How Democrats Could Pack the Supreme Court in 2021

[newpublius]

No Constitutional Amendment needed (Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1)

But the whole point of moving the capital from Philadelphia and New York is that the capital NOT be in a state.

On top of which DC was formally a part of MD, Arlington was ceded back to VA.

I'm not saying it ultimately couldn't be done, but DC is sketchy.

 

[iguanaman]

Biden won't go for packing the courts. So Trump will get his pick, McConnell and Co will vote for them, and we'll have to deal with the consequences. Trying to court pack is a bad idea and would only start an arms race of sorts.

I disagree. Mitch has illegally deprived Democrats of 2 SC court picks while packing the rest of the courts with 100's of unqualified reactionary judges. The balance needs to be restored before this nation is set back 100 years and the courts lose the support of the American people. I am not nearly as worried about an "arms race" as that outcome. If Roe vs Wade is overturned there will be hell to pay.

 

[mrjurrs]

True, it does not place a number on the Supreme Court justices. It requires both houses of Congress to make that determination, which the President may also veto if not passed with a two-thirds majority. The last time Congress considered changing the number of Supreme Court justices was in 1936, after the Supreme Court held 11 of the 15 New Deal programs to be unconstitutional. FDR asked Congress to increase the number of justices, and a Democrat-controlled Congress flat out refused. They also refused FDR's request for a mandatory retirement at age 75. As a result FDR had all nine Supreme Court justices replaced between 1937 and 1943, whether they wanted to be replaced or not.

The president can veto any congressional action, even a unanimous one. It just wouldn't survive a veto override.

 

[iguanaman]

Simply but it wasn't 'indecent' for a Republican-controlled Senate to stop a Democratic appointee.

Its about legitimacy.

There is no decency left in Mitch's Senate. A Presidents picks for the SC is traditionally bipartisan with the nod going to the nominee unless there is legitimate concern about the nominee's competency or morality. The Senate is not charged with picking who should be on the court, the President is.

 

[mrjurrs]

But the whole point of moving the capital from Philadelphia and New York is that the capital NOT be in a state.

On top of which DC was formally a part of MD, Arlington was ceded back to VA.

I'm not saying it ultimately couldn't be done, but DC is sketchy.

Neither of your points diminish the plain text of the Article. DC has a greater population than 3 states, yet have no voting representation in Congress. DC statehood is the right thing to do (imo)

 

[newpublius]

Neither of your points diminish the plain text of the Article. DC has a greater population than 3 states, yet have no voting representation in Congress. DC statehood is the right thing to do (imo)

Then retrocede back to MD.

 

[BlueTex]

Then retrocede back to MD.

Or admit all but a portion as a new state. Nothing in the constitution prohibits this.

 

[mrjurrs]

Then retrocede back to MD.

Based on what?

 

[mrjurrs]

Or admit all but a portion as a new state. Nothing in the constitution prohibits this.

And nothing in the Constitution requires it. A federal district was argued for in the Federalist Papers, but they have no constitutional standing.

 

[newpublius]

Or admit all but a portion as a new state. Nothing in the constitution prohibits this.

You might need MD's consent.

And then TX will cite the treaty where it can break into 5 states. (Its a thing actually apparently)

 

[newpublius]

And nothing in the Constitution requires it. A federal district was argued for in the Federalist Papers, but they have no constitutional standing.

They have been cited many times, ultimately you can't get better evidence of intent than reading their thoughts.

 

[BlueTex]

You might need MD's consent.

Why would MD need to consent? They ceded the land to the federal government.

And then TX will cite the treaty where it can break into 5 states. (Its a thing actually apparently)

Good luck getting that through a democrat congress...

 

[newpublius]

Why would MD need to consent? They ceded the land to the federal government.

It may have been ceded with a purpose, ie is ceded to feds subject to feds using it as a capital district, if not used for that purpose, it reverts to MD.

I haven't seen those docs, but I DO strongly suspect they ceded it subject to that condition.

Good luck getting that through a democrat congress...

Don't worry its just electoral college packing, nothing more. ;-)

Actually I think TX simply claims they have a right to do it because they joined by treaty.

 

[BlueTex]

Actually I think TX simply claims they have a right to do it because they joined by treaty.

Have you looked at the demographics of Texas? What makes you think all five states would be GOP controlled?

 

[Glitch]

The president can veto any congressional action, even a unanimous one. It just wouldn't survive a veto override.

It takes a very stupid President indeed to veto any bill that passes Congress with a two-thirds majority.

It is much more common for Presidents to sign veto-proof bills, even when they disagree with them. Because then they can include a Signing Statement expressing their displeasure with the bill. Like Bush43 did with the McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform Act." Bush43 knew the bill was unconstitutional, but it passed with a veto-proof majority. So he signed the bill and drafted a Signing Statement expressing how he felt the bill was unconstitutional. It turns out that Bush43 was right. The Supreme Court tossed the unconstitutional bill for violating the First Amendment in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

Other less scrupulous Presidents will try to claim credit for bills passed with a veto-proof majority, even after that President vetoed the bill several times in the past. Like Clinton did with the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. He first vetoed the bill in January 1996. Then he vetoed it again in June, and threatened to veto it a third time. However, in July Congress passed the Welfare Reform Act with a veto-proof majority. Suddenly Clinton was in favor of the bill and even had to audacity to claim it was his idea.

