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

[Zorba]

FEINSTEIN on ending filibuster and expanding SCOTUS: “I don't believe in doing that. I think the filibuster serves a purpose. It is not often used, it's often less used now than when I first came, and I think it's part of the Senate that differentiates itself.” ht
@DanielPFlatley

How the fuck does she keep getting elected. Don't they have primaries in Cali?

 

[ivwshane]

How the fuck does she keep getting elected. Don't they have primaries in Cali?

Honestly she was a good senator...back when pragmatism was a thing of virtue. Times have changed. Time to get some younger blood in there.

 

[Muse]

The case it should happen, well made and documenting the issues, et al:

 

[K1052]

Actblue has processed more than 200M in donations since RBG's death less than a week ago, mostly for D senate candidates. It will certainly exceed the entirety of what the Trump campaign and RNC raised in the entire month of August soon. That's a lot of grassroots fundraising and interest. Donor checkbooks have to be opening widely as well but that won't be counted for a while.

"Courts don't interest the Democrats" is a mantra that's going to have to be rethought soon.

Caught a clip of Lindsay Graham literally begging for cash on Fox News last night strongly suggesting there is no equivalent fundraising surge on the R side.

 

[zinfamous]

I used to think the Dems needed to take the high road to try and return the country to some semblance of normalcy, and that after Trump the republicans might reform and become a sensible conservative party.

I now see that is completely impossible.

I worry for the future of this country. Trump and the Repugs get a pass on every single mistake they do nowadays, and even with Trump fucking up essentially everything he touches, he's still above 40% approval. Does anyone imagine a Dem of that same utter incompetence and malignance would have approval as high as Trump's? Can anyone imagine the Dems uniting behind someone that bad when the centrist and progressive wings split at the drop of a hat? As far as I can see, there's two standards in this country: Dems need to be utterly perfect while Trump and the GOP just need to not shit themselves on national tv.

I don't think these are mistakes.

They are intentional sabotage of western democracy, engineered explicitly to protect the interests of a handful, at the direct and purposeful exploitation of the American people, including--and quite proudly, it seems--the very population of people that actively support this sabotage.

You have a group of inherited interests that are by-and-large seeking to establish an oligarchal monarchy in the US, and they achieve support by capturing the brains of a class of people that are inclined towards "Strong man" dictatorial leaders that know how to stroke their base emotional centers, because logic and rationality has long been displaced by base fear in what remains of their cognitive centers.

 

[HomerJS]

FEINSTEIN on ending filibuster and expanding SCOTUS: “I don't believe in doing that. I think the filibuster serves a purpose. It is not often used, it's often less used now than when I first came, and I think it's part of the Senate that differentiates itself.” ht
@DanielPFlatley

You don't have to end it. Just change it so you have to filibuster for real. Not placing a blind vote.

 

[Ajay]

You have a group of inherited interests that are by-and-large seeking to establish an oligarchical monarchy in the US, and they achieve support by capturing the brains of a class of people that are inclined towards "Strong man" dictatorial leaders that know how to stroke their base emotional centers, because logic and rationality has long been displaced by base fear in what remains of their cognitive centers.

Republicans started manipulating and taking advantage of people's inherent tendency to first react emotionally since Nixon (e.g. the silent majority). The conservative movement, starting with Reagan, amped that up to 11 (though, until Trump, there was also some popular optimism injected into the messaging). Look at the 'threat level' bullshit employed by the Bush (Jr) admin - what a mind fuck that was. The GOP has been grooming their electorate for decades, Trump just brazenly tossed aside all pretense and brought fears of racists, Christians, farmers, manufacturing employees, anti-intellectuals, etc. to the fore. The only solution for these voters to the liberal assault on America is the permanent take over of government institutions - including the concept of a President for life with even broader powers - at any cost. Looking at the past 50 years, the transformation makes it look like this outcome was inevitable at some point.

 

[hal2kilo]

Actblue has processed more than 200M in donations since RBG's death less than a week ago, mostly for D senate candidates. It will certainly exceed the entirety of what the Trump campaign and RNC raised in the entire month of August soon.

Caught a clip of Lindsay Graham literally begging for cash on Fox News last night strongly suggesting there is no equivalent fundraising surge on the R side.

I had the most wonderful laugh, like I haven't in a long time. He looked absolutely desperate.

 

[Muse]

You guys really think there's a threat of president for life going on here? Even any kind of extension beyond 2 terms seems far fetched to me. Links?

