Finally: Talk of expanding the Supreme Court

[Grokmaster]

Yes. When the other team is cheating, you can't just sit there and let them.

It wasn't "cheating", anymore than the democrats in 2007 were.

 

[jnug]

Like Schumer exhorting the Democrat Senate to do the same in 2007? MORE THAN 19 months before the POTUS election?

When he wasn't Democratic majority leader in the Senate, Harry Reid was the Senate Majority Leader at the time and was NOT for postponing Senate deliberations for new SC Justices though Shumer was. The dems DID NOT postpone any Bush SC nominees.

 

[VanceMack]

There is no limit to the ridiculous irony of the idiot left. The discussion held ON PARTISAN GROUNDS...BY partisans, and in this case democrats, is that they are upset that THE OTHER GUYS have been partisan.

Holy ****...is it possible these people truly lack the capacity to SEE THEMSELVES?

:lamo

 

[Bullseye]

2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court - POLITICO

Good. The Supreme Cult's power has to be cut down.

And I know right wingers and "kawnstitutional" purists will try and compare this to the attempt to circumvent separation of powers by an emergency declaration, but it needs to be said there is a different between doing it for the sake of rights and social justice versus doing it for racist and bigoted policies.

It's good to see Democrats taking the kid gloves off to fight a regressive agenda.

And you assume the added justices won't form their own cult? Wouldn't it be ironic if the Dems succeeded and more conservative justices were appointed?

 

[Harshaw]

Yes. When the other team is cheating, you can't just sit there and let them.

So, altering the composition of the Supreme Court is purely a political game for you. Gotcha.

 

[jnug]

We have expanded the SC in the past and I am not necessarily opposed to it. However the process is now so utterly screwed up that it would require a top to bottom analysis before anybody did anything.

- Senators are no longer allowed to Blue Card nominees. That always seemed like a sensible process to me now utterly ignored (another McConnell move). Actually Senators can make them but McConnell has chosen to ignore them.
- As a subset of the Blue Card argument, we appear to be losing the linkage between the Circuit Court jurisdictions and nominations to the SC
- Busting out the 60 vote threshold may or may not have made sense but using it as a political football makes no sense.
- Using obtuse and strained logic to postpone nominations makes no sense at all. Establish a standard and make that the standard. I would offer that the standard should be either the last 3 or the last 6 months of a President's term, not 9-12 months or more which is patently absurd.

All of that and more needs to be fleshed out and resolved before any effort should be made to expand the Court. These are actually not difficult issues if not for partisanship. The 60 vote threshold for SC should be the only difficult issue to resolve. In addition we should consider whether we should go back to the 60 vote threshold for all Judgeships.

 

[Vidi]

Like Schumer exhorting the Democrat Senate to do the same in 2007? MORE THAN 19 months before the POTUS election?

Sorry Grok that’s not how that went down.

But let’s pretend it did for a second. Does that forgive what McConnell did? Does that somehow make it ok? If both sides are corrupt, does that mean no one is corrupt?

I’m new, so you don’t know me yet. Sure I fall to the left side of the aisle, but if the left is wrong, I’ll say so. LOUDLY. And if the Right is right? I’ll say so as well.

What McConnell did was wrong. Brilliant political move, but just wrong.

If the Democrats were talking about expanding the Supreme Court because it was right heavy through legitimate means, I would oppose the expansion.

 

[Vidi]

In any case, if anyone's behind this idea claiming it's because you want "balance," but are angry because a liberal judge -- Garland -- didn't replace a conservative Justice -- Scalia -- and thus tilting the Court liberal, you're not fooling anyone. It's not "balance" you want. It's a liberal court.

Justice Kennedy was the balance.If Obama had gotten his nomination, liberal judge replaces conservative judge. Then Trump gets his, hard right judge replaces moderate right judge who sided with the liberals just as much as he did with the conservatives.


But hey why should a president be allowed to nominate in an election year right?

Because by denying that duty of the job to Obama made him only 3/5 a President.

