• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Democrats Could Pack the Supreme Court in 2021

EMNofSeattle

No Shame!
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
18,417
Reaction score
6,870
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
There are ways to go about it that can avoid an 'arms race', and I'm not sure worrying about what the GOP might do in retaliation makes much sense at this point. They already do whatever they can.
If the Republican judges are courageous enough they can just rule court packing unconstitutional and refuse to seat the packed judges.

States can begin open defiance of scotus rulings from a packed court, begin levying militias, etc

If you destroy the legitimacy of all institutions though it’s only a matter of time before someone caves or the shooting starts
 

EMNofSeattle

No Shame!
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
18,417
Reaction score
6,870
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The Garland nomination was different. You had a Democrat President and a Republican-controlled Senate. Now you have a Republican President and a Republican-controlled Senate. The US Constitution does not mention anything about when the Senate must give their "advice and consent," which means the Republican-controlled Senate can choose their own schedule.

Where the Republicans screwed up during the Garland nomination is they should have held an up or down vote before the end of the Session. They would have obviously voted to reject the nomination, but the US Constitution does require an up or down vote.

Whenever the President makes a nomination, the Senate is constitutionally obligated to vote on that nomination before the end of the Session in which the nomination was made, if possible.
I think McConnell was worried cowardly republicans might cave and vote for garland.
 

skeptic llc

Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2020
Messages
1,372
Reaction score
525
Location
PNW USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If the Republican judges are courageous enough they can just rule court packing unconstitutional and refuse to seat the packed judges.

States can begin open defiance of scotus rulings from a packed court, begin levying militias, etc

If you destroy the legitimacy of all institutions though it’s only a matter of time before someone caves or the shooting starts
And then the majority of the country can take up arms against them. Or perhaps we could attempt to be governed by laws instead of guns and civil war?
 

EMNofSeattle

No Shame!
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
18,417
Reaction score
6,870
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
And then the majority of the country can take up arms against them. Or perhaps we could attempt to be governed by laws instead of guns and civil war?
Majorities never pick up arms in any civil conflict. Ever. It never happens.

A the majority will do what they’re told after the fringes fight it out.

But that aside packing the court would be the end of law as we know it in this country. As it stands now we’re not governed by the constitution since the left has used to courts to illegally impose a right to abortion, homosexual marriage, transgenderism etc. you are arguing for authoritarian leftist dictatorship, not law
 

vesper

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2013
Messages
21,517
Reaction score
18,055
Location
Midwest
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Wow ....the only thing concerned about is packing the SC? Let me tell you that is just one of many issues that are at risk if the Democrats take the Senate and the Presidency. If they end up holding both chambers of Congress plus the presidency, there's a whole lot more at stake than packing the Supreme court. But once they do pack it, your 1st and 2nd Amendments will be violated right off the bat. The 4th will be trashed and the 10th will be deemed insignificant. Then they will make D.C. and other territories new states so they can start packing Congress with more members to their liking. They will also do away with the Electoral College which was designed to give fair representation to all in this Republic.
When that happens the Republic dies and is transformed into something it was never meant to be. All you voters in states sandwiched between the N.E. coast and the entire W. coast will be silenced most likely permanently and deemed forever irrelevant.
 

EMNofSeattle

No Shame!
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
18,417
Reaction score
6,870
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Wow ....the only thing concerned about is packing the SC? Let me tell you that is just one of many issues that are at risk if the Democrats take the Senate and the Presidency. If they end up holding both chambers of Congress plus the presidency, there's a whole lot more at stake than packing the Supreme court. But once they do pack it, your 1st and 2nd Amendments will be violated right off the bat. The 4th will be trashed and the 10th will be deemed insignificant. Then they will make D.C. and other territories new states so they can start packing Congress with more members to their liking. They will also do away with the Electoral College which was designed to give fair representation to all in this Republic.
When that happens the Republic dies and is transformed into something it was never meant to be. All you voters in states sandwiched between the N.E. coast and the entire W. coast will be silenced most likely permanently and deemed forever irrelevant.
I would say either the country breaks up or there’s civil war at that point.

You know what they’re going to do, they’re going to declare any criticism of Alphabet people politics is hate speech, in fact since they view all conservatives as racist then all ideas not of the left are hate speech, and their packed court will uphold this, churches will be taxed and then closed (Beto said this openly during democratic debate) then gun confiscation, but that won’t be enough, eventually the left will need and seek a final solution to right wing question.
 

vesper

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2013
Messages
21,517
Reaction score
18,055
Location
Midwest
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I would say either the country breaks up or there’s civil war at that point.

You know what they’re going to do, they’re going to declare any criticism of Alphabet people politics is hate speech, in fact since they view all conservatives as racist then all ideas not of the left are hate speech, and their packed court will uphold this, churches will be taxed and then closed (Beto said this openly during democratic debate) then gun confiscation, but that won’t be enough, eventually the left will need and seek a final solution to right wing question.
If the scenario I presented comes to fruition there will be a bloody battle.
 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,406
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
everytime they have tried to motion a rule change on the filibuster it has been filibustered. in fact there have been 3 attempts to get rid of the filibuster since 1907 when it was officially implemented. each time the motion was filibustered and died.

please look up actual history for facts not leftist wingnut sites that are based on emotion.
It only requires a majority vote as outlined in the “leftist” Congressional Research Office report.
 

