Given the opportunity, should the democrats expand the Supreme Court?

[Sunburn74]

One thing that could be passed is a law that says whenever a seat is to be filled, there must be a national vote within 2 weeks of that seat opening. This vote of course cannot tell the senate who to select because that's part of the constitution. However it would create extreme pressure on a senate and the presidency to select who the people want because you can't imagine just how unimaginably bad it would look and how energizing it would be to voters to vote for a winning candidate only to have a bunch of senators go in a different direction. That's a sure fire way to get voted out and draw the people's ire.

 

[zinfamous]

Who cares? My comment was about Sanders. Period.

you said he is, then said he was at one time.

then ignored a plain example of how people change ideologies over time.

also, to conflate him with being a Marxist is pure dumbfuck US ignorance.

 

[zinfamous]

Not to mention, while the SC might just strike such an attempt to subjugate itself to congress as unconstitutional.

propose, pray tell, how SCOTUS could possibly do that?

 

[hal2kilo]

Some big ifs like if Biden wins and if the Dems win the Senate, Pelosi has some ideas to keep us out of this type of BS.

Pelosi unveils Watergate-style anti-corruption reforms — tailored for the Trump era

Many of the featured items are in direct response to issues Democrats have had with the president.

www.politico.com

 

[Grey_Beard]

Some big ifs like if Biden wins and if the Dems win the Senate, Pelosi has some ideas to keep us out of this type of BS.

Pelosi unveils Watergate-style anti-corruption reforms — tailored for the Trump era

Many of the featured items are in direct response to issues Democrats have had with the president.

www.politico.com

A good start. Let’s first get the election behind us.

 

[blackangst1]

you said he is, then said he was at one time.

then ignored a plain example of how people change ideologies over time.

also, to conflate him with being a Marxist is pure dumbfuck US ignorance.

Have you ever read anything from Karl Marx? I'm guessing no.

 

[Jhhnn]

Have you ever read anything from Karl Marx? I'm guessing no.

Buncha dirty fucking Commies there in Vermont, huh? When & if it happens, Sanders will have no more say in expansion of the SCOTUS than any other Senator.

 

[Muse]

Democrats are horrible at power grabs.

They've got some principles, a social conscience and a strange infatuation with the notion that democracy has a place in America.

 

[blackangst1]

Buncha dirty fucking Commies there in Vermont, huh? When & if it happens, Sanders will have no more say in expansion of the SCOTUS than any other Senator.

Karl marx is not communist nor from Vermont. Fool.

 

[ivwshane]

Karl marx is not communist nor from Vermont. Fool.

I’d say the fool is the person who clearly didn’t understand the person they were replying to.

 

[blackangst1]

I’d say the fool is the person who clearly didn’t understand the person they were replying to.

Agree!

 

[Grey_Beard]

Agree!

Self awareness is not one of your strong suits.

 

[kage69]

...aaaand there we are. To the taj/pcgeek/bullshit pile with you.

*plonk*

 

[Maxima1]

They've got some principles, a social conscience and a strange infatuation with the notion that democracy has a place in America.

No, it's very simple. Many of them aren't that liberal.

 

[Jhhnn]

No, it's very simple. Many of them aren't that liberal.

People don't have to be Liberal to believe in those concepts, even if too many modern conservatives seem to have discarded them.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Sort answer: No

Long answer: Fuck no.

Longer Answer: This won't solve anything, and it will just look like cheating to the American people. Dems really suck at messaging, so they will set a precedent then hand the keys over to the Pubs to whip it to death.

Like it or not, the progressive party in this country is always going to be operating with a handicap. They really need to just embrace that handicap and come up with a plan that actually works around it with finesse instead of trying to tank through it.

 

[Maxima1]

People don't have to be Liberal to believe in those concepts, even if too many modern conservatives seem to have discarded them.

You misunderstood. If one side isn't playing by the same rules anymore, then you are only helping them erode democracy by pretending that they still exist. Why would they be doing that? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

 

[Sunburn74]

Sort answer: No

Long answer: Fuck no.

Longer Answer: This won't solve anything, and it will just look like cheating to the American people. Dems really suck at messaging, so they will set a precedent then hand the keys over to the Pubs to whip it to death.

Like it or not, the progressive party in this country is always going to be operating with a handicap. They really need to just embrace that handicap and come up with a plan that actually works around it with finesse instead of trying to tank through it.

I think the way to solve it is to make it so that no side can ever try to rig the SCOTUS again.

One way to go about it is to add a sort of democratic check to the SCOTUS. For example, currently there are 11 federal appeals court circuits in the country and these are the guys who most have to use the rulings of the SCOTUS. Congress could pass a law that, if a SCOTUS member or group of members extremely strongly disagrees with a ruling made by other members of the SCOUT, SCOTUS members alone can appeal a few rulings to all 11 federal appeals courts to review the case. If 8 out of the 11 full federal court circuits vote in a certain manner (ie 8/11 full circuits have majority votes in a certain direction; most circuits I think have like 12-16 judges so it's not really easy to rig) the SCOTUS is overruled. That's a sufficiently high bar to meet to overrule the SCOTUS meaning SCOTUS members won't be doing it all that often or they'll face embarassment but it at least adds a check within the judiciary for these guys and their unchecked power meaning the SCOTUS will know that if they do anything too crazy, they may be overruled as their work will be scrutinized by the people most affected by it.

