Will Biden pack the court?

[renz20003]

And do you agree with that.

 

[Fenixgoon]

If McConnell stays majority leader, he simply won't allow it.
If Dems get Senate majority, I'm absolutely in favor

 

[IronWing]

Without the Senate, Biden won't pack nothing.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

And do you agree with that.

Uhhh... kinda hard if Dems don't win a majority in the senate. Last I checked they likely won't.

 

[Sonikku]

Frankly I don't think the Dems have the balls even if they had the Senate. Which they won't.

 

[Jaskalas]

What are the chances of GA's two senate seats flipping in January's run off election?
GA going all in on Blue would give us a 50/50 Senate, with Kamala Harris deciding.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

He should but as of now he won’t have that option

 

[ewdotson]

Even should they win both GA runoffs (which is quite unlikely), there'd probably be a Democratic senator or two for whom it would be a bridge too far. The real question is whether or not he's going to be able to get things like a new VRA pushed through.

 

[fskimospy]

What are the chances of GA's two senate seats flipping in January's run off election?
GA going all in on Blue would give us a 50/50 Senate, with Kamala Harris deciding.

Probably pretty poor - generally speaking the party that doesn't occupy the White House does better in special elections, which is effectively what this is.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

He won't be able to
If he could he's too much of a pussy to.
But he should.
Having a SCOTUS that can stop any legislation that would bring the USA into the 20th century only benefits regressives, i.e. republicans. Even if the GOP retaliated and further packed the court making it useless, that would mainly benefits democrats! The GOP is about stopping progress, preventing legislation, that's the only think SCOTUS can do. It can't pass laws.

 

[himkhan]

And do you agree with that.

No. Doesn't need to happen anyway. They have been exposed and are an illegitimate SCOTUS now. I predict an arduous life for the new "justices".

 

[tweaker2]

Interesting to me is how McConnell will handle a Supreme Court vacancy during Biden's term if one should ever occur, especially so if one of the liberal members decide to retire.

I mean, for just how long can McConnell refuse to bring up for consideration any of Biden's picks?

 

[pauldun170]

Maybe...just maybe he'll go by the tradition of submitting qualified judges from around the country.

The issue of "court packing" or politicizing the judicial system is at the forefront due to Republicans pushing candidates from the federalists society and fighting against anyone who deviates from that federalists society

 

[ewdotson]

Interesting to me is how McConnell will handle a Supreme Court vacancy during Biden's term if one should ever occur, especially so if one of the liberal members decide to retire.

I mean, for just how long can McConnell refuse to bring up for consideration any of Biden's picks?

Breyer is 82 - retirements aren't the only concern. My personal guess is that McConnell will allow Biden to replace him with a moderate (which I expect Biden to go along with rather than holding out for RBGesque replacement), but completely stonewall things if one of the conservative block passes.

 

[HomerJS]

If Dems can get a majority in the Senate they should. Republicans have been packing the courts for years just by another means.

 

[Sunburn74]

If Dems can get a majority in the Senate they should. Republicans have been packing the courts for years just by another means.

The way to pack the court is to add DC and PR and state because there are 4 new senators and 2 new states, they should also have a chance to influence and be represented on the court as new members of the union. Then you add some new court members and call it a day.

 

[brandonbull]

No. Doesn't need to happen anyway. They have been exposed and are an illegitimate SCOTUS now. I predict an arduous life for the new "justices".

In what way is the SCOTUS illegitimate? Sorry that RBG couldn't tear herself away from the radical judge celebrity spotlight and retire during Obama's admin so that a younger radical judge could replace her. Democrats thought Clinton was the heir apparent to Obama's throne. Oops. Funny how the Progresshevik sheeple view things.

 

[brandonbull]

The way to pack the court is to add DC and PR and state because there are 4 new senators and 2 new states, they should also have a chance to influence and be represented on the court as new members of the union. Then you add some new court members and call it a day.

Why not get rid of the Constitution and implement the Democrat's totalitarian utopia?

 

[repoman0]

Why not get rid of the Constitution and implement the Democrat's totalitarian utopia?

Bottle up some of those tears for me will you bullshit boy?

 

[hal2kilo]

Frankly I don't think the Dems have the balls even if they had the Senate. Which they won't.

Well it's obvious that Republicans are easily offended if you do something that isn't their policy.

 

[fskimospy]

Why not get rid of the Constitution and implement the Democrat's totalitarian utopia?

Are you saying the constitution doesn’t allow adding states? Where did these 37 other than the originals come from then?

Are you also saying the Constitution doesn’t give Congress the power to set the size of the Supreme Court? Article 3 of the constitution seems to strongly disagree with you!

Thid is the thing though - you don’t give a shit about the constitution, you just want to get your way. Doing what you want to do would destroy the constitution just because it says things you don’t like. I always find it funny how conservatives claim to be lovers of the constitution and then turn around and try to shred it.

 

[Sunburn74]

In what way is the SCOTUS illegitimate? Sorry that RBG couldn't tear herself away from the radical judge celebrity spotlight and retire during Obama's admin so that a younger radical judge could replace her. Democrats thought Clinton was the heir apparent to Obama's throne. Oops. Funny how the Progresshevik sheeple view things.

If you can't see why people state the SCOTUS is illegitimate, that's a you problem. You seriously need to get your head examined if you don't understand why people were upset by what they did. I actually understood what the GOP was arguing in 2016. I didn't think it was a great argument but it was kind of a valid argument: let the people choose. Fine it made a bit of sense, but then they immediately flip flopped and shit on their own argument for political gain in a shocking and insulting way to the logic of the american people. It was absolutely disgraceful.

SCOTUS seats shouldn't be determined by politics. It should be simple: either you always get to make a choice in an election year or you never get to make a choice. You can't have it both ways and say its perfectly legitimate and kosher as long as it favors us, but illegitimate and bad faith when it doesn't favor us. My basic position on the SCOTUS is that I don't like how the majority of SCOTUS members mostly support and protect progressively minority views in America and its a perfectly valid justification to add more members to expand the views of the court to more represent the view of american society, particularly if you're adding new several new states

 

[hal2kilo]

Well it's not possible now. Too many political neophytes thought it was good strategy to talk about shoving it down their throats as soon as Biden got in office. I thought talking about it at all was stupid and I have no doubts that this killed the blue wave.

 

[nickqt]

Why not get rid of the Constitution and implement the Democrat's totalitarian utopia?

Right-wing authoritarian is very sad because daddy lost the big contest.

 

[Shamrock]

I am of a differing opinion. I don't want the SCOTUS packed, I also don't want them all Puggers, either. 2 of the 3 branches of legislature are elected. I think SCOTUS should be elected as well. 3 terms of 4 years.