• 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!

Progressives pledge to keep pushing Biden to expand court

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
71,780
Reaction score
50,628
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
Technically speaking you could admit a thousand additional blue states and it wouldn't make a difference since the calculus is ultimately the same: the courts would strike down every Democratic agenda. But again your point is moot because no adding of court seats = no adding additional states. No matter what you try to do, the court packing McConnell has done means you don't get anything.

I also don't view the passing of HR1 as a power grab because both parties are exposed to the same challenge: convincing the American public of the superiority of their ideas. Remember, as it stands the GOP isn't required to do that because they can depend on cheating to hold power. HR1 ends that.

To your last point, waiting for the courts to trash prized democratic (small d) policies means losing a year to two years of just a two year Democratic (large D) majority. You have to assume, for the sake of caution, that Democrats have two years of Congressional majority and that Trump is sworn into office in 2025 if HR1 isn't passed.

My path to achieving HR1, which I see as the critical salvation of our democracy, is adding court seats. I've yet to hear of an alternate let alone superior path to achieving this.
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
39,635
Reaction score
22,554
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Technically speaking you could admit a thousand additional blue states and it wouldn't make a difference since the calculus is ultimately the same: the courts would strike down every Democratic agenda. But again your point is moot because no adding of court seats = no adding additional states. No matter what you try to do, the court packing McConnell has done means you don't get anything.

I also don't view the passing of HR1 as a power grab because both parties are exposed to the same challenge: convincing the American public of the superiority of their ideas. Remember, as it stands the GOP isn't required to do that because they can depend on cheating to hold power. HR1 ends that.

To your last point, waiting for the courts to trash prized democratic (small d) policies means losing a year to two years of just a two year Democratic (large D) majority. You have to assume, for the sake of caution, that Democrats have two years of Congressional majority and that Trump is sworn into office in 2025 if HR1 isn't passed.

My path to achieving HR1, which I see as the critical salvation of our democracy, is adding court seats. I've yet to hear of an alternate let alone superior path to achieving this.
I don't agree with the assumption you make in the first paragraph. A 6-3 court is not going to automatically tear down every law democrats passed or like. Justices have a way of disappointing with their votes. (That said, the current one they're buzzing on about doesn't seem to give a shit about precedent). And four more Dem votes would more easily preserve a Dem majority unless the GOP changes its platform to attract other voters in good ways, thus accomplishing various goals indirectly.

Given the conclusion to what you said, I'm a bit puzzled. I'm saying I think we should add court seats. Add them to at least bring us to 6-5, to offset the latest shenanigan. 6-6 if we want to offset the Garland crap. But that's hopeless unless we can and do pass legislation that locks out any further changes in court size that don't have a supermajority (60%); the legislation would have to also state that it cannot itself be altered without the same supermajority. (I'm not entirely sure if that's possible). otherwise, us packing the court --> them packing it more. And maybe it's time to escalate without regard for the future, but I'd rather be careful.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
71,780
Reaction score
50,628
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't agree with the assumption you make in the first paragraph. A 6-3 court is not going to automatically tear down every law democrats passed or like. Justices have a way of disappointing with their votes. (That said, the current one they're buzzing on about doesn't seem to give a shit about precedent). And four more Dem votes would more easily preserve a Dem majority unless the GOP changes its platform to attract other voters in good ways, thus accomplishing various goals indirectly.
The only swing vote on the right is Roberts (I'd argue that he's not actually a swing vote but that's for another discussion). Roberts did make things interesting, but with Barrett (highly likely to be the next Justice and the person you admit isn't concerned with precedent), Roberts as a swing vote doesn't build confidence. I might be convinced of adding enough seats to make Roberts the swing vote again, but in light of the stakes, I just don't see the point in that. You've got not only HR1, but all of climate change, EPA regulation, union rights, health care policy and reproductive rights on the line. You really want to make Roberts lord and master of those issues? Cause I sure don't.