EMNofSeattle

No Shame!
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
18,417
Reaction score
6,870
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It only requires a majority vote as outlined in the “leftist” Congressional Research Office report.
Unless the court just rules that it requires a constitutional amendment.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,569
Reaction score
2,699
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There you go. So packing the court is as constitutional as refusing to consider Garland? Meanwhile, let's not pretend adherence to centuries-old texts is the real driving force here. Rs moved the goalposts; now Ds might move the goalposts; it's just what happens when government becomes a naked bid for power.
The goalposts were never moved. Had a Republican been President and Democrats controlled the Senate they would have also refused to confirm a Supreme Court nominee during an election year, and have already done so. You are attempting to do what Democrats do best - apply a double-standard. The Republican controlled Senate did to Garland precisely what the Democrat controlled Senate did to Reagan when he nominated Bork, or when Nixon nominated G. Harrold Carswell and Clement Haynsworth Jr.

Why would you expect Republicans to behave any differently from the Democrats? The Democratic Party established the goalposts, now they are whining like children because the Republicans are using the precedent established by the Democratic Party. Once again demonstrating that the Democrats are defined by their hypocrisy.
 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,406
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The goalposts were never moved. Had a Republican been President and Democrats controlled the Senate they would have also refused to confirm a Supreme Court nominee during an election year, and have already done so. You are attempting to do what Democrats do best - apply a double-standard. The Republican controlled Senate did to Garland precisely what the Democrat controlled Senate did to Reagan when he nominated Bork, or when Nixon nominated G. Harrold Carswell and Clement Haynsworth Jr.

Why would you expect Republicans to behave any differently from the Democrats? The Democratic Party established the goalposts, now they are whining like children because the Republicans are using the precedent established by the Democratic Party. Once again demonstrating that the Democrats are defined by their hypocrisy.
How was Gorsuch confirmed?
 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,406
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Gorsuch was confirmed by a Republican-controlled Senate with a 54-45 vote. What has that got to do with anything?
The GOP senate changed the filibuster rules to only require a majority vote for Gorsuch. Is that moving the goalposts?


 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,569
Reaction score
2,699
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The GOP senate changed the filibuster rules to only require a majority vote for Gorsuch. Is that moving the goalposts?


Incorrect. Sen. Harry Reid changed the filibuster rules in the Senate in 2013. You should know, you posted his changes from 2013 just recently. Which is why I liked your post. It explained in detail how Sen. Reid made the changes.
 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,406
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Incorrect. Sen. Harry Reid changed the filibuster rules in the Senate in 2013. You should know, you posted his changes from 2013 just recently. Which is why I liked your post. It explained in detail how Sen. Reid made the changes.
Did Reid change the filibuster rules for supreme court nominations?
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,569
Reaction score
2,699
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Did Reid change the filibuster rules for supreme court nominations?
Sen. Reid got rid of the filibuster for all presidential appointees. It had been a threat Republicans have made in the past, but they never followed through with it. Sen. Reid did.

Frankly, I happen to agree with Sen. Reid. The US Constitution requires the Senate to give the President "advice and consent" on all appointments. Which translates into an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate. So no appointee can be constitutionally filibustered, since the purpose of a filibuster is to prevent a floor vote. That not only include justices and judges, but also ambassadors, and cabinet members. The President is constitutionally required to make a nomination, and the Senate is constitutionally required to provide an up or down floor vote. Preferably during the same Session of Congress in which the nomination was made.
 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,406
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Sen. Reid got rid of the filibuster for all presidential appointees. It had been a threat Republicans have made in the past, but they never followed through with it. Sen. Reid did.

Frankly, I happen to agree with Sen. Reid. The US Constitution requires the Senate to give the President "advice and consent" on all appointments. Which translates into an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate. So no appointee can be constitutionally filibustered, since the purpose of a filibuster is to prevent a floor vote. That not only include justices and judges, but also ambassadors, and cabinet members. The President is constitutionally required to make a nomination, and the Senate is constitutionally required to provide an up or down floor vote. Preferably during the same Session of Congress in which the nomination was made.
He did not get rid of it for supreme court nominations... That was McConnell...
 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,406
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Sen. Reid got rid of the filibuster for all presidential nominations. That includes Supreme Court justices.
Nonsense...

They voted on a rule change in the senate to remove the filibuster for supreme court nominations... How about a video of the rule change?

 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
56,621
Reaction score
14,344
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It only requires a majority vote as outlined in the “leftist” Congressional Research Office report.
the motion itself can be filibustered not sure what part of this you don't seem to understand.
this is per the rule itself.

in order to change the rule a motion must be made to change it. that motion and the order can be filibustered.
not that democrats care about logic and reason.

To remove the filibuster would be very stupid for them to do. Why? because at some point in time they will lose control
of the senate and be at their own mercy of not being able to stop legislation that they otherwise would have been able to stop.