 

[Praxas]

I would oppose this if McConnell hasn’t blocked the last president from putting someone on the court when there was a vacancy.

Now I feel like the court has been imbalanced through trickery and maybe expanding the court will bring back the balance

Your assuming of course the increase in SCOTUS judges would be to balance the court and not imbalance it. There is nothing to say the court couldn't be further imbalanced by this.

 

[Harshaw]

If Obama had gotten his nomination, liberal judge replaces conservative judge.

Yes, which would have shifted the balance to liberal. 3 conservatives, 5 liberals, 1 swing.

 

[Moderate Right]

2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court - POLITICO

Good. The Supreme Cult's power has to be cut down.

And I know right wingers and "kawnstitutional" purists will try and compare this to the attempt to circumvent separation of powers by an emergency declaration, but it needs to be said there is a different between doing it for the sake of rights and social justice versus doing it for racist and bigoted policies.

It's good to see Democrats taking the kid gloves off to fight a regressive agenda.

Liberals have an active fantasy life. I'll give them that. This ain't never gonna hapin.

 

[jnug]

Liberals have an active fantasy life. I'll give them that. This ain't never gonna hapin.

Oh it might very well happen...as long as it happens for the right reasons and under the right conditions. The whole process has been turned on its head by Senatorial Leadership fiat and that is flat wrong. Much as to be fixed first.

 

[Moderate Right]

Sorry, but the Dems are not powerful enough to get this done. They should have thought about doing this back in 2009 instead of ****ing the country over with Obamacare.

But but but the left were going to be in power forever. The Republican party was dead, never to be heard from again.

 

[Moderate Right]

Only you would look at a proposal to expand the Supreme Court and conclude that it would "cut down" the Court's "power."

Never mind that you think opposing a nakedly political move by Congress and the President to alter the composition of the Supreme Court would constitute an "attempt to circumvent separation of powers."

Yeah. Maybe we should expand the Supreme Court right now. Let's increase it to 15 members and Trump can nominate the remaining six. All we need is Democratic approval. How about it lefties?

 

[OrphanSlug]

This seems very reactionary because of what seats Trump has filled so far, over any sense of expanding the Supreme Court because of some perceived fault in how is operates. Said another way this seems like a ploy to get more liberal leaning judges into the Supreme Court by expanding it to 11, or 13 or however many they can expand it to in order to lean the whole court another direction (assuming they win in 2020 so that Trump does not fill those seats as well.)

From my chair it seems all we are doing is expanding the seats available but only once sent through the same political spin machine they 9 go through now.

"Crisis of confidence"... i.e., we do not like who is there.

 

[Moderate Right]

It's a naked power grab. If the left wants to appoint justices, let them win more elections.

Naked is right. But, if that's what they really want then we should let Trump nominate 6 new justices right now.

 

[AGENT J]

2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court - POLITICO

Good. The Supreme Cult's power has to be cut down.

And I know right wingers and "kawnstitutional" purists will try and compare this to the attempt to circumvent separation of powers by an emergency declaration, but it needs to be said there is a different between doing it for the sake of rights and social justice versus doing it for racist and bigoted policies.

It's good to see Democrats taking the kid gloves off to fight a regressive agenda.

Sigh . . there should be no warning about the supreme court, it shouldn't be used as a political tool or weaponized. Thats part of the problem. Yes what Mitch did and started in recent times was vile and repulsive but multiple wrongs dont make a right.

anyway

i have talked about SCOTUS for years saying im good with 9 but would be ok with 11 and think it would be better. BUT if that expansion happens instantly i would want the appointments to come from each side (major parties) at the time its done. But i would prefer that it was done instead, one at a time during presidential cycles.

also i support limits being discussed and constructed . . possible age of 70 and or 24 years (6 presidential cycles)

next id like there to be actual minimum requirements of service/practice. maybe something like 7 years as a judge or 14 as a lawyer or combinations of such etc etc . .not sure what it should be but there should be something for the highest court of the land.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Maybe they could have a SC Justice for each gender, race, and Congressional District combination. That way everyone can have a favorite.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Doesn't matter to me much either way. We have changed the number of justices multiple times. Apart from the Republicans' and Democrats' stupid power games, I can't really see any downsides to increasing the number of justices. I don't think we should ever reduce the number, though.