 

[HurleyBird]

If 8 out of the 11 full federal court circuits vote in a certain manner (ie 8/11 full circuits have majority votes in a certain direction; most circuits I think have like 12-16 judges so it's not really easy to rig) the SCOTUS is overruled.

I love it! I've always found it unsettling how few checks the judiciary (and especially prosecutors offices) have relative to the other branches. To an extent, it sort of needs to be that way, but more intra-branch checks could be a great thing.

That said, I'd slightly modify your proposal to be more in-line with existing en banc review, so that so that if a justice requests review, you need, say, 6 votes from the circuit panels to agree to hear the case in the first place.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I think the way to solve it is to make it so that no side can ever try to rig the SCOTUS again.

One way to go about it is to add a sort of democratic check to the SCOTUS. For example, currently there are 11 federal appeals court circuits in the country and these are the guys who most have to use the rulings of the SCOTUS. Congress could pass a law that, if a SCOTUS member or group of members extremely strongly disagrees with a ruling made by other members of the SCOUT, SCOTUS members alone can appeal a few rulings to all 11 federal appeals courts to review the case. If 8 out of the 11 full federal court circuits vote in a certain manner (ie 8/11 full circuits have majority votes in a certain direction; most circuits I think have like 12-16 judges so it's not really easy to rig) the SCOTUS is overruled. That's a sufficiently high bar to meet to overrule the SCOTUS meaning SCOTUS members won't be doing it all that often or they'll face embarassment but it at least adds a check within the judiciary for these guys and their unchecked power meaning the SCOTUS will know that if they do anything too crazy, they may be overruled as their work will be scrutinized by the people most affected by it.

- While it is a good idea, its not *that* hard to rig, given that's exactly what the senate under Mitch McConnell has tried to do under the Obama presidency by blocking nominations and under the trump presidency by pushing through as many judges as they can.

The Pubs (McConnell especially) have been playing 5D chess for a long time on this front and they understand that by getting more conservative judges confirmed means that there is a higher chance that their judges are chosen to oversee cases and make rulings favorable to them.

 

[Brainonska511]

I think expanding the court by 2 members and expanding the federal judiciary with a new Judiciary Act would be a good way to punish Republicans for their shenanigans. Their bad behavior cannot go unanswered, or they will just do it again, since they know they know there would be no retaliation for obstructing in bad faith.

However, I don't think it's wise politically for Democratic candidates to be discussing these retaliatory options at this time. Outside of the political hobbyism sphere, voters are very myopic. Keep the focus on Trump and the ineptitude of Congressional Republicans for now.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I think the way to solve it is to make it so that no side can ever try to rig the SCOTUS again.

One way to go about it is to add a sort of democratic check to the SCOTUS. For example, currently there are 11 federal appeals court circuits in the country and these are the guys who most have to use the rulings of the SCOTUS. Congress could pass a law that, if a SCOTUS member or group of members extremely strongly disagrees with a ruling made by other members of the SCOUT, SCOTUS members alone can appeal a few rulings to all 11 federal appeals courts to review the case. If 8 out of the 11 full federal court circuits vote in a certain manner (ie 8/11 full circuits have majority votes in a certain direction; most circuits I think have like 12-16 judges so it's not really easy to rig) the SCOTUS is overruled. That's a sufficiently high bar to meet to overrule the SCOTUS meaning SCOTUS members won't be doing it all that often or they'll face embarassment but it at least adds a check within the judiciary for these guys and their unchecked power meaning the SCOTUS will know that if they do anything too crazy, they may be overruled as their work will be scrutinized by the people most affected by it.

Sure, major cases already only take about a decade to get resolved. Lets add a few more layers to that. With just a bit of tweaking we can make sure that no case ever gets resolved in the lifetime of the people that started it.

The problem is not the judiciary, or even the way the institutions work. The problem is that a democracy only works if the people are interested in maintaining it. And we don't care. The only real check and balance that really matters in our government is the mandate of the people. All the others can be rigged or bypassed if the people don't care enough to stop them from doing it, and that is exactly what has happened.

 

[Jaskalas]

I expected McConnell to hold it until after the election to motivate the base like 2016, but then pass it in lame duck if Trump or Senate majority lost. Not sure why he is rushing it, especially since it doesn't look like he'll need the McSally vote.

It has been explained.

Mail in ballots have rendered this election a disaster. The full SCOTUS will be needed to rule on a great many things - to determine the outcome of this election. From that perspective, filling the seat cannot wait. Not even for a minute.

 

[Jaskalas]

What nation is “center right?”

Canada?

 

[ch33zw1z]

It has been explained.

Mail in ballots have rendered this election a disaster. The full SCOTUS will be needed to rule on a great many things - to determine the outcome of this election. From that perspective, filling the seat cannot wait. Not even for a minute.

How have mail in ballots rendered this election a disaster?