#1  
Old 05-15-2019, 11:03 PM
The Flying Dutchman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 50N West Georgia Strait
Posts: 8,614

Mitch McConnell...back atcha


Let's assume that the democrats win big in 2020 and Biden gets elected

Could the house come up with a new Judiciary Act for President Biden to allow him to appoint 2 more left leaning justices to the supreme court?
  #2  
Old 05-15-2019, 11:06 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,848
The House could, but it also has to pass the Senate.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #3  
Old 05-15-2019, 11:19 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,698
If Dems don't hold the House, take the Senate and win the presidency in 2020, not much will change. And that is very dangerous, indeed.
  #4  
Old 05-16-2019, 06:13 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,045
Court packing is theoretically possible but extremely difficult and sets a nasty precedent.
  #5  
Old 05-16-2019, 08:08 AM
Pleonast's Avatar
Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 7,102
I’d rather impeach the justices and judges nominated by unindicted co-conspirator Donald John Trump.
  #6  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:01 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast View Post
I’d rather impeach the justices and judges nominated by unindicted co-conspirator Donald John Trump.
IANAL but I believe that even if Trump, McConnell and every other Republican in Congress were indicted, convicted and jailed, you'd have to demonstrate grounds for impeachment based on the actions of the justice themselves. I don't agree with many of Gorsuch's views but I've seen nothing to suggest that he isn't a solidly qualified jurist. Kavanaugh may be a different matter, but even that'd be an uphill battle.

The fact that it's difficult to dislodge a sitting SCOTUS justice is,by and large, a feature rather than a bug to prevent excessive tampering by the other branches of government. Of course, that's dependent on the other branches of government not in themselves being openly corrupt and collaborating to undermine the intended process to select and seat the justices in the first place.
  #7  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:41 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
you'd have to demonstrate grounds for impeachment based on the actions of the justice themselves.
Grounds for impeachment and conviction are whatever congress wants them to be. It could be that they don't like the way they part their hair.

But practically speaking, packing the court or impeaching the justices is a nuclear option. I doubt the Dems would hold together for this process, let alone get any Republicans to cross the aisle.
  #8  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:54 AM
Pleonast's Avatar
Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 7,102
The House has "sole power of impeachment" and the Senate has "sole power to try all impeachments". They are the only arbiters of the criteria necessary to impeach and remove from office, other than the required votes. Being nominated by a criminal President and confirmed by a corrupt Senate is sufficient. I recognize that impeachment and removal from office is difficult, but it is the morally just action.
  #9  
Old 05-16-2019, 11:01 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast View Post
I recognize that impeachment and removal from office is difficult, but it is the morally just action.
IMO it is not the just action. It would set an awful precedent for future disputes that should not be settled this way, leading to mob rule. Elections have consequences, even if those consequences suck. There are better ways to resolve the problems left in their wake.
  #10  
Old 05-16-2019, 11:25 AM
Pleonast's Avatar
Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 7,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
IMO it is not the just action. It would set an awful precedent for future disputes that should not be settled this way, leading to mob rule. Elections have consequences, even if those consequences suck. There are better ways to resolve the problems left in their wake.
It works both ways. The consequence of elections giving Democrats sufficient votes and political will would be the impeachment and removal from office of Trump's judicial nominees.

Just as decreased liberty for increased security is not a worthy trade, neither is decreased justice for increased political expediency.
  #11  
Old 05-16-2019, 11:30 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast View Post
The consequence of elections giving Democrats sufficient votes and political will would be the impeachment and removal from office of Trump's judicial nominees.
Which would lead to the same happening to the Dem's judicial nominees the next time the election pendulum swings right. It's not worth the turmoil, the unpredictability, and the retribution cycles.
  #12  
Old Yesterday, 06:02 PM
Grestarian is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Garage & Lab
Posts: 1,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast View Post
It works both ways. The consequence of elections giving Democrats sufficient votes and political will would be the impeachment and removal from office of Trump's judicial nominees.
Speculation and contemplation of this theme, regardless of the source, is a rallying cry for the right and a call-to-arms* for far-right extremists. "Here's why we can't let THEM undermine OUR progress (and destroy...blah, blah, blah)..."

