Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 04-01-2019, 04:54 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Both sides need to consider the long-term effects of their actions.

Question: What happens if you end the legislative filibuster and pack the Supreme Court?

Simple Partisan Answer: Why, everything stays the same, except now we have control of the court and can pass any agenda we want! Win!

Complex Answer: You get your way for a year or two, at the cost of pissing off half the country and making yourselves look like you're engaging in a major power grab. So you lose the next election bigly, and your enemies get to use all the tools you ruined yourselves over.

A good example is Obamacare. Institutionally, there had always been a sort of unwritten rule that seriously major legislation that would make wholesale changes to the economy or the government must be passed in a bipartisan fashion. That gives it the legitimacy necessary to withstand the shrieking that will no doubt come from special interests and partisans. The Democrats did away with that and passed a major change to the country on a strict party-line vote. The result has been eight years of fighting, court cases, and ultimately the possible destruction of the entire law.

The notion that when your side gets 'control' it's time to clean house and use every trick in the book to pass everything you want, whether done by Republicans or Democrats, is a recipe for social breakdown, chaotic governance, and the transformation of a country from one with high trust in its institutions to a low-trust society, and all the damage that brings.

Specific to court-packing, that looks like such a blatant power grab that I predict that any governing party that tries to do it will face such a public backlash that they will get routed in the next election after.

Also, if you are going to pack the court you need a justification for doing so other than, "They keep using the constitution against our progressive ideas." FDR tried to claim that the court was overworked, but that was shot down by the court itself. The next idea was to force judges over 70 to retire, which would have disproportionally affected Republican judges and given FDR the ability to make multiple appointments in a short period of time. Unfortunately for the Democrats, if they tried to age-out the justices at 70, they would lose Ginsberg and Breyer, and the Republicans would only lose Thomas and I guess Alito if it's a couple of years from now. But 70 today isn't like it was in the 30's, and I doubt you could ever make a forced retirement at 70 stick. And if you did, the only justices that will hit 70 in the next term are Sotomayor and Roberts.

As a reminder, FDR's court-packing scheme did not succeed. In today's era, such an attempt would trigger massive civil unrest on the right, who would rightly see it as a massive power grab.
This analysis ignores the fact that this is not happening in a historical vacuum; the Republicans have already been ignoring established historical norms to pack the Court in their favor. First, they refused to seat a well-qualified, moderate jurist in Merrick Garland. Then, when their next nominee was credibly accused of rape, they didn't fully investigate the allegations, nor did they replace the nominee with someone else -- because doing either of those would have risked not getting a Republican confirmed before the Senate changed hands. So there are now two members of the Court whose legitimacy is highly dubious in terms of "norms" (obviously, I am not alleging that any actual laws were broken). If those Justices, in the future, thwart popular progressive legislation passed by Democrats, the Dems would be IMO foolish to not at least consider every legal method of working around the obstacle.
  #52  
Old 04-01-2019, 05:01 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Have you read article 3 of the Constitution? It describes scenario where Congress can limit and affect SCOTUS. Article 1 establishes the chief justice so Congress cannot set the number to zero.

The court started with six seats as established by Congress, and has gone as high as 10 as established by Congress. Your understanding of the contours of the law in this matter are contain significant errors.
Article III, Section I:

Quote:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Not seeing it. Congress can fuss with inferior courts...not the Supreme Court which is one of the three branches of government, made to be co-equal with the other two. Checks and balances. It would go 100% against the FF's notions to let one branch supersede another branch.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #53  
Old 04-01-2019, 05:04 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Yes.
Why do you believe that President Trump and Senator McConnell have not availed themselves of this option?
  #54  
Old 04-01-2019, 05:12 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Article III, Section I:



Not seeing it. Congress can fuss with inferior courts...not the Supreme Court which is one of the three branches of government, made to be co-equal with the other two. Checks and balances. It would go 100% against the FF's notions to let one branch supersede another branch.
Try section 2;

Quote:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
SCOTUS shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact ... under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The dudes who ratified it, and operated under it at it's creation understood this, from the first where it was originally established at 6 by an act of Congress, to when Adams reduced the size from 6 to 5 in order to try and thwart Jefferson. He did this with an act of Congress.