 

[Muse]

I had the most wonderful laugh, like I haven't in a long time. He looked absolutely desperate.

Haven't seen that but did watch videos yesterday of his declaring he'd be 100% against confirming any SCOTUS appointment after primary season had gotten underway, swore up and down you could rake him over the coals if he didn't keep that promise. He's made himself out the biggest douche bag I've ever seen on the political stage now and by far.

 

[K1052]

I had the most wonderful laugh, like I haven't in a long time. He looked absolutely desperate.

I don't think that the confirmation fight is very good for R senators in cycle this year right now because:

1) they don't seem to be raising money off it while their challengers are receiving it by the dump truck load
2) It will require them to spend a lot of time in DC instead of campaigning until right before the election
3) it is unpopular with the electorate

 

[Paratus]

Here’s an interesting if somewhat byzantine way to neuter the courts without stacking the courts by using some neglected Article III powers.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/supreme-court-packing-alternatives.html


There is another, better, way to rein in partisan judges: by stripping the Supreme Court, and also the lower federal courts, of jurisdiction where Congress does not want partisan judges second-guessing particular decisions—especially where, as is so often true, the Constitution does not speak directly to an issue and courts are making political choices rather than legal judgments. That strategy, while perhaps a bit more difficult to reduce to a sound bite or a campaign slogan, gets directly at the problem of partisan judicial activism. It is also a more focused and less overtly politicized approach compared with court packing.

Perhaps the most powerful argument for jurisdiction stripping is that the Constitution clearly permits it. Article III, section 1 of the Constitution gives Congress complete discretion on whether to create the lower federal courts, a power that Congress has used from the founding to limit lower courts’ jurisdiction. And Article III, section 2, clause 2 explicitly empowers Congress to make “exceptions” to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction—that is, to pick and choose for approximately 99 percent of the Supreme Court’s total docket what cases the Court has the power to hear. As I explain in a law review article, to be published in December in the New York University Law Review, under its Article III authority, Congress can remove the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction over particular cases, or particular issues, largely without constraint.

 

[hal2kilo]

Republicans started manipulating and taking advantage of people's inherent tendency to first react emotionally since Nixon (e.g. the silent majority). The conservative movement, starting with Reagan, amped that up to 11 (though, until Trump, there was also some popular optimism injected into the messaging). Look at the 'threat level' bullshit employed by the Bush (Jr) admin - what a mind fuck that was. The GOP has been grooming their electorate for decades, Trump just brazenly tossed aside all pretense and brought fears of racists, Christians, farmers, manufacturing employees, anti-intellectuals, etc. to the fore. The only solution for these voters to the liberal assault on America is the permanent take over of government institutions - including the concept of a President for life with even broader powers - at any cost. Looking at the past 50 years, the transformation makes it look like this outcome was inevitable at some point.

Then Gingrich turned it up to 11.

 

[HomerJS]

Here’s an interesting if somewhat byzantine way to neuter the courts without stacking the courts by using some neglected Article III powers.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/supreme-court-packing-alternatives.html


There is another, better, way to rein in partisan judges: by stripping the Supreme Court, and also the lower federal courts, of jurisdiction where Congress does not want partisan judges second-guessing particular decisions—especially where, as is so often true, the Constitution does not speak directly to an issue and courts are making political choices rather than legal judgments. That strategy, while perhaps a bit more difficult to reduce to a sound bite or a campaign slogan, gets directly at the problem of partisan judicial activism. It is also a more focused and less overtly politicized approach compared with court packing.

Perhaps the most powerful argument for jurisdiction stripping is that the Constitution clearly permits it. Article III, section 1 of the Constitution gives Congress complete discretion on whether to create the lower federal courts, a power that Congress has used from the founding to limit lower courts’ jurisdiction. And Article III, section 2, clause 2 explicitly empowers Congress to make “exceptions” to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction—that is, to pick and choose for approximately 99 percent of the Supreme Court’s total docket what cases the Court has the power to hear. As I explain in a law review article, to be published in December in the New York University Law Review, under its Article III authority, Congress can remove the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction over particular cases, or particular issues, largely without constraint.

Looks interesting...marked for later reading

 

[Ajay]

Then Gingrich turned it up to 11.

12! Well, yeah and, for kicks, brought in lobbyists to help write laws (with a look to his future). Craven SOB.