 

[mrjurrs]

They have been cited many times, ultimately you can't get better evidence of intent than reading their thoughts.

If you are a strict constructionist, but citing does not mean standing.

 

[mrjurrs]

You might need MD's consent.

And then TX will cite the treaty where it can break into 5 states. (Its a thing actually apparently)

Hadn't thought of that, but I don't think so. I believe that the TX treaty (it is a thing) ran out of support when TX rejoined the Union.

 

[mrjurrs]

It takes a very stupid President indeed to veto any bill that passes Congress with a two-thirds majority.

It is much more common for Presidents to sign veto-proof bills, even when they disagree with them. Because then they can include a Signing Statement expressing their displeasure with the bill. Like Bush43 did with the McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform Act." Bush43 knew the bill was unconstitutional, but it passed with a veto-proof majority. So he signed the bill and drafted a Signing Statement expressing how he felt the bill was unconstitutional. It turns out that Bush43 was right. The Supreme Court tossed the unconstitutional bill for violating the First Amendment in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

Other less scrupulous Presidents will try to claim credit for bills passed with a veto-proof majority, even after that President vetoed the bill several times in the past. Like Clinton did with the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. He first vetoed the bill in January 1996. Then he vetoed it again in June, and threatened to veto it a third time. However, in July Congress passed the Welfare Reform Act with a veto-proof majority. Suddenly Clinton was in favor of the bill and even had to audacity to claim it was his idea.

Citizens was one of the worst decisions in SCOTUS history. You know how you can tell a corporation is not a person? They don't die.

 

[Glitch]

Citizens was one of the worst decisions in SCOTUS history. You know how you can tell a corporation is not a person? They don't die.

I disagree. It was the only constitutional decision the court could have made, but I understand the sick and twisted desire of the anti-American left to abolish the First Amendment. The mentally-deranged left always hate those who disagree with them. Take the of the Speaker of the House as an example, declaring the Republican Party to be "enemies of the State" because she didn't get her way. If you Democrats are so keen to declare war against Republicans - again - we are more than happy to oblige. If you recall, it did not work out very well for Democrats the last time they waged war against the US.

 

[mrjurrs]

I disagree. It was the only constitutional decision the court could have made, but I understand the sick and twisted desire of the anti-American left to abolish the First Amendment. The mentally-deranged left always hate those who disagree with them. Take the of the Speaker of the House as an example, declaring the Republican Party to be "enemies of the State" because she didn't get her way. If you Democrats are so keen to declare war against Republicans - again - we are more than happy to oblige. If you recall, it did not work out very well for Democrats the last time they waged war against the US.

Your conflation of corporate rights and individual rights is amusing. The rest is just childish.

 

[Luce]

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.

Absolutely. 13 seats, all new seats being dems around age 40.

 

[Luce]

I disagree. It was the only constitutional decision the court could have made,

As much as I hate to say it, you're correct.

 

[newpublius]

Citizens was one of the worst decisions in SCOTUS history. You know how you can tell a corporation is not a person? They don't die.

Hehe, but corporations aren't actually people, its shorthand for the LEGAL FICTION of SEPARATE corporate personhood.

And there are good reasons to due that. Now at the end of the day there is a reason why the phrase 'for purposes of' is used in law and why FOR PURPOSES OF THE DUE PROCESS clause, corporations must be treated as people and entitled to Due Process.

Can the government unilaterally seize the NY Times? Of course not, they must provide DUE PROCESS.

Personally I don't really care if you want to analyze the case as a free speech case or a free press case. At the end of the day one MUST acknowledge that Michael Moore made a film critical of George Bush, Fahrenheit 911, and he did so utilizing the corporate form (Dog Eat Dog Inc was the name of the corporation) and unlike David Bossie, Michael Moore is actually good at making movies. The right of either corporation, Citizens United or Dog Eat Dog Inc, to produce content criticizing not only a candidate for public office but a seated official in the government (Citizens United attached Hillary Clinton while she was seeking the Democratic nomination against Obama while she was a seated Senator while Fahrenheit 911 obviously attached the sitting President running for reelection) lies at the very CORE of the I Amendment, its the absolute highest form of protected speech.

No one disputes that corporations, such as the New York Times Company, can editorialize during an election.

 

[Glitch]

Your conflation of corporate rights and individual rights is amusing. The rest is just childish.

As I previously posted, there is no such thing as "corporate rights." The Bill of Rights contain individual rights only.

 

[newpublius]

As I previously posted, there is no such thing as "corporate rights." The Bill of Rights contain individual rights only.

Corporations exist as an expression of the individuals exercising their fundamental right of association.

Nevertheless XIV Amendment does have an Equal Protection and Due Process clause that protects 'persons' and in Santa Clara it states: "One of the points made and discussed at length in the brief of counsel for defendants in error was that 'corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.' Before argument, Mr. Chief Justice Waite said: The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does" -- https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/118/394.html