Last edited by Bone; 04-01-2019 at 05:13 PM.
  #55  
Old 04-01-2019, 05:13 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Why do you believe that President Trump and Senator McConnell have not availed themselves of this option?
Because they already have a majority in the court. Why stack it?

Plus, if they stack it then Dems have free reign to keep going if they gain power.

I would bet all I own that republicans have sat in a room and gamed this out.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 04-01-2019 at 05:16 PM.
  #56  
Old 04-01-2019, 05:15 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Both sides need to consider the long-term effects of their actions.

Question: What happens if you end the legislative filibuster and pack the Supreme Court?

Simple Partisan Answer: Why, everything stays the same, except now we have control of the court and can pass any agenda we want! Win!

Complex Answer: You get your way for a year or two, at the cost of pissing off half the country and making yourselves look like you're engaging in a major power grab. So you lose the next election bigly, and your enemies get to use all the tools you ruined yourselves over.

A good example is Obamacare. Institutionally, there had always been a sort of unwritten rule that seriously major legislation that would make wholesale changes to the economy or the government must be passed in a bipartisan fashion. That gives it the legitimacy necessary to withstand the shrieking that will no doubt come from special interests and partisans. The Democrats did away with that and passed a major change to the country on a strict party-line vote. The result has been eight years of fighting, court cases, and ultimately the possible destruction of the entire law.

The notion that when your side gets 'control' it's time to clean house and use every trick in the book to pass everything you want, whether done by Republicans or Democrats, is a recipe for social breakdown, chaotic governance, and the transformation of a country from one with high trust in its institutions to a low-trust society, and all the damage that brings.

Specific to court-packing, that looks like such a blatant power grab that I predict that any governing party that tries to do it will face such a public backlash that they will get routed in the next election after.

Also, if you are going to pack the court you need a justification for doing so other than, "They keep using the constitution against our progressive ideas." FDR tried to claim that the court was overworked, but that was shot down by the court itself. The next idea was to force judges over 70 to retire, which would have disproportionally affected Republican judges and given FDR the ability to make multiple appointments in a short period of time. Unfortunately for the Democrats, if they tried to age-out the justices at 70, they would lose Ginsberg and Breyer, and the Republicans would only lose Thomas and I guess Alito if it's a couple of years from now. But 70 today isn't like it was in the 30's, and I doubt you could ever make a forced retirement at 70 stick. And if you did, the only justices that will hit 70 in the next term are Sotomayor and Roberts.

As a reminder, FDR's court-packing scheme did not succeed. In today's era, such an attempt would trigger massive civil unrest on the right, who would rightly see it as a massive power grab.
This all may (or may not) be true, but I don't see how the alternative of not attempting to pack the court is better. The court is already entirely politicized. The Republicans are already violating norms. The only long term solution is a Constitutional amendment, but that's not likely to happen. In the mean time, it seems reasonable to suggest that the Democrats play ball the same way as the Republicans, and don't limit themselves for reasons that Republicans have been ignoring for years.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 04-01-2019 at 05:18 PM.
  #57  
Old 04-01-2019, 05:15 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Try section 2;



SCOTUS shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact ... under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The dudes who ratified it, and operated under it at it's creation understood this, from the first where it was originally established at 6 by an act of Congress, to when Adams reduced the size from 6 to 5 in order to try and thwart Jefferson. He did this with an act of Congress.
I am missing the part where it says how big the court is.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #58  
Old 04-01-2019, 05:25 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
This is wrong at every level.

Can the executive determine the number of seats in congress?

Why can congress determine the number of seats in the Supreme Court?

The checks and balances come in where congress can modify a law to comport with a judicial finding or they can impeach a sitting justice.
There are lots of places where individual branches have autonomy. I already mentioned several of them - the executive branch gets to determine the priorities for enforcing legislation. The House has the power of the purse.