Given the conclusion to what you said, I'm a bit puzzled. I'm saying I think we should add court seats. Add them to at least bring us to 6-5, to offset the latest shenanigan.
6-5? As it stands, after the Senate replaces Ginsburg's seat the court will be 6-3. Making it 6-5 makes Roberts lord and master of national policy again. This is the guy who ended the voting rights act and ended the voting recount for Gore. Has he done some okay things? Yeah, but he still made the first aforementioned decisions, along with Citizens United. Roberts has made the worst decisions on the most critical issues.

6-6 if we want to offset the Garland crap.
Yeah, a tie helps nobody.

But that's hopeless unless we can and do pass legislation that locks out any further changes in court size that don't have a supermajority (60%); the legislation would have to also state that it cannot itself be altered without the same supermajority. (I'm not entirely sure if that's possible). otherwise, us packing the court --> them packing it more. And maybe it's time to escalate without regard for the future, but I'd rather be careful.
I'm not sure I've made myself clear. With the passing of HR1, Republicans could only win by winning the national debate. I'm not sure you appreciate how long it's been since they've been required to actually do this.
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
39,635
Reaction score
22,554
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm not entirely sure how we ended up here. You began by saying you think Biden will expand the court if enough want it and understands that some agenda will be blocked otherwise. You say 100%, I don't see that.

If enough of a consensus of Democratic Congresspeople pass a bill to expand the courts then I think he'll sign it.

Besides, I think Biden is smart enough to figure out that if the court isn't expanded, 100% of his agenda will be blocked.
My point was simply that the expansion must be protected if it happens otherwise it's pointless. The way to expand it is to require supermajorities for all times after the expansion. If you don't do that there's little point in expanding it except this tiny little island of power where Biden gets laws passed to be undone later. They'd just retaliate by their own

You objected, saying "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."

How are any of those things going to do anything about a 6-3 court blocking all of Biden's legislation? And what is your view on court-expansion? Yes, no, by how much? And how does it work in reference to expansion being a "power grab" that you don't like?



I'm not opposed to HR1, I thought the immediate subject was court-expansion.
 

Slavister

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
5,519
Reaction score
2,950
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Biden knows that most voters see the Democrat/SCOTUS Packing for what it is: Abuse of power to further their agenda

THAT is why he isn't saying a damn thing about it.
No, it would only be UNDOING abuse of power by GOP.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
71,780
Reaction score
50,628
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm not entirely sure how we ended up here. You began by saying you think Biden will expand the court if enough want it and understands that some agenda will be blocked otherwise. You say 100%, I don't see that.



My point was simply that the expansion must be protected if it happens otherwise it's pointless. The way to expand it is to require supermajorities for all times after the expansion. If you don't do that there's little point in expanding it except this tiny little island of power where Biden gets laws passed to be undone later. They'd just retaliate by their own

You objected, saying "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."

How are any of those things going to do anything about a 6-3 court blocking all of Biden's legislation? And what is your view on court-expansion? Yes, no, by how much? And how does it work in reference to expansion being a "power grab" that you don't like?



I'm not opposed to HR1, I thought the immediate subject was court-expansion.
The "power grab" I don't like is the legislation you propose requiring a supermajority for later court expansion. That's an unequal exercise of power. By expanding the courts so that HR1 passes (you wanted extra states, remember), it levels the playing field because, like Democrats, Republicans will be forced to win elections on the strength of their ideas instead of the selection and elimination of voters. HR1 goes an extremely long ways toward eliminating a structure in which Republicans rule through minority.
 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,039
Reaction score
4,856
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The news tonight out of PA seems to indicate a voiding of Republican mail in ballots...
Have you read the details on what actually happened and not the obscene press release by the US Attorney?
 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,039
Reaction score
4,856
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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.
What prevents a DNC controlled house, senate and presidency from doubling the number of federal judges and appointing progressive justices?
 

Athanasius68

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
15,235
Reaction score
2,506
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Have you read the details on what actually happened and not the obscene press release by the US Attorney?
Oh, I am sure there was an innocent recent to explain the disposal of the ballots.
There doesn't need to be malice involved.
 

