts of other Obama nominees. Reid did that, so, how an I complain about the GOP returning serve, I am elsewhere told. My thoughts are: ok, he opened the door, but if he didn't what is the probability that the GOP wouldn't just do the same damn thing the moment it had power back and fill the courts with its nominees? Point being, this simply isn't a situation where it makes sense to argue that the GOP will play by the rules if the Dems sit on their hands, but won't if the Dems retaliate with stuff like what I was talking about.

I'll go as far as to be that if the polls are all wrong and the GOP sweeps this election, they'll expand the court and point to Democrat statements about doing the same as justification . . .

 

[Mr Person]

<snip>

Continued.



Yeah, I am arguing for a pure power grab. But not a power grab for power's sake. Rather, a pure power grab to offset a pure power grab. Then locking things in place so no more power grabs happen. If they got two justices in that they thought tended to render decisions that favored things Dems liked, then the balance would be the same as it was immediately after they nabbed Garland's seat. It wouldn't even become an advantage. Assuming they nominated what politicians consider liberal justices, it'd be 6-5 rather than 6-3. 6-5 as opposed to 5-4. Locking it in would make sure it wouldn't become a tit for tat.

I'll put it this way.... I've spent the decades since I started paying attention to politics advocating that the Dems take the high road, to not become what I (they?) oppose. Meanwhile, the GOP has been nakedly for power's sake since about, oh, I'd say 1997-98. When the push for a "permanent republican majority" was taken seriously, when Ailes set up Fox, etc.


Backlash: well, if they face a backlash that'll be the price they pay. And the fact that you think they will rather does support my point that doing this isn't some clear path to one-party rule. If there was a backlash, I'd think things would be better down the road.


But ultimately, I've gotten so sick of constantly arguing that the Democrats should take the high road, yadda yadda, and then watching the GOP find new ways to make naked power grabs. The GOP - the modern one - doesn't care about honor or decency. It's all about power. And the latest power grab massively unbalances the highest Court. My optimum is X "liberal" justices and X "conservative" justices, with one or three swing votes.

I'm finally willing to roll the dice. It's either get ****ed at every opportunity, or do something to regain ground and get ****ed at every opportunity later. Things are seriously broken in this country and I no longer think that leading by example can accomplish anything.


The GOP could still step back from the brink. They could still say "ok, we'll play by our own rules." But they won't. So what's to lose?

 

[aociswundumho]

The President. Currently the federal bureaucracy is checked by the courts. They do not seem very effective at it (nor is there any reason to expect good oversight from people who explicitly deny personal responsibility for their actions).

I agree, but it's better than nothing.

Have the last four years born this assessment out?

Yes. Consider Trump's eviction ban. It's an egregious property rights violation which allows deadbeats to live in somebody else's property rent free. How the hell does a US president have the power to prevent a landlord from evicting a deadbeat tenant?

It seems to me that the President has very little power over his alleged subordinates. Perhaps the bureaucracy would be less malignant if it had a single source of coherent purpose (as opposed to the natural tendency of a bureaucracy to grow solely for the sake of growth)?

Even Lenin hated bureaucracy because he couldn't control it, and he was someone who could execute anyone on the spot. If he couldn't control it, nobody can. Bureaucracy is intrinsic to the state, and bureaucrats will act in a way which serves their own interests, which always means expanding the size and scope of their respective agencies.