 

[Grey_Beard]

12! Well, yeah and, for kicks, brought in lobbyists to help write laws (with a look to his future). Craven SOB.

He feels it’s the natural order of things like in nature. What he does not realize is that the Gorilla who once could scream and thump at (11, 12 or) 25, one day they cannot. When that happens, it’s an ugly end for them. That is the cycle of life. You cannot have the brutality now without the knowledge of what the end looks like. The actions that await the once fierce who are no long feared are not good for the once fierce.

 

[SMOGZINN]

He feels it’s the natural order of things like in nature. What he does not realize is that the Gorilla who once could scream and thump at (11, 12 or) 25, one day they cannot. When that happens, it’s an ugly end for them. That is the cycle of life. You cannot have the brutality now without the knowledge of what the end looks like. The actions that await the once fierce who are no long feared are not good for the once fierce.

The end is for someone else. Look at Gingrich. As long as they can kick the can down the road they are not going to worry about the consequences.
Really, this is the brilliance of BothSides! No matter how bad the Republicans act, no matter what underhanded crap they get up to, when caught they can just cry 'BothSides!' and about 80% of the population nods their head sagely and agrees.

 

[hal2kilo]

The end is for someone else. Look at Gingrich. As long as they can kick the can down the road they are not going to worry about the consequences.
Really, this is the brilliance of BothSides! No matter how bad the Republicans act, no matter what underhanded crap they get up to, when caught they can just cry 'BothSides!' and about 80% of the population nods their head sagely and agrees.

Baahh, baah bothsides.

 

[kage69]

Why is blackangst1 getting so many responses? He's the devil's advocate? I've had that troll on ignore for a real long time. If all I see are responses to that person, I'm gonna unsubscribe. You don't have to ignore in the software, you can do it in your mind. IGNORE the trolls.

I counted at least 7 posts in a row that were refutations of that troll. That's ridiculous.

The example I noted earlier is the only reason he hasn't been Ignored. Being able to admit when you are wrong goes a long way with me, and is something I don't usually see with trolls. Don't worry, he'll probably get there anyway at this rate. This thread constitutes the end of my patience I think.

 

[dainthomas]

You don't have to end it. Just change it so you have to filibuster for real. Not placing a blind vote.

Exactly. If someone wants to get up there and read out of the phone book for days, then let them. As soon as they stop, the vote happens.

 

[blankslate]

If Trump's nominee is announced and confirmed in the next few months as it seems more and more likely to happen as the news rolls on;

In my opinion expanding the courts and subsequently nominating and confirming even just left of center Justices to the SCotUS will be the only way to counter a 6/3 majority in favor of today's republican party on the SCotUS that would likely deny anything the government tries to accomplish that isn't from the religious doctrine of medieval times....

That is assuming that Biden wins and the Dems keep the House and win back the Senate....

Something that since 2016 I am not banking on being certain.

But yes given the opportunity the Dems should expand and pack the SCotUS because the in recent years Republicans have demonstrated nothing but a regard for ruthless political power and if the Dems don't respond in kind if given the opportunity then they don't deserve power in these political times.



___________

 

[Sunburn74]

Here’s an interesting if somewhat byzantine way to neuter the courts without stacking the courts by using some neglected Article III powers.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/supreme-court-packing-alternatives.html


There is another, better, way to rein in partisan judges: by stripping the Supreme Court, and also the lower federal courts, of jurisdiction where Congress does not want partisan judges second-guessing particular decisions—especially where, as is so often true, the Constitution does not speak directly to an issue and courts are making political choices rather than legal judgments. That strategy, while perhaps a bit more difficult to reduce to a sound bite or a campaign slogan, gets directly at the problem of partisan judicial activism. It is also a more focused and less overtly politicized approach compared with court packing.

Perhaps the most powerful argument for jurisdiction stripping is that the Constitution clearly permits it. Article III, section 1 of the Constitution gives Congress complete discretion on whether to create the lower federal courts, a power that Congress has used from the founding to limit lower courts’ jurisdiction. And Article III, section 2, clause 2 explicitly empowers Congress to make “exceptions” to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction—that is, to pick and choose for approximately 99 percent of the Supreme Court’s total docket what cases the Court has the power to hear. As I explain in a law review article, to be published in December in the New York University Law Review, under its Article III authority, Congress can remove the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction over particular cases, or particular issues, largely without constraint.