Athanasius68

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
15,235
Reaction score
2,506
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What prevents a DNC controlled house, senate and presidency from doubling the number of federal judges and appointing progressive justices?
Political blowback.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,723
Reaction score
28,321
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

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.
If the GOP goes ahead and steals another court seat I would say all bets are off and everything is on the table when the Dems get the majority in Jan.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
71,780
Reaction score
50,628
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
When the pendulum swings the other way, the other side now has all the tools you put in the toolbox.
Any threat to burn down a house is empty if the house is already burned down.
 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,039
Reaction score
4,856
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
When the pendulum swings the other way, the other side now has all the tools you put in the toolbox.
War is rarely pretty...
 

Athanasius68

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
15,235
Reaction score
2,506
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Freed himself backtracked and provided more detail...


There is no backtracking involved here. It was a confirmation the nature of where the ballots were found.
There has been no claim that this occurred due to malice-- people make mistakes after all, though its hard to fathom how people mistakenly open up ballots, unless they don't understand the law (and Pennsylvania has been changing its law surrounding mail in ballots this year).
 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,039
Reaction score
4,856
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
You didn't even read Freed's letter...

In addition, our investigation has revealed that all or nearly all envelopes received in the elections office were opened as a matter of course. It was explained to investigators the envelopes used for official overseas, military, absentee and mail-in ballot requests are so similar, that the staff believed that adhering to the protocol of preserving envelopes unopened would cause them to miss such ballot requests. Our interviews further revealed that this issue was a problem in the primary election--therefore a known issue--and that the problem has not been corrected.
 

Athanasius68

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
15,235
Reaction score
2,506
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Any threat to burn down a house is empty if the house is already burned down.
Yep-- a temper tantrum. Progressives don't get what they want, the system is thus illegitimate and its ok to rip it all down.
And you guys worry about Trump and the impact he has upon the constitutional system...
 

ASHES

A Person
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
1,078
Reaction score
403
Location
Canada
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Any threat to burn down a house is empty if the house is already burned down.
Just because you don't like the decorations of the previous owner does not mean that the house is burned down, just that you don't like it the way it is, and are claiming it is because you want it completely obliterated so you can remake it in your image from the ground up.


And here I was told the only threat of violence was from the right.
War is rarely pretty...
And on this very board I was told the only credible threat of violence was from the right. In another thread I was told by a progressive the other side is so far gone they needed to be "eliminated." Sounds like you're ready and eager for war. When called on it, it's always "Who me? No never, that was the other guy, probably a Russian troll. We are the party of peace!"
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
71,780
Reaction score
50,628
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yep-- a temper tantrum. Progressives don't get what they want, the system is thus illegitimate and its ok to rip it all down.
And you guys worry about Trump and the impact he has upon the constitutional system...
Keep crying.
 

Athanasius68

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
15,235
Reaction score
2,506
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You didn't even read Freed's letter...

In addition, our investigation has revealed that all or nearly all envelopes received in the elections office were opened as a matter of course. It was explained to investigators the envelopes used for official overseas, military, absentee and mail-in ballot requests are so similar, that the staff believed that adhering to the protocol of preserving envelopes unopened would cause them to miss such ballot requests. Our interviews further revealed that this issue was a problem in the primary election--therefore a known issue--and that the problem has not been corrected.
Yes-- that is what I said. There doesn't need to be mailce involved in what is apparently a problem in the Pennsylvania voting system.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
71,780
Reaction score
50,628
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Just because you don't like the decorations of the previous owner does not mean that the house is burned down, just that you don't like it the way it is, and are claiming it is because you want it completely obliterated so you can remake it in your image from the ground up.
I want HR1, an expanded healthcare bill and climate change policies to be passed, and a locked-up right wing court makes that impossible. That's all there is to it.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
56,387
Reaction score
14,290
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If enough of a consensus of Democratic Congresspeople pass a bill to expand the courts then I think he'll sign it.

Besides, I think Biden is smart enough to figure out that if the court isn't expanded, 100% of his agenda will be blocked.
The court will have nothing to do with his agenda unless you think biden is going to make a ton of unconstitutional laws.
if that is the case why are you supporting biden again?

you howl about the constitution on a daily basis so why would you support someone that is going to sign a bunch of unconstitutional laws?
 
Top Bottom