Democrats to introduce bill to expand Supreme Court from 9 to 13 justices

[GodisanAtheist]

So you think a constitutional amendment is the solution here in today’s political climate?

So in other words, you support the status quo and you are against democrats trying to correct the issue?

Cool

-Oh oh oh I want to play!

...uhmmmm and YOU think that everytime a party controls two branches of Government they get to just annex the third!

How did I do in this game of Fuck Nuance Let's Build A Strawman?

 

[GodisanAtheist]

What in the hell does this have to do with the subject at hand?

- Not exactly sure, but I think that at the end the of the day the constitution and laws are worth the paper their written on and that it all really depends on our collective will to follow what's written on those papers...

 

[ivwshane]

-Oh oh oh I want to play!

...uhmmmm and YOU think that everytime a party controls two branches of Government they get to just annex the third!

How did I do in this game of Fuck Nuance Let's Build A Strawman?

I brought your thinking to it’s logical conclusion. A constitutional amendment has exactly zero chance of happening in this political climate. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Now, if democrats are somehow able to expand the court, which I’ll remind everyone, is completely within the power of congress to do, they can at least stop the long history of conservative judges from legislating from the bench. Combine that with the slim possibility of getting hr1 passed and we have our democracy restored.

One of these scenarios has zero chance of happening and the other has a very slim chance of happening. Which one will you support?

 

[brandonbull]

I brought your thinking to it’s logical conclusion. A constitutional amendment has exactly zero chance of happening in this political climate. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Now, if democrats are somehow able to expand the court, which I’ll remind everyone, is completely within the power of congress to do, they can at least stop the long history of conservative judges from legislating from the bench. Combine that with the slim possibility of getting hr1 passed and we have our democracy restored.

One of these scenarios has zero chance of happening and the other has a very slim chance of happening. Which one will you support?

Did you proofread your copy-n-paste? Conservative judges from legislating from the bench? Really? C'mon man! Why not 2 more spots? Biden and other Democrats have openly admitted that they want 4 more judges so they can control the SCOTUS. Democrats don't like that their activist judges can't legislate from the bench so 4 more judges are needed.

 

[HomerJS]

Thing is, it honestly did not look good for Republicans to pull that crap with Merrick Garland, its just was not the a big enough of a deal for a lot of people to change any sort of outcome with the 2016 election. The Dems, who excel at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, seem to have gotten the wrong lesson from that whole ordeal and are throwing all their chips in on this one.

Frankly, I don't really support packing the court either, and I'm no big fan of Republicans (or Democrats really on a lot of issues) and I think this kind of thing just turns the court into a "who can pack it better" sort of contest without solving the underlying problems. Biden or whatever successor could just as easily go with a court sacking, rather than packing, agenda and send the last two elected justices home and tip the court liberal with 7 seats as he could with 13.

I think the best course of action, as was mentioned on this forum earlier in a different thread, is to really standardize the selection process and rules for the Supreme court so a couple different things are accomplished:

1) SC justices should have set, staggered, terms. This keeps the bench fresh and more relevant to issues facing us today, and depoliticizes somewhat the "strategic retirement" potential for the justices.
2) SC Justices should be drawn from a fairly exclusive cadre of judges from the Federal Circuit courts. This is where a lot of judges have come from anyway, but it makes sure that there is a well understood pipeline for the highest court so we can all see where the next SC justice is coming from.

There were other ideas as well, but essentially messing with the size of the court that has been steady for 100+ years for shamelessly political ends is just going to look bad no matter what. Our institutions are respected not because they're incorruptible, but because they put on the veneer of being and we all go along with the charade.

Heard a great quote the other day "The only thing people hate more than the status quo is change"

The lesson Dems didn't learn from Mitch. When you have power do it because you can. If you want rotating judges do it immediately with no grandfathering. 18 years max in SC seat. Been there longer, out. If you can't do that just add 4 justices.

 

[HomerJS]

Did you proofread your copy-n-paste? Conservative judges from legislating from the bench? Really? C'mon man! Why not 2 more spots? Biden and other Democrats have openly admitted that they want 4 more judges so they can control the SCOTUS. Democrats don't like that their activist judges can't legislate from the bench so 4 more judges are needed.

