Progressives pledge to keep pushing Biden to expand court

[Athanasius68]

If it's not illegal then it's not abuse of power.

Power can be abused. Doesn't mean whatever was done was illegal.

 

[Cardinal]

I was pretty disappointed when Joe finally crushed Bernie and Liz. I have been super impressed since securing the nom. I think Biden gets it. I believe him when he says Charlottesville drove him. He’s old, he has nothing left to earn or prove. He really didn’t need this. I think you’re right - he’s going to accept the will of the voters, and I think..maybe...if we could prove it, that’s what he would like too. His fury at Trump has been targeted and earned.

You don't always get what you want. But what we got, for what it's worth, is a candidate who has actually been incredibly good at campaigning, and that right there is worth its weight in gold. Warren was my preferred candidate, but that doesn't mean much if she wasn't going to win the general. And honestly, and knowing what I know now, I'm not sure she would have.

 

[Cardinal]

Power can be abused. Doesn't mean whatever was done was illegal.

If it's not illegal then whatever.

 

[Athanasius68]

We're in that mess now. Even if Democrats occupy every seat of the House, the Senate and the White House, the courts are a firewall for literally every legislative and policy decision Democrats want. That includes voting rights, EPA regulation, climate change and health care plans. All DOA.

Power grab. As it has been said, the Constitution is not compatible with the Progressive agenda.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

You don't always get what you want. But what we got, for what it's worth, is a candidate who has actually been incredibly good at campaigning, and that right there is worth its weight in gold. Warren was my preferred candidate, but that doesn't mean much if she wasn't going to win the general. And honestly, and knowing what I know now, I'm not sure she would have.

I have had the same nagging doubts. There’s a reason Black folks in our base told everyone “It’s gotta be Biden.“ They know white folks better than white folks. I’m grateful.

(Sigh...Liz. Greatest potus of our lifetime. Sigh.)

 

[Cardinal]

Power grab. As it has been said, the Constitution is not compatible with the Progressive agenda.

"...the Constitution is not compatible with the Progressive agenda." Interesting statement. Where in the Constitution is it said that adding court seats in not allowed?

 

[Bullseye]

Progressives pledge to keep pushing Biden to expand court

WASHINGTON (AP) — Since Joe Biden ran away with the Democratic presidential nomination in March, leading progressives have accepted him — sometimes grudgingly — as their party's leader...

apnews.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — Since Joe Biden ran away with the Democratic presidential nomination in March, leading progressives have accepted him — sometimes grudgingly — as their party’s leader. But, in the final weeks of the campaign, the Supreme Court vacancy is threatening to inflame old divides.

Some activists on the left are pressing Biden to endorse expanding the number of high court justices should he win the White House and Democrats take control of the Senate. But Biden, who ran a relatively centrist primary campaign, hasn’t embraced those calls, worried they may intensify the nation’s partisan split.
=========================================================
I have mixed feelings. Let's see how it goes. Sometimes these hyper-conservative justices surprise us with their centrist & leftist decisions.

Good point. Although we frequently think every SCOTUS ruling is conservatives vs liberals the actuality is justices often crossover to join colleagues of the other slant. Even many 5-4 rulings are mixes of lib and con justices. Goresuch for instance ruffled right-wing feathers a while back for his opinion on sexual identity within equal rights. Roberts has wandered off the RW reservation a couple of times as well.

Nine is a good number IMHO. Enough diversity of opinion but not to unweildy for discussions.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

"...the Constitution is not compatible with the Progressive agenda." Interesting statement. Where in the Constitution is it said that adding court seats in not allowed?

RIght next to the part where it says “All Democratic mail in ballots must be forever voided lest the DemoIT’S A REPUBLIC fall broken forever”

 

[Athanasius68]

"...the Constitution is not compatible with the Progressive agenda." Interesting statement. Where in the Constitution is it said that adding court seats in not allowed?

It doesn't. But as you admit, its purpose is to ensure there are no legal challenges to whatever Progressives wish to accomplish.

 

[Athanasius68]

RIght next to the part where it says “All Democratic mail in ballots must be forever voided lest the DemoIT’S A REPUBLIC fall broken forever”

The news tonight out of PA seems to indicate a voiding of Republican mail in ballots...

 

[Cardinal]

It doesn't. But as you admit, its purpose is to ensure there are no legal challenges to whatever Progressives wish to accomplish.

Okay, so when you said "the Constitution is not compatible with the Progressive agenda," you were lying. That's surprising because you never lie.

Oh wait, you lie absolutely all the time. My mistake.

 

[lurchadams]

Why would it be blocked if it doesn't violate the Constitution or laws. We all know Congress is dysfunctional. imo, most members are putting Party ahead of what is good for the country.

So you're saying that every SCOTUS justice who voted to uphold the ACA mandate during the Obama administration was violating the constitution?

 

[Athanasius68]

Okay, so when you said "the Constitution is not compatible with the Progressive agenda," you were lying. That's surprising because you never lie.