I read that article. It basically says congress can decide which topic, cases, and areas any court can review. Currently judicial review is the US precedent and courts can review pretty much anything related to the law based on our current historical norms. However congress can decide which courts get to review which topics. For example, criminal courts look at criminal law, some courts do trade law, etc etc. Essentially this writer is saying congress could just tell the SCOTUS that they aren't allowed to look at certain cases or certain topics because congress decided they are not the court to do so.

It's a nice idea but it doesn't work.

Firstly the idea behind this is that the courts become democratic because they'll be looking at things only if congress allows. In general courts only stymie congress, they rarely give congress additional powers so in general this would be a way to get the courts out of the way of an overeager congress. However that isn't the problem we face. The issue we have isn't an overactive congress or a congress that is trying to get stuff done. The issue we have is that congress gets nothing done, and so its up to the courts to decide things that congress simply can't decide or is punting. For example, if we wanted everyone to have a right to an abortion, congress could pass laws that make it extremely clear that no state can limit that right. Congress could pass laws on gay rights or to better tighten up racism issues or police brutality issues. However, they haven't and so its fallen to the courts to determine these issues. In example, the current standard for police brutality is actually written by the SCOTUS and not by legislators. Isn't that crazy? Less court activity won't fix issues of gridlock. In fact, it'd only let certain problems fester without relief or at least clarity in direction.

In addition, whilst this may may be a way to make the SCOTUS less powerful or even obsolete, but it would eliminate a check in our checks and balance system. More importantly whilst the SCOTUS often has been the perpertrator of grave injustices in our history, at the same time there have been moments where it has been a saving grace moving the country in the ethically right direction, despite unethical and immoral practices by congress or practices to grab power or eliminate democratic principles.

 

[HurleyBird]

However congress can decide which courts get to review which topics. For example, criminal courts look at criminal law, some courts do trade law, etc etc. Essentially this writer is saying congress could just tell the SCOTUS that they aren't allowed to look at certain cases or certain topics because congress decided they are not the court to do so.

It's a nice idea but it doesn't work.

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

 

[fskimospy]

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

This is another occasion where you seem to think SCOTUS will attempt to strip Congress of its explicitly enumerated constitutional powers.

Even if SCOTUS tried to do that why wouldn’t congress fight back and either defund the judiciary or expand the court to 1,000 members or whatever to end the judicial tyranny?

 

[Paratus]

I read that article. It basically says congress can decide which topic, cases, and areas any court can review. Currently judicial review is the US precedent and courts can review pretty much anything related to the law based on our current historical norms. However congress can decide which courts get to review which topics. For example, criminal courts look at criminal law, some courts do trade law, etc etc. Essentially this writer is saying congress could just tell the SCOTUS that they aren't allowed to look at certain cases or certain topics because congress decided they are not the court to do so.

It's a nice idea but it doesn't work.

Firstly the idea behind this is that the courts become democratic because they'll be looking at things only if congress allows. In general courts only stymie congress, they rarely give congress additional powers so in general this would be a way to get the courts out of the way of an overeager congress. However that isn't the problem we face. The issue we have isn't an overactive congress or a congress that is trying to get stuff done. The issue we have is that congress gets nothing done, and so its up to the courts to decide things that congress simply can't decide or is punting. For example, if we wanted everyone to have a right to an abortion, congress could pass laws that make it extremely clear that no state can limit that right. Congress could pass laws on gay rights or to better tighten up racism issues or police brutality issues. However, they haven't and so its fallen to the courts to determine these issues. In example, the current standard for police brutality is actually written by the SCOTUS and not by legislators. Isn't that crazy? Less court activity won't fix issues of gridlock. In fact, it'd only let certain problems fester without relief or at least clarity in direction.

In addition, whilst this may may be a way to make the SCOTUS less powerful or even obsolete, but it would eliminate a check in our checks and balance system. More importantly whilst the SCOTUS often has been the perpertrator of grave injustices in our history, at the same time there have been moments where it has been a saving grace moving the country in the ethically right direction, despite unethical and immoral practices by congress or practices to grab power or eliminate democratic principles.

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

Well the other thing to point out, that Hamilton explained in the federalist papers is the courts rely on the executive and congress to enforce their rulings. So if SCOTUS starts going of the rails the president & congress simply state per the law the ruling is moot and don’t enforce it.

I don’t really want us going down this path but a dem congress and presidency would have the ability to play hard ball.