 

[Harshaw]

"Crisis of confidence"... i.e., we do not like who is there.

That's what it is.

Anyone who's into this idea, or into any idea which radically changes a branch of government, should ask themselves this question:

Is this a change I'd be comfortable with if the other side did it?

If not, then it's a likely a very bad change, and your motivations for doing it are purely partisan.

 

[jnug]

also i support limits being discussed and constructed . . possible age of 70 and or 24 years (6 presidential cycles)

next id like there to be actual minimum requirements of service/practice. maybe something like 7 years as a judge or 14 as a lawyer or combinations of such etc etc . .not sure what it should be but there should be something for the highest court of the land.

Well I actually have a hard time with old codgers regardless of where they are in government. Somebody should be checking their medicine cabinets. But if you don't like the politicization of the Court, Term Limits would bring a higher degree of politicization of the Court than we have ever seen before...likely an impossible, unmanageable and wholly counterproductive level of it.

I like your other point though. A lack of a standard for who can be nominated is obviously an issue.

 

[AGENT J]

Well I actually have a hard time with old codgers regardless of where they are in government. Somebody should be checking their medicine cabinets. But if you don't like the politicization of the Court, Term Limits would bring a higher degree of politicization of the Court than we have ever seen before...likely an impossible, unmanageable and wholly counterproductive level of it.

I like your other point though. A lack of a standard for who can be nominated is obviously an issue.

i disagree that an age limit/service time limit along with requirements would bring more politics but i guess anything is possible.

 

[Vidi]

Yes, which would have shifted the balance to liberal. 3 conservatives, 5 liberals, 1 swing.

You’re correct. I miscounted. My apologies.


So as long as it shifted the court to conservative, McConnels blocking of a lawfully elected sitting President is ok?

 

[<alt>doxygen]

What McConnell did was a nakedly political move.

But it was also 1) an intended exercise of separation of powers, and 2) didn't alter the composition of the court; it was entirely within the existing structure.

So, while a partisan move, there's no comparison on the terms I stated for the purposes I stated it.

I accept your clarification, but I find it wanting in several respects. What McConnell did was to toss a chuck of long standing tradition/decorum for partisan gain. There is obviously no rule saying how quickly a judge must be replaced following a death on the court.

I do remember the tit-for-tat with Reed that preceded that move McConnell made.

I don't agree with McConnell's actions during the Obama presidency (or Reeds, but Reed was responding to McConnell blocking things), and I would not approve of adding justices to the court for any purpose. Dead judges should be replaced, asap. That's a crap shoot, as it should be. I also think the for-life appointments need to go, personally.

 

[Mr Person]

It's a naked power grab. If the left wants to appoint justices, let them win more elections.

You didn't have a problem with the "naked power grab" the GOP orchestrated by refusing to vote on an Obama appointee for nearly a full year, gambling that they would win the next election and then pack it with hard right people instead.

(And don't worry, I've already heard the reeking dishonest excuse right wing media fed to right wing internet posters on that front before. Sorry, but the fact that no one was nominated with exactly as many days before an election as Garland was doesn't mean ****).




Why pretend to have a scruple now? If the Dems expand the number of justices to pack the court, it wouldn't be any different in effect than the GOP refusing to carry out its constitutional duty to provide advice and consent, let alone to actually vote on, a nominee just so see if they can then pack the court later. If the GOP hadn't made its naked power grab, we wouldn't be having this is exchange.

:shrug:

Lesson of the Day: when you keep voting for politicians that take the low road to screw "the left", you actively encourage "the left" doing the same kind of things your politicians did.

Lesson of the Day 2: when you keep voting for politicians that take the low road to screw "the left", your pretense of scruple is transparent and you lack standing to whinge if "the left" swings back.