But my comment was aimed at your general statement that "Congress does not have the right to limit another branch of government." It does, and has. The whole point to the American governmental structure is that all branches have the right to limit other branches under certain circumstances. We just saw a good example of that - Trump wanted his wall, Congress stopped him, Trump vetoed, and Congress didn't have the votes to overturn. But if they had, they could have very thoroughly stopped another branch of government from doing what it wanted.

And Obama had his plans thwarted by the Supreme Court on many occasions as well. Back when the U.S. had a functioning budgetary process, it was extremely common for both the House and Senate to have to compromise in order to get a budget passed. Presidential budgets are routinely thwarted by the legislative branch. Hell, Trump himself has had executive orders shot down by the courts. The whole point to American governmental structures is to have each branch oversee and limit the other.
  #59  
Old 04-01-2019, 05:47 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
But my comment was aimed at your general statement that "Congress does not have the right to limit another branch of government." It does, and has.
Sure.

Limits are in the check and balances and spelled out in the constitution.

Limits are *not* in the ability of one branch of government to nerf another branch of government by limiting its size or via other means.

It would be madness for the FFs to let one branch effectively control another branch of government.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #60  
Old 04-01-2019, 05:59 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I am missing the part where it says how big the court is.
It doesn't, that's the point. Congress establishes the size. They do it through legislation. Any idea you have that the size could be increased without legislation is wrong.

Last edited by Bone; 04-01-2019 at 06:01 PM.
  #61  
Old 04-01-2019, 06:02 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,363
So, Whack-a-Mole, how do you think the number of Supreme Court justices is set? If Congress doesn't have that power, then who does?

And note that, under your theory that the President is allowed to nominate a new Justice any time they feel like it, you're positing that the other branches do, in fact, have the power to mess with the Court.
  #62  
Old 04-01-2019, 06:02 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
It doesn't, that's the point. Congress establishes the size. They do it through legislation. Any idea you have that the size could be increased without legislation is wrong.
Point out the part of the constitution that lets congress determine the size of another branch of government.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #63  
Old 04-01-2019, 06:05 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
So, Whack-a-Mole, how do you think the number of Supreme Court justices is set? If Congress doesn't have that power, then who does?

And note that, under your theory that the President is allowed to nominate a new Justice any time they feel like it, you're positing that the other branches do, in fact, have the power to mess with the Court.
That's the thing...no one does. And yes, the president can stack the court.

Read up on the history of the supreme court. It was not always nine people. Nine is just what they kind of settled on. I know, seems crazy, but as smart as our FFs were they missed a few things. This is one of them.

And via impeachment the other branches can affect the court. Checks and balances.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 04-01-2019 at 06:07 PM.
  #64  
Old 04-01-2019, 06:17 PM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,109
28 U.S. Code  1:
Quote:
The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 869.)
This is a law, passed by the United States Congress and signed by the President of the United States*. That's what sets the size of the Supreme Court (since the Constitution doesn't actually set a number); Congress (and the President) made that law, and of course they could change it. (Or a super-majority of both houses of Congress could change it over a Presidential veto.) Whether or not they should do so is another question.

*I mean, as far as I know passing this didn't involve overriding a Presidential veto or anything. If I'm reading the parenthetical statement correctly, this law dates back to June 1948 (which doesn't necessarily mean that a nine-member SCOTUS only dates back that far, Congress could have just been tidying up the U.S. Code or something like that).

