# Court Packing: An Idea Whose Time Has Come Around Again? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 4, 2017, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916 "2017-10-04T04:19:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/21 "2017-10-04T14:00:35Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Since states exist it’s doubtful we’ll see a major change to the senate while the USA exists. Yes, I agree. But it’s also the case that “the United States” is an idea. In fact, its an idea that really exists since 1865. That’s when we started talking about the United States as a singular noun. It was an idea forged in bloodshed. Twas ever thus. And will be again, most likely, when the pressure from not representing people in cities grows stronger than the political power of small states. Won’t be this decade. Might not be the next. But it is coming. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/22 "2017-10-04T14:16:56Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Fascist? Are you sure you are using that word correctly? It’s a bit premature to call them fascist. It’s not like they support people who march in support of white supremacy while holding torches and chanting antisemitic slogans and attacking people. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/23 "2017-10-04T14:22:18Z")
I’ve proposed the minimum age for SCOTUS justices to be raised to 70 (or even higher), with the hope of making vacancies much more common, and thus SCOTUS confirmations relatively routine events. I think that would need a Constitutional amendment, though. Without something like this (or maybe even with it), it’s hard to see how we’re not headed for major strife in the future. Once hard-partisans figure out that a single dead SCOTUS justice at the right time (and with the right administration in power) will massively help their political goals for a generation or more, unscrupulous fanatics in their midst may start making that happen. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/24 "2017-10-04T14:33:01Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I think that would need a Constitutional amendment, though. Without something like this (or maybe even with it), it’s hard to see how we’re not headed for major strife in the future. Once hard-partisans figure out that a single dead SCOTUS justice at the right time (and with the right administration in power) will massively help their political goals for a generation or more, unscrupulous fanatics in their midst may start making that happen. You’re well behind the times. That was pretty much the plot of John Grisham’s The Pelican Brief, only the one murdered was a possible member of SCOTUS. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/25 "2017-10-04T15:00:20Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > It’s a bit premature to call them fascist. It’s not like they support people who march in support of white supremacy while holding torches and chanting antisemitic slogans and attacking people. What a ridiculous extrapolation. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/26 "2017-10-04T15:03:07Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’ve proposed the minimum age for SCOTUS justices to be raised to 70 (or even higher), with the hope of making vacancies much more common, and thus SCOTUS confirmations relatively routine events. Nominating justices that old will likely have the effect of a SCOTUS full of justices whose beliefs and thinking patterns reflect a generation or two behind the current generation. Not that 30 years olds make it into SCOTUS, but a 50-year old would be more like contemporary thinking than a 70 or 80 year old. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/27 "2017-10-04T15:12:02Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > But after _Bush v. Gore_ and the theft of Merrick Garland’s seat by the scum, does anyone really believe in that fairy tale any more? Would anyone (other than Republicans) in today’s America have a problem with a naked power grab? Obviously the other side doesn’t, so why should we? > > Thoughts? I think this is more of a rant than Election fodder, unfortunately. I’m moving it from Elections to the Pit. But before that, a few notes: > [@astorian](#): > > The OP is either Uninformed or dishonest if he’s claiming the GOP started this fight. Don’t do this again. The construction of ‘you are either X or Y’ where X is an acceptable characterization and Y is an accusation of lying or a personal insult is not okay in this forum. If not for the below, this would receive a warning. > [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > So which are you, uninformed or dishonest? Clearly you are copying the same construction above. Next time, a post report would be a better option. Same comment here, this is not okay in this forum. [/moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/28 "2017-10-04T15:25:37Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Democrats need to win elections first, and I’ve seen no evidence that they’re capable of doing that on a regular basis yet. And while I would agree that Gerrymandering is a problem, if the Democrats would simply start competing in local races, they wouldn’t have nearly the problem they do now. Of course due to gerrymandering they aren’t able to. Local districts are even more Gerrymandered than congressional ones. Basically the Republicans were lucky enough to have a watershed election during the first census year when big data made precision Gerrymandering possible. Now unless Dems can get some 60% of the vote in 2020, they are going to be shut out of congress until at least 2030. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/29 "2017-10-04T15:27:26Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > The Democrats were quite right to save the country from him, and they subsequently approved the next nominee. That’s not remotely analogous to what the GOP did, refusing to even consider ANY Democratic nominee. So which are you, uninformed or dishonest? No, they didn’t approve the next nominee, who was Douglas H. Ginsburg. The nominee after that was Anthony Kennedy, who was approved. Uninformed, I expect? ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/30 "2017-10-04T15:37:15Z")
I am sorry this thread got moved, it was my intention to engage in a serious political discussion. I would have thought that it was obvious that my use of terms like “fascist scum” were expressions of my personal opinion, not meant to misleadingly imply some generally agreed upon consensus, and since they weren’t directed at a specific Doper, I thought that was acceptable use in Elections. I will certainly keep this in mind when starting threads in the future. I prefer not to participate in Pit threads, so I would respectfully request that the thread be moved back. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/31 "2017-10-04T15:39:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, they didn’t approve the next nominee, who was Douglas H. Ginsburg. The nominee after that was Anthony Kennedy, who was approved. > > Uninformed, I expect? Well, not “uninformed”. I did know that, and remembered when reminded. Sorry for not remembering the exact details of stuff that happened 31 years ago off the top of my head. Can I expect a reciprocal apology from you for nitpicking and completely ignoring the actual point of the post? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/32 "2017-10-04T15:44:12Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Nominating justices that old will likely have the effect of a SCOTUS full of justices whose beliefs and thinking patterns reflect a generation or two behind the current generation. Not that 30 years olds make it into SCOTUS, but a 50-year old would be more like contemporary thinking than a 70 or 80 year old. By this reasoning we might as well have a maximum age with mandatory retirement. I don’t see this as significant – there’s tons of individual variation in potential justices, regardless of age. ---
**Author:** ![Celidin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Celidin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Celidin