--G!
*Second-Amendment style arms, no less!

Last edited by Grestarian; Yesterday at 06:03 PM.
  #13  
Old Yesterday, 07:51 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is online now
You mean he's STILL here?
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,735
In his second term Franklin Roosevelt tried to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court. It was a spectacular turd of an idea then, and it still is.
  #14  
Old Today, 09:47 AM
Pleonast's Avatar
Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 7,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
Which would lead to the same happening to the Dem's judicial nominees the next time the election pendulum swings right. It's not worth the turmoil, the unpredictability, and the retribution cycles.
You're a reasonable person and I respect that it's not worth it to you, but it is worth it to me. I feel it's time for the full power of democracy and law be levied against Trumpists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grestarian View Post
Speculation and contemplation of this theme, regardless of the source, is a rallying cry for the right and a call-to-arms* for far-right extremists. "Here's why we can't let THEM undermine OUR progress (and destroy...blah, blah, blah)..."

--G!
*Second-Amendment style arms, no less!
I'm happy to fill our ample prison space with those who would wage war against the United States.
  #15  
Old Today, 09:50 AM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 58,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
In his second term Franklin Roosevelt tried to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court. It was a spectacular turd of an idea then, and it still is.
How did FDR plan to do that?
  #16  
Old Today, 09:50 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,477
There is no chance that the Dems get enough Senate seats to start impeaching (at least the removing from office bit, which is presumably the part you care about) Republicans / Republican-appointed judges at random.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; Today at 09:51 AM.
  #17  
Old Today, 09:52 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
How did FDR plan to do that?
Ask Congress to pass a law increasing the size of the Court
  #18  
Old Today, 09:58 AM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 58,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Ask Congress to pass a law increasing the size of the Court
From Wikipedia: "The Judiciary Act of 1869, sometimes called the Circuit Judges Act of 1869, a United States statute, provided that the Supreme Court of the United States would consist of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, established separate judgeships for the U.S. circuit courts, and for the first time included a provision allowing federal judges to retire without losing their salary.[1] This is the most recent legislation altering the size of the Supreme Court. "

Hunh. I'm surprise the size hasn't increased before. The party controlling Congress could do it whenever they disagreed with a ruling.
  #19  
Old Today, 10:01 AM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is online now
You mean he's STILL here?
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
How did FDR plan to do that?
Here you go. Another thing they didn't teach in school until you got into 300-level political science courses
  #20  
Old Today, 10:19 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
Here you go. Another thing they didn't teach in school until you got into 300-level political science courses
And, from your cite -
Quote:
In the end, Perry says, two members of the Court switched to a pro-New Deal position, known as “the switch in time that saved nine.”

“And FDR eventually packed the Court the old-fashioned way,” she says, “through attrition, naming nine members.”
So even a not-terribly-credible threat was enough. Although neither Trump nor any further President is likely to be in office long enough to appoint more than one or two Justices.

Regards,
Shodan
  #21  
Old Today, 10:29 AM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 58,462
Thanks.
  #22  
Old Today, 10:31 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
... Hunh. I'm surprise the size hasn't increased before. The party controlling Congress could do it whenever they disagreed with a ruling.
Not exactly. There are the issues of the Senate filibuster, and a presidential veto. And that most Congress critters are self-aware enough to realize that if they do it, the other side will respond in kind when the opportunity arises.
  #23  
Old Today, 04:59 PM
Wheelz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5,516
I think the only possible way Congress even begins to consider removing justices is if voluminous and absolutely incontrovertible evidence comes to light that actual votes were tampered with to the extent that everyone agrees that Trump didn't really win the Electoral College.

I don't foresee that happening, but if it did, you could argue that any justices added during his administration were not legitimately appointed. If Trump is impeached and removed from office, you couldn't make that argument, and -- as others have pointed out -- it would set a terrible precedent of any party with enough seats just picking off justices they don't like.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017