And of course the President of the United States can't just appoint a couple of extra Supreme Court Justices, either.
__________________
"In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." -- Carl Sagan

Ceterum censeo imperium Trumpi esse delendam
  #65  
Old 04-01-2019, 06:24 PM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,109
Oh, and from 1789 (the year the Constitution went into effect), we have the Judiciary Act of 1789, which among other things provided that:
Quote:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the supreme court of the United States shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices, any four of whom shall be a quorum...
  #66  
Old 04-01-2019, 06:35 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEBuckner View Post
Oh, and from 1789 (the year the Constitution went into effect), we have the Judiciary Act of 1789, which among other things provided that:
Can congress pass a law setting the supreme court to one or zero people? What about a million? A hundred bazillion?
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #67  
Old 04-01-2019, 06:48 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Can congress pass a law setting the supreme court to one or zero people? What about a million? A hundred bazillion?
One person, yes. Zero people, no. A million or a hundred bazililon, yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Point out the part of the constitution that lets congress determine the size of another branch of government.
You are moving from the specific to the general. Article 3, section 2 says, 'SCOTUS shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact ... under such regulations as the Congress shall make. '

What regulations do you think Congress can make, and why is size not one of them?

Congress can set the size of the Supreme Court. They have done this several times through the years. And since congressional acts are presumably constitutional, and the legislation was signed by multiple different presidents, and advanced my multiple different Congressional sessions, the burden is on you to present evidence that Congress does not have this power that they have exercised for the history of the country.

There is no one with any credibility advancing the position you are advancing. All legal scholars, the congress, and all past presidents have not advanced the ideas you are advancing. Basically, you're super duper wrong here.
  #68  
Old 04-01-2019, 06:54 PM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Can congress pass a law setting the supreme court to one or zero people? What about a million? A hundred bazillion?
Who the hell knows? Constitutionally speaking there has to be a Supreme Court of some kind ("The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish") and the Constitution refers at one place to the "Chief Justice": The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

So, there has to be at least somebody who constitutes "the Supreme Court", and if Congress (and the President) decide to just have one guy, I guess he automatically gets to be "the Chief Justice" and preside over the Senate trial of an impeached POTUS.

Congress and the President (or super-majorities of both houses of Congress) could certainly decide that the Supreme Court should have a total of eleven members; or seven; or thirteen. It doesn't even have to be an odd number, however obvious and common-sense it may seem that it should be; the Judiciary Act of 1789 established a six-member court.

Note that if you read on in the Judiciary Act of 1789 it establishes the first inferior federal courts, with District Courts for each of the states; a total of thirteen District Courts because (duh!) there were thirteen states. Except, if you read it, there are District Courts for "the part of the State of Massachusetts which lies easterly of the State of New Hampshire" (AKA as "Maine", which did not become a separate state until 1820), and a district for Kentucky (which was still formally part of Virginia, and didn't become a separate state until 1792). So, there were no federal judicial districts for North Carolina or Rhode Island! What gives? Well, you see, the Judiciary Act of 1789 was enacted before North Carolina or Rhode Island had even ratified the Constitution. The Judiciary Act was enacted on September 24, 1789; North Carolina ratified on November 21, and Rhode Island held out until May 29 of the next year.

The point of all this is that it's hardly an exaggeration to say that the practice of Congress (and the President) setting the number of justices of the Supreme Court by federal law is as old as the Constitution itself. The motherfucking ink was barely dry on the Constitution, and Congress (and George Washington) were passing laws to establish the number of members of the Supreme Court. Because how the hell else would it be done?
  #69  
Old 04-01-2019, 06:56 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
One person, yes. Zero people, no. A million or a hundred bazililon, yes.



You are moving from the specific to the general. Article 3, section 2 says, 'SCOTUS shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact ... under such regulations as the Congress shall make. '

What regulations do you think Congress can make, and why is size not one of them?

Congress can set the size of the Supreme Court. They have done this several times through the years. And since congressional acts are presumably constitutional, and the legislation was signed by multiple different presidents, and advanced my multiple different Congressional sessions, the burden is on you to present evidence that Congress does not have this power that they have exercised for the history of the country.

There is no one with any credibility advancing the position you are advancing. All legal scholars, the congress, and all past presidents have not advanced the ideas you are advancing. Basically, you're super duper wrong here.
Nothing you noted says congress can set the size of another branch of government.

That people have gone with it so far does not mean it is law. It only means no one has challenged it so far.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #70  
Old 04-01-2019, 07:01 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Nothing you noted says congress can set the size of another branch of government.