Oh wait, you lie absolutely all the time. My mistake.

Not at all-- as you point out, SCOTUS stands in the way of the Progressive agenda.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

The news tonight out of PA seems to indicate a voiding of Republican mail in ballots...

No it doesn’t.

 

[Cardinal]

Not at all-- as you point out, SCOTUS stands in the way of the Progressive agenda.

Not if they add four more seats. Read the thread.

 

[Middle_Ground]

I have had the same nagging doubts. There’s a reason Black folks in our base told everyone “It’s gotta be Biden.“ They know white folks better than white folks. I’m grateful.

(Sigh...Liz. Greatest potus of our lifetime. Sigh.)

Lizzy was my candidate of choice from the beginning.
I'm hoping katie porter can step in when the time comes.
On the courts I say go to 29 Biden should appoint 12 leaving the next republican with 9 since they made Obama a 3 year president and Trump a 5 year president.
And then a law with term limits, no appointments 90 days from election and 60 votes for supremes.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

It doesn't. But as you admit, its purpose is to ensure there are no legal challenges to whatever Progressives wish to accomplish.

Yup. GOP said the quiet part out loud, so I guess there’s no reason for both sides to play the game anymore. It’s about power. And you’re about to lose it.

 

[lurchadams]

Too many cooks spoil the broth. Nine is already a lot to pull together into consensus. The work put into those decisions is enormous. I think a better idea would be to stop viewing appointments with such a ferociously partisan eye. The Court is supposed to be D.C.'s one bastion of nonpartisan sanity, above the fray, so to speak. I realize that's the ideal, but ideals have a function in our society and it's about time our leaders remembered it.

What you're talking about is real long term. Conservatives are trying to outlaw abortion and the ACA now.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Lizzy was my candidate of choice from the beginning.
I'm hoping katie porter can step in when the time comes.
On the courts I say go to 29 Biden should appoint 12 leaving the next republican with 9 since they made Obama a 3 year president and Trump a 5 year president.
And then a law with term limits, no appointments 90 days from election and 60 votes for supremes.

Katie Porter!! YES YES YES YES YES. Oh my god I stan that woman so hard. She and AOC might singlehandedly save this entire democracy.

 

[Athanasius68]

Not if they add four more seats. Read the thread.

Yes-- The Constitution is overhauled because the Progressives believe SCOTUS stands in its way.
Translation: The Progressive agenda is incompatible with the Constitution.

 

[Cardinal]

What you're talking about is real long term. Conservatives are trying to outlaw abortion and the ACA now.

Yup. The holdouts against court expansion haven't properly drawn up a list of all the toys they have that will be taken away from them once the courts have completed their rightward journey. It's a long.....loooooong...list of toys.

 

[Cardinal]

Yes-- The Constitution is overhauled because the Progressives believe SCOTUS stands in its way.
Translation: The Progressive agenda is incompatible with the Constitution.

Okay, so you're crying. You can do that if you want, but I don't technically require it.

 

[Bullseye]

Progs better think this out thoroughly before they jump. Harry Reid's nuclear option has filled the nation's courts with hundreds of young conservative justices.

 

[MaryP]

What you're talking about is real long term. Conservatives are trying to outlaw abortion and the ACA now.

I realize that. I don't pretend to know a whole bunch about the Supreme Court, who's liberal and who's not, but I didn't know we ever had a liberal majority on the court. From the Washington Post (good article, but I know not everyone has a subscription):

In fact, the Supreme Court has not had a liberal majority since the Warren Court. Since 1969, Republican presidents have named 14 justices to the high court, compared with four from Democrats.
It took 50 years for GOP to get reliable conservative majority
But some of those Republican appointees became more liberal over the years, and conservatives have been unhappy with the pace of change.

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com

 

[Mr Person]

That really does sound like a power grab to me, so I'm not a fan of that approach. I'm much more of a fan of increasing voter rights, eliminating voter suppression, making voting a national holiday and eliminating gerrymandering. HR1 contains these and a host of other voter rights measures. The effect of this is that Republicans will have to run elections based on their arguments and not on choosing (and eliminating) their voters.

When you add court seats and pass HR1 (it's the additional court seats that prevent HR1 from dying in the courts), you prevent Republican majorities because, as we all know, Republican positions are unpopular across the population.



Those are a part of HR1. From the bill:

(j) Stakeholder participation.—In carrying out its duties, the Task Force shall consult with the governments of American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1/text

It's only "one party rule" if Republicans allow it to be. They could, for example, be in power by successfully persuading the American public about the superiority of their ideas, which of course they don't have to do presently because they cheat in elections.

I'd say they are both power grabs in their own way. I'd actually bet that doing something like admitting PR and D.C. to add 4 blue senate votes (absent GOP re-alignment) would have a larger and more immediate effect than moving the court to 6-5 rather than 6-3.

That said, they might just undo themselves on their own by getting Roe and the ACA trashed. Can't really savor that in light of the inevitable body count.