Legislate from the bench. You mean like Aleto killing part of the voting rights act on the basis racism isn't a big deal in the country?

 

[BoomerD]

Why stop at 13? How about 51...one for each state plus one for Washington DC? Hell, maybe a few more for the various US territories?

 

[fskimospy]

Why stop at 13? How about 51...one for each state plus one for Washington DC? Hell, maybe a few more for the various US territories?

Sure, why not? With a number that large it would probably stop the ridiculous politics around every vacancy.

Smart move. When do we start?

 

[BoomerD]

Sure, why not? With a number that large it would probably stop the ridiculous politics around every vacancy.

Smart move. When do we start?

While we're at it...instead of lifetime appointments, make them run for office every 4 or 6 years...let the people vote them out of office.

 

[Steltek]

Why stop at 13? How about 51...one for each state plus one for Washington DC? Hell, maybe a few more for the various US territories?

Exactly this. Supreme Court expansion is a zero sum game. Once it starts, it will never end - the party in charge will be under continual pressure to expand to re-gain the upper hand.

One thing the proponents of expansion don't consider is that the ramifications extend well beyond just the immediate effects of expansion. Specifically, the stability of our legal system depends on adherence to stable legal precedent. And, the stability of our government and our economy depends upon the stability and predictability of our courts.

The whole purpose of expansion is to immediately be able to quickly turn the courts in a totally different direction to "get what they want, now". Thus, precedent literally won't mean anything anymore because the prior loosing side in every case, major or minor, will want to re-litigate the issues of their cases in hopes of a better outcome every time there is a change in the composition of the Supreme Court.

It is all a moot case, anyway. The Democrats don't have the votes to expand the court. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that Congress can even term limit Supreme Court justices without a constitutional amendment. If they try to legislate it, it will be litigated and we'd eventually see the peculiar spectacle of the Supreme Court deciding if it is legal to limit their own positions. The Constitution doesn't provide for it in Article III, so the current court would say no and look self-serving while doing it.

While we're at it...instead of lifetime appointments, make them run for office every 4 or 6 years...let the people vote them out of office.

Like this works so well now for Congress.

 

[fskimospy]

Exactly this. Supreme Court expansion is a zero sum game. Once it starts, it will never end - the party in charge will be under continual pressure to expand to re-gain the upper hand.

Surely you are aware that this already happens now?

One thing the proponents of expansion don't consider is that the ramifications extend well beyond just the immediate effects of expansion. Specifically, the stability of our legal system depends on adherence to stable legal precedent. And, the stability of our government and our economy depends upon the stability and predictability of our courts.

We explicitly consider this. Also, if you’re concerned about the stability of precedent you might want to look at what the current court has done over recent years and what it has signaled it may do.

For example, one radical change has been to shift from the idea that neutral, universally applicable laws do not violate the first amendment, to the idea that in effect religious people and organizations can pick and choose what laws they wish to follow. That’s a big change!

The whole purpose of expansion is to immediately be able to quickly turn the courts in a totally different direction to "get what they want, now". Thus, precedent literally won't mean anything anymore because the prior loosing side in every case, major or minor, will want to re-litigate the issues of their cases in hopes of a better outcome every time there is a change in the composition of the Supreme Court.

It is all a moot case, anyway. The Democrats don't have the votes to expand the court. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that Congress can even term limit Supreme Court justices without a constitutional amendment. If they try to legislate it, it will be litigated and we'd eventually see the peculiar spectacle of the Supreme Court deciding if it is legal to limit their own positions. The Constitution doesn't provide for it in Article III, so the current court would say no and look self-serving while doing it.


Like this works so well now for Congress.

The purpose would be for the other branches to exert checks and balances on the judiciary, as the constitution intended.

 

[nickqt]

Exactly this. Supreme Court expansion is a zero sum game. Once it starts, it will never end - the party in charge will be under continual pressure to expand to re-gain the upper hand.

One thing the proponents of expansion don't consider is that the ramifications extend well beyond just the immediate effects of expansion. Specifically, the stability of our legal system depends on adherence to stable legal precedent. And, the stability of our government and our economy depends upon the stability and predictability of our courts.

The whole purpose of expansion is to immediately be able to quickly turn the courts in a totally different direction to "get what they want, now". Thus, precedent literally won't mean anything anymore because the prior loosing side in every case, major or minor, will want to re-litigate the issues of their cases in hopes of a better outcome every time there is a change in the composition of the Supreme Court.