That people have gone with it so far does not mean it is law. It only means no one has challenged it so far.
Article 3, section 2 says that SCOTUS acts under such regulations that Congress shall make. Are you asserting that size is not one of them? Given it's done so many many times, that seems far fetched.

But sure, someone can litigate that clause and seek to have SCOTUS opine on the matter. Maybe you can enlist Paul Clement or Lisa Black. But until then, this claim you make, is contra indicated by all available evidence.

I really hope that all the Democratic candidates campaign on this though. It would be hilariously entertaining to watch them advance such spectacularly bad arguments.
  #71  
Old 04-01-2019, 07:04 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Article 3, section 2 says that SCOTUS acts under such regulations that Congress shall make.
Where?

I looked. Not seeing it.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #72  
Old 04-01-2019, 08:16 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Where?

I looked. Not seeing it.
Article 3 isn't that long.
Here's the text: (my bold)
Quote:
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
But hey, if that's not sufficient for you, feel free to file a lawsuit. I'll laugh though.
  #73  
Old 04-01-2019, 08:36 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,563
Court packing would further hurt the legitimacy of the Courts, but the legitimacy of the courts is already seriously in question, and I blame mainly Republicans for that. And let's face it: this is exactly what oligarchs want - they want people to lose faith in government and its institutions. If institutions operate in the public interest, the best way to destroy them is to convince people that they're partisan.

I don't see a way out of this decadence except a peaceful mini-revolution, like the New Deal was back in the 1930s. For this to happen, people will have to lose faith in the oligarch's economic system, which is what modern American capitalism is in its present form. A massive financial collapse will be painful, but it would also provide an opportunity for productive disruption. But it would be just that - an opportunity and nothing more. For revolutions to succeed, wisdom and competence are required. It's entirely possible that anti-oligarchs would be just as incompetent and authoritarian as their oligarch nemeses - perhaps more so. America has had the great fortune of having been steered in the right direction by great leaders during times of crisis, but that doesn't always happen.

Last edited by asahi; 04-01-2019 at 08:36 PM.
  #74  
Old 04-02-2019, 08:10 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,363
In the long term (which isn't even that long; any timespan longer than two years or so), we need a Constitutional amendment to establish just how justices of the Court are chosen. Any solution to the problems already caused by the lack of such a procedure must be packaged with that amendment.
  #75  
Old 04-02-2019, 08:51 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,844
The Supreme Court also technically has no power in and of itself to enforce its judicial decisions. Once or if it gets packed to the point that it becomes regarded as a farce and obvious political weapon, numerous state or local governments would start to flout it - especially if other branches of government that are supposed to enforce SCOTUS rule, decide not to.
  #76  
Old 04-02-2019, 11:02 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,396
I am astounded by OP. The Supreme Court is already a laughing-stock; it has been packed with utter scumbags from the right wing. It has no honor left to preserve. Yet, OP thinks that to appoint honorable judges to this desecrated body would dishonor it?

Yes, if the evil scumbags regain power they will do their utmost to restore control to the Kleptocrats, Haters, and Liars. To gain control they will use voter suppression, gerrymandering, and piles of illicit money techniques which have been bestowed upon them by the present scumbag Court. Returning the Court to honest good-spirited judges is an important first step in reversing such anti-democratic measures.
  #77  
Old 04-02-2019, 12:00 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I am astounded by OP. The Supreme Court is already a laughing-stock; it has been packed with utter scumbags from the right wing. It has no honor left to preserve. Yet, OP thinks that to appoint honorable judges to this desecrated body would dishonor it?

Yes, if the evil scumbags regain power they will do their utmost to restore control to the Kleptocrats, Haters, and Liars. To gain control they will use voter suppression, gerrymandering, and piles of illicit money techniques which have been bestowed upon them by the present scumbag Court. Returning the Court to honest good-spirited judges is an important first step in reversing such anti-democratic measures.
It's how you appoint judges that matters. Otherwise, by this the-ends-justify-the-means logic, "How can you object to us putting a good and honorable president in the White House by underhanded and dodgy methods? Putting him/her there will restore honor and dignity to the presidency."
  #78  
Old 04-02-2019, 12:22 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,080
What do people think of the idea of expanding the Court to ten political appointments (adding one seat), and then requiring 5 additional seats to be filled by the consensus of the 10 political appointees?