You guys need to stop thinking with your emotions and start thinking with your heads for a change.
The fact that you have not realized how undoing protections built in to stop majority rule has destroyed things is amazing.
The whole entire reason that Kavanaugh was appointed in the first place is because Harry Reid went and got rid of the filibuster rule
for judicial nominee's. Then they want to howl and complain when that same rule is used against them.
 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,406
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
the motion itself can be filibustered not sure what part of this you don't seem to understand.
this is per the rule itself.

in order to change the rule a motion must be made to change it. that motion and the order can be filibustered.
not that democrats care about logic and reason.
Complete BS.... The filibuster has already been removed on certain senate actions TWICE... The same procedural grounds can eliminate the filibuster altogether... Here is McConnell using the procedure to remove the filibuster for Justice Gorsuch's nomination...


To remove the filibuster would be very stupid for them to do. Why? because at some point in time they will lose control
of the senate and be at their own mercy of not being able to stop legislation that they otherwise would have been able to stop.

You guys need to stop thinking with your emotions and start thinking with your heads for a change.
The fact that you have not realized how undoing protections built in to stop majority rule has destroyed things is amazing.
The whole entire reason that Kavanaugh was appointed in the first place is because Harry Reid went and got rid of the filibuster rule
for judicial nominee's. Then they want to howl and complain when that same rule is used against them.
You seem very confused... Reid DID NOT eliminate the filibuster for supreme court nominations... McConnell did that.. see the actual video above...

It's called the nuclear option for a reason...
 

newpublius

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2014
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
285
Location
Boynton Beach, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
In light of Mitch McConnell's stonewalling in 2016, if McConnell goes through with this vote, then the Democrats should wield their 2020 hard power to remedy the SCOTUS makeup inflicted upon us by McConnell.
Not giving Garland a hearing wasn't nice, but they weren't going to say yes and they aren't constitutionally obligated to do so. The response is to return the favor if a Republican President nominates a justice with a Democratic Senate. But court packing? That's disproportionate and instant political illegitimacy.

"The president is to nominate, and thereby has the sole power to select for office; but his nomination cannot confer office, unless approved by a majority of the senate. His responsibility and theirs is thus complete, and distinct. He can never be compelled to yield to their appointment of a man unfit for office; and, on the other hand, they may withhold their advice and consent from any candidate, who in their judgment does not possess due qualifications for office." -- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution.

Bottom line, to get an appointee through requires a constitutional tandem. Obama had the political clout to do so towards the beginning of his term. Towards the end of his term, elections happened that had the consequence where he was being affirmatively 'checked' -- that's basic checks and balances.
 

newpublius

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2014
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
285
Location
Boynton Beach, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
something required by statute.
But then that statute can be repealed or simply pass a subsequent statute that conflicts with it. The constitutional process to pass a statute cannot be changed -- by statute because a subsequently passed statute that conflicts takes precedence.
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
39,795
Reaction score
22,702
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
But then that statute can be repealed or simply pass a subsequent statute that conflicts with it. The constitutional process to pass a statute cannot be changed -- by statute because a subsequently passed statute that conflicts takes precedence.
Nice editing down, but what I said was:


______________
Or both together.

Plus, and I'm not sure this would fly since I never really had cause to think about it before, but after doing those two they could then try to pass legislation requiring that judicial confirmations and changes to the court's size must be pass by sixty votes, not a simple majority (or 64, once DC/PR are in), ie, to take a now-eroded senate rule* and turn it into something required by statute.



_________________________
*And, you might wonder why there's a 60-vote rule in the Senate, when it just takes a straight majority in the House to pass a bill. The answer is that that's what the Founders intended. The Senate was designed to be the "cooling saucer," where the two parties were forced to work together. That 60-vote threshold ensures that in order to pass legislation, the majority party needs to get some buy-in from the minority. However, that has been eroding. Back in 2013, Democrats, who at the time controlled the Senate, were so frustrated by the slow pace of confirmation of then-President Obama's nominees that they pulled the trigger on what was known as the "nuclear option." This essentially changed the rules in the Senate and busted the 60-vote threshold down to a simple majority of 51 votes for presidential nominees only. Fast-forward to 2017, when Republicans chipped a little more away from the 60-vote requirement when they said that Supreme Court nominees would also only need 51 votes to be confirmed.

______________



You don't point to any provision in the constitution that says "The constitutional process to pass a statute cannot be changed -- by statute because a subsequently passed statute that conflicts takes precedence." You just..say it. Is there some provision I'm not aware of explicitly stating that laws pass by a simple majority? Because I didn't see that. I suspect if you look you'll only find an explicit vote requirement when it comes to overriding a video, which it says two thirds. Otherwise, it just generally refers to things passing. It doesn't say things pass by a majority no matter what full stop.

I'm not aware of anything that says they could not first expand the court with a simple majority, then pass a law saying all future legislative changes to the court's make up require a supermajority, and that the law saying so itself cannot be repealed without a supermajority.

It's not like they have not done this before. What do you think the rules around filibusters and a requirement of 60 votes to break one did? That artificially raised the floor from 51 votes to 60. There's no reason a statute can't do what a mere rule did. And a statute would have a lot more staying power than a rule.
 
Top Bottom