It is all a moot case, anyway. The Democrats don't have the votes to expand the court. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that Congress can even term limit Supreme Court justices without a constitutional amendment. If they try to legislate it, it will be litigated and we'd eventually see the peculiar spectacle of the Supreme Court deciding if it is legal to limit their own positions. The Constitution doesn't provide for it in Article III, so the current court would say no and look self-serving while doing it.



Like this works so well now for Congress.

Constitutional Amendment for 18 year term limits, each Presidential term gets to appoint 2 justices, year 1 and 3.

At least this way the Supreme Court at least remotely acts in the way the President is elected. As-is, we already saw how Republicans flat-out denied Obama an appointment because of a "current election" that they laughed themselves unconscious at when criticized for doing the exact opposite this election.

If nothing else, if the Democrats can hold onto the House and Senate, they could offer up that Constitutional Amendment, or adding 20 seats to the court after bypassing the filibuster to truly use a "nuclear" option.

It's OK to be conservative, but if you can't see how the Republican Party is intentionally sabotaging this country internally to hold onto the White House and Supreme Court, you're deluded at best. A country of 330+ million people being "ungovernable" is the same thing as a country verging on total collapse. Something has to give, and I'd prefer to avoid a civil war if necessary.

 

[Steltek]

Constitutional Amendment for 18 year term limits, each Presidential term gets to appoint 2 justices, year 1 and 3.

At least this way the Supreme Court at least remotely acts in the way the President is elected. As-is, we already saw how Republicans flat-out denied Obama an appointment because of a "current election" that they laughed themselves unconscious at when criticized for doing the exact opposite this election.

If nothing else, if the Democrats can hold onto the House and Senate, they could offer up that Constitutional Amendment, or adding 20 seats to the court after bypassing the filibuster to truly use a "nuclear" option.

It's OK to be conservative, but if you can't see how the Republican Party is intentionally sabotaging this country internally to hold onto the White House and Supreme Court, you're deluded at best. A country of 330+ million people being "ungovernable" is the same thing as a country verging on total collapse. Something has to give, and I'd prefer to avoid a civil war if necessary.

I agree with a lot of what you say. I could agree with term limiting justices.

However, the Democrats have done just as much to dig this hole (though, granted, not as recently). Remember when they rammed through the ACA? Most of the people who voted for it hadn't even read it.

I see exactly what the Republicans are doing. Just like I see exactly what you and the Democrats are trying to do. You might not believe it, but not everyone is stupid.

The simple fact of the matter is that our country has been virtually ungovernable for large parts of the last 30 years no matter who was in charge. That isn't going to change any time soon, as our people have exactly the government they deserve.

We have a Congress that plays continual games (on both sides) and in both Houses, does nothing, and answers to nobody. We have State governments that, again, play games and have no accountability. The police shoot people, no accountability. The police gleefully steal private property through civil asset forfiture with no accountability. Our populace by and large act like sugar-high children with no sense of civility or decorum, and as a general rule are incapable of conceiving of any original idea that that wasn't spoon fed to them by their favored social media site. No matter what you do, you will have half the population jumping up and down, screaming and yelling about it (or, trashing the capitol just like Trumps Moron Brigade did).

And, you're deluding yourself if you think you'll ever get a Constitutional amendment of any kind passed. Congress is incapable of doing it, the majority of state legislatures (largely controlled by the various junior political idiot brigades) won't support it, and you can't limit a Constitutional Convention to just a single issue -- try to call one, and you'll end up with a free-for-all with a thousand different proposed conflicting and un-adoptable amendments to wade through.

 

[ivwshane]

Good god another uniformed both sides bitch. Go find some talking points that haven’t already been debunked.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Not sure why there's a duplicate thread on this. That isn't usually allowed here.

But since there is, this was my proposal on the other one:

A thought. Fundamentally change the structure. Eliminate it as it currently is.

Increase the seats to 13, one for each Circuit. Rotate Circuit Judges in and out every X years, or maybe every SC Session. If a case comes up that a Circuit Judge has already ruled on, that Judge would be recused from that case by law. When the SC is not in session, the Circuit Judges could return to cases in their own Circuit.