This is the idea Pete Buttigieg is supporting. I like it. It has the virtue of defusing somewhat the politicization of appointments while also not being obviously to the benefit of whatever party succeeds in creating it. A bigger court also has other benefits.
  #79  
Old 04-02-2019, 12:28 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
What do people think of the idea of expanding the Court to ten political appointments (adding one seat), and then requiring 5 additional seats to be filled by the consensus of the 10 political appointees?

This is the idea Pete Buttigieg is supporting. I like it. It has the virtue of defusing somewhat the politicization of appointments while also not being obviously to the benefit of whatever party succeeds in creating it. A bigger court also has other benefits.
So President Trump nominates ACB and then her and the current court select five additional justices? You said "consensus". Does that mean the 10 justices have to unanimously approve of the new member? What happens in the quite-likely scenario that they don't reach a consensus? Do those seats sit vacant and the existing 10 members rule on cases? Or is it a majority of the 10-member "political appointees" that choose the remaining 5, in which case I would hope and expect that the 5 would be rather conservative in their judicial philosophy.
  #80  
Old 04-02-2019, 12:33 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,805
Anything to help your team huh? Restoring the court's reputation and de-politicizing it is just right out for you huh?

I really hate this timeline. When did just doing the right thing and what's best for all of America get replaced by anything goes for my team to be able to force our will on the other team.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #81  
Old 04-02-2019, 12:38 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So President Trump nominates ACB and then her and the current court select five additional justices? You said "consensus". Does that mean the 10 justices have to unanimously approve of the new member? What happens in the quite-likely scenario that they don't reach a consensus? Do those seats sit vacant and the existing 10 members rule on cases? Or is it a majority of the 10-member "political appointees" that choose the remaining 5, in which case I would hope and expect that the 5 would be rather conservative in their judicial philosophy.
Do you think that McConnell would let this pass so Trump would sign it and this can all happen before the next election? Otherwise its pretty wishful thinking that Trump would be the one to nominate the 10th justice. Something something counting chickens...
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #82  
Old 04-02-2019, 12:42 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Do you think that McConnell would let this pass so Trump would sign it and this can all happen before the next election? Otherwise its pretty wishful thinking that Trump would be the one to nominate the 10th justice. Something something counting chickens...
For the prospect of putting another conservative on the court, and then having a 6-4 court pick 5 additional justices? Yeah, I'm pretty sure McConnell would let that pass. Schumer would pitch a fit though.
  #83  
Old 04-02-2019, 12:44 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
For the prospect of putting another conservative on the court, and then having a 6-4 court pick 5 additional justices? Yeah, I'm pretty sure McConnell would let that pass. Schumer would pitch a fit though.
And you think Pelosi would let this pass the house this term?

You're a bit off the deep end here with your hypothetical
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #84  
Old 04-02-2019, 12:50 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
And you think Pelosi would let this pass the house this term?

You're a bit off the deep end here with your hypothetical
It wasn't MY hypothetical. It was Richard Parker's / Buttigieg's. And no, I don't think it has even the slimmest chance of passing, for precisely the reason that you complain about: everyone, including Pelosi and Schumer, will look at the political implications of passing it, and oppose it if they feel they'll end up on the short end of the exchange.
  #85  
Old 04-02-2019, 12:50 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
What do people think of the idea of expanding the Court to ten political appointments (adding one seat), and then requiring 5 additional seats to be filled by the consensus of the 10 political appointees?

This is the idea Pete Buttigieg is supporting. I like it. It has the virtue of defusing somewhat the politicization of appointments while also not being obviously to the benefit of whatever party succeeds in creating it. A bigger court also has other benefits.
I think you wouldn't even be considering a change to the court if your side had the plurality. Which means this is not a 'good government' reform, but an attempt to gain partisan advantage.