SCOTUS getting a makeover?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/09/president-biden-to-sign-executive-order-creating-the-presidential-commission-on-the-supreme-court-of-the-united-states/ I guess it didn't take the Big Guy long to start in with changing the Supreme Court. Since VP Harris...

forums.anandtech.com

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

One thing the proponents of expansion don't consider is that the ramifications extend well beyond just the immediate effects of expansion. Specifically, the stability of our legal system depends on adherence to stable legal precedent. And, the stability of our government and our economy depends upon the stability and predictability of our courts.

Like Mitch establishing that no SC judges will be appointed in the last term of Obama's presidency, then ramming one through in Trump's last term, because 'it's different'?

Oh, or this fuckbag, he seems super stable.


We're already beyond the point of absurdity with the situation, fire with fire I say.

 

[zinfamous]

Not sure why there's a duplicate thread on this. That isn't usually allowed here.

But since there is, this was my proposal on the other one:

SCOTUS getting a makeover?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/09/president-biden-to-sign-executive-order-creating-the-presidential-commission-on-the-supreme-court-of-the-united-states/ I guess it didn't take the Big Guy long to start in with changing the Supreme Court. Since VP Harris...

forums.anandtech.com

OP has blocked ~70% of the users here, so he never really sees the threads that actually exist, which is why he pretty much only posts duplicate threads. It's hilarious. It does make me wonder what he gets out of a forum like this where he pretty much sees only himself and brianmanahan posting. (nothing against brianmanahan)

 

[Greenman]

I agree with a lot of what you say. I could agree with term limiting justices.

However, the Democrats have done just as much to dig this hole (though, granted, not as recently). Remember when they rammed through the ACA? Most of the people who voted for it hadn't even read it.

I see exactly what the Republicans are doing. Just like I see exactly what you and the Democrats are trying to do. You might not believe it, but not everyone is stupid.

The simple fact of the matter is that our country has been virtually ungovernable for large parts of the last 30 years no matter who was in charge. That isn't going to change any time soon, as our people have exactly the government they deserve.

We have a Congress that plays continual games (on both sides) and in both Houses, does nothing, and answers to nobody. We have State governments that, again, play games and have no accountability. The police shoot people, no accountability. The police gleefully steal private property through civil asset forfiture with no accountability. Our populace by and large act like sugar-high children with no sense of civility or decorum, and as a general rule are incapable of conceiving of any original idea that that wasn't spoon fed to them by their favored social media site. No matter what you do, you will have half the population jumping up and down, screaming and yelling about it (or, trashing the capitol just like Trumps Moron Brigade did).

And, you're deluding yourself if you think you'll ever get a Constitutional amendment of any kind passed. Congress is incapable of doing it, the majority of state legislatures (largely controlled by the various junior political idiot brigades) won't support it, and you can't limit a Constitutional Convention to just a single issue -- try to call one, and you'll end up with a free-for-all with a thousand different proposed conflicting and un-adoptable amendments to wade through.

Very well said.

 

[nickqt]

I agree with a lot of what you say. I could agree with term limiting justices.

However, the Democrats have done just as much to dig this hole (though, granted, not as recently). Remember when they rammed through the ACA? Most of the people who voted for it hadn't even read it.

I see exactly what the Republicans are doing. Just like I see exactly what you and the Democrats are trying to do. You might not believe it, but not everyone is stupid.

The simple fact of the matter is that our country has been virtually ungovernable for large parts of the last 30 years no matter who was in charge. That isn't going to change any time soon, as our people have exactly the government they deserve.

We have a Congress that plays continual games (on both sides) and in both Houses, does nothing, and answers to nobody. We have State governments that, again, play games and have no accountability. The police shoot people, no accountability. The police gleefully steal private property through civil asset forfiture with no accountability. Our populace by and large act like sugar-high children with no sense of civility or decorum, and as a general rule are incapable of conceiving of any original idea that that wasn't spoon fed to them by their favored social media site. No matter what you do, you will have half the population jumping up and down, screaming and yelling about it (or, trashing the capitol just like Trumps Moron Brigade did).