Likewise, the left was perfectly happy with the electoral college when they thought it had created a 'blue wall' for Hillary to beat Trump.

I also think that if Republicans had suggested any change at all to the Supreme Court back when it mostly swung to the left, Democrats would be howling that Fascism had arrived or that Republicans were attempting a soft coup and must be stopped.
  #86  
Old 04-02-2019, 12:53 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It wasn't MY hypothetical. It was Richard Parker's / Buttigieg's. And no, I don't think it has even the slimmest chance of passing, for precisely the reason that you complain about: everyone, including Pelosi and Schumer, will look at the political implications of passing it, and oppose it if they feel they'll end up on the short end of the exchange.
No. Richard Parker posted the idea, from a Democratic candidate about something that may happen should he be elected president. You created your hypothetical of how you dreamed it would play out if the current legislature passed this plan this term. Your post is what is divorced from reality. Its right there, just scroll up to post #79. All your words.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #87  
Old 04-02-2019, 12:55 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
No. Richard Parker posted the idea, from a Democratic candidate about something that may happen should he be elected president. You created your hypothetical of how you dreamed it would play out if the current legislature passed this plan this term. Your post is what is divorced from reality. Its right there, just scroll up to post #79. All your words.
As Sam Stone noted, if you only like the idea if a Dem is president when it gets implemented, it's painfully obvious that you only support it "to be able to force our will on the other team".
  #88  
Old 04-02-2019, 12:57 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
I think you wouldn't even be considering a change to the court if your side had the plurality. Which means this is not a 'good government' reform, but an attempt to gain partisan advantage.

Likewise, the left was perfectly happy with the electoral college when they thought it had created a 'blue wall' for Hillary to beat Trump.

I also think that if Republicans had suggested any change at all to the Supreme Court back when it mostly swung to the left, Democrats would be howling that Fascism had arrived or that Republicans were attempting a soft coup and must be stopped.
All this, accurate or not, ignores that SCOTUS is already a partisan institution. You must realize that suggesting to the Democrats that they play softball while the Republicans play hardball is not likely to fly, right? A political institution will be treated politically, and this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Sure, it'd be better for the country if this weren't the case, but the only way to make that happen is with a Constitutional amendment.
  #89  
Old 04-02-2019, 01:02 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
As Sam Stone noted, if you only like the idea if a Dem is president when it gets implemented, it's painfully obvious that you only support it "to be able to force our will on the other team".
What I want is for the Supreme Court to be a legitimate non-political body of government again. What you want is your side to win no matter the cost.

Your side can't deny a president a supreme court pick, then complain about what the other side is doing by trying to figure out a way to restore legitimacy to the court. Legitimacy that your side destroyed. Why don't you hold your own side accountable for everything you criticize the other side for? Self delusion is a powerful thing I guess. Really sad for America that so many are falling victim to it so completely, and willingly.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 04-02-2019 at 01:03 PM.
  #90  
Old 04-02-2019, 01:05 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
What I want is for the Supreme Court to be a legitimate non-political body of government again. What you want is your side to win no matter the cost.

Your side can't deny a president a supreme court pick, then complain about what the other side is doing by trying to figure out a way to restore legitimacy to the court. Legitimacy that your side destroyed. Why don't you hold your own side accountable for everything you criticize the other side for? Self delusion is a powerful thing I guess. Really sad for America that so many are falling victim to it so completely, and willingly.
Your side is currently discussing packing the court. That's literally the topic of this thread. And you want to wax poetic about how you're just "trying to figure out a way to restore legitimacy". LMAO!
  #91  
Old 04-02-2019, 01:08 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,844
The talk about "let's bring back legitimacy to the SCOTUS by court-packing" is like "last time the ref helped out our opponents unfairly, so this time we'll outright bribe the refs and league commissioner. That'll restore faith and trust in officiating."
  #92  
Old 04-02-2019, 01:09 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Likewise, the left was perfectly happy with the electoral college when they thought it had created a 'blue wall' for Hillary to beat Trump.
I don't think so - one way or another, the Electoral College was and is a disadvantage for the left. The blue wall didn't "favor" the Democrats any more than California's 55 electoral votes favor the D's; it just happened to be a swath of blue states.
  #93  
Old 04-02-2019, 01:11 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What happens in the quite-likely scenario that they don't reach a consensus? Do those seats sit vacant and the existing 10 members rule on cases? Or is it a majority of the 10-member "political appointees" that choose the remaining 5, in which case I would hope and expect that the 5 would be rather conservative in their judicial philosophy.
I think they would quite easily find consensus. That aside, I understand the proposal to be that the slots are filled if they find consensus and not filled if they don't.