And, you're deluding yourself if you think you'll ever get a Constitutional amendment of any kind passed. Congress is incapable of doing it, the majority of state legislatures (largely controlled by the various junior political idiot brigades) won't support it, and you can't limit a Constitutional Convention to just a single issue -- try to call one, and you'll end up with a free-for-all with a thousand different proposed conflicting and un-adoptable amendments to wade through.

BothSidesDoIt™

Hilarious.

 

[fskimospy]

I agree with a lot of what you say. I could agree with term limiting justices.

However, the Democrats have done just as much to dig this hole (though, granted, not as recently). Remember when they rammed through the ACA? Most of the people who voted for it hadn't even read it.

This is demonstrably untrue - where did you get this idea? The ACA was created over the better part of a year and all aspects of it were extensively debated. It also passed with a supermajority of votes in the senate. If that’s ‘rammed through’ then what legislation isn’t?

Also the idea that members of Congress should sit down and read bills of this length before voting on them is a colossal waste of their time. They have staff for exactly this reason.

I see exactly what the Republicans are doing. Just like I see exactly what you and the Democrats are trying to do. You might not believe it, but not everyone is stupid.

The simple fact of the matter is that our country has been virtually ungovernable for large parts of the last 30 years no matter who was in charge. That isn't going to change any time soon, as our people have exactly the government they deserve.

We have a Congress that plays continual games (on both sides) and in both Houses, does nothing, and answers to nobody. We have State governments that, again, play games and have no accountability. The police shoot people, no accountability. The police gleefully steal private property through civil asset forfiture with no accountability. Our populace by and large act like sugar-high children with no sense of civility or decorum, and as a general rule are incapable of conceiving of any original idea that that wasn't spoon fed to them by their favored social media site. No matter what you do, you will have half the population jumping up and down, screaming and yelling about it (or, trashing the capitol just like Trumps Moron Brigade did).

And, you're deluding yourself if you think you'll ever get a Constitutional amendment of any kind passed. Congress is incapable of doing it, the majority of state legislatures (largely controlled by the various junior political idiot brigades) won't support it, and you can't limit a Constitutional Convention to just a single issue -- try to call one, and you'll end up with a free-for-all with a thousand different proposed conflicting and un-adoptable amendments to wade through.

Why do you think the federal government has been largely incapable of action for the last 30 years? There’s an answer, but it might not be an answer you want to hear.

 

[dainthomas]

Today's complete horseshit ruling on juvenile sentencing shows why we need reform on the SC.

Justice Beer Bong is just making shit up at this point. "Ignore this previous Supreme Court ruling for no reason other than I really don't like what it says." The fact that we're stuck with him and Handmaid's Tale for decades show why reform is needed. Term limits structured so a certain number expire every presidential term seems like the obvious way to go, and would lesson the motivation for a certain party to approve hacks like these with little or no experience.

Brett Kavanaugh’s Opinion Restoring Juvenile Life Without Parole Is Dishonest and Barbaric

 

[ivwshane]

Today's complete horseshit ruling on juvenile sentencing shows why we need reform on the SC.

Justice Beer Bong is just making shit up at this point. "Ignore this previous Supreme Court ruling for no reason other than I really don't like what it says." The fact that we're stuck with him and Handmaid's Tale for decades show why reform is needed. Term limits structured so a certain number expire every presidential term seems like the obvious way to go, and would lesson the motivation for a certain party to approve hacks like these with little or no experience.

Brett Kavanaugh’s Opinion Restoring Juvenile Life Without Parole Is Dishonest and Barbaric

As I've said before, the federalist society judges are more than willing to change their principals in order to get a ruling they want. They do indeed legislate from the bench.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

I see the FTC neutering as a bigger issue.

 

[Sunburn74]

Why stop at 13? How about 51...one for each state plus one for Washington DC? Hell, maybe a few more for the various US territories?

I'm ok with that

 

[Jhhnn]

I doubt it will happen, but it's within the power of Congress to determine the number of Justices, which has varied in the past. The Constitution explicitly grants them that power. Only 4 of the last 20 Justices were nominated by Democratic Presidents. Garland would have made it 5. It's unlikely that either Kavanaugh or Barrett would have cleared the 60 vote hurdle. The GOP is crying crocodile tears over increasing the number of Justices after slamming 3 highly conservative Justices right down everybody's throats. The only practical way to offset that ruthless power grab is to increase the number of Justices.