Why do you put "political appointees" in quotes?

Also, did you have any substantive comment on the merits of the proposal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
I think you wouldn't even be considering a change to the court if your side had the plurality.
That's nice. You know very little about me. Any comment on the actual proposal?
  #94  
Old 04-02-2019, 01:13 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Your side is currently discussing packing the court. That's literally the topic of this thread. And you want to wax poetic about how you're just "trying to figure out a way to restore legitimacy". LMAO!
This scorched earth, winner take all, fuck the other side politics is going to be the end of our republic. That you find it all a laughing matter is just repulsive.

I hope for both of our sakes and for the sake of the next generations that our better nature as a society wins out in the end.

Maybe one day we'll have a legitimate Supreme Court again, but as long as one side will use nuclear weapons to get an advantage while demanding the other side put down the water gun because its partisan, we'll never get there. And that is very bad for our country. Regardless of whatever short term gain you think you're getting right now, it is harming us greatly for the long term.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #95  
Old 04-02-2019, 01:20 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
This scorched earth, winner take all, fuck the other side politics is going to be the end of our republic. ...
I agree. And I don't think that's a laughing matter. That you pretend you're not doing your damnedest to do the exact same thing, in a thread about court-packing, is what I find laughable.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 04-02-2019 at 01:20 PM.
  #96  
Old 04-02-2019, 01:22 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The talk about "let's bring back legitimacy to the SCOTUS by court-packing" is like "last time the ref helped out our opponents unfairly, so this time we'll outright bribe the refs and league commissioner. That'll restore faith and trust in officiating."
Court-packing isn't about bringing back "legitimacy" to the SCOTUS. It's about bringing a gun, instead of a pillow, to a gun fight.
  #97  
Old 04-02-2019, 01:22 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
... Also, did you have any substantive comment on the merits of the proposal? ...
Just a question: would you support it's passage now, in 2019, with the current President and Senate, or is it only going to be an idea you like the next time a Dem is in the White House?
  #98  
Old 04-02-2019, 01:24 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I agree. And I don't think that's a laughing matter. That you pretend you're not doing your damndest to do the exact same thing, in a thread about court-packing, is what I find laughable.
You don't know me. You don't know my motivations.

Read back through this thread. My first post in the thread was a response to you, like an hour ago. What am I "trying my damndest to do"? Read *my* posts and respond to what *I* said please. Don't assign everything you disagree with in this thread to me.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 04-02-2019 at 01:25 PM.
  #99  
Old 04-02-2019, 01:26 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Just a question: would you support it's passage now, in 2019, with the current President and Senate, or is it only going to be an idea you like the next time a Dem is in the White House?
I thought I made it pretty clear in my post that I don't think it obviously benefits whichever party agrees in passing it.

In fact, I find it a little surprising that you and Sam Stone think it is so obviously a power-grab. You don't think the consensus appointments of a 5-5 or 6-4 court would result in jurists who would side with conservatives? Why not?

Last edited by Richard Parker; 04-02-2019 at 01:29 PM.
  #100  
Old 04-02-2019, 01:34 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It's about bringing a gun, instead of a pillow, to a gun fight.
Except that Republicans haven't packed the Court yet. Court-packing goes significantly beyond what McConnell, etc did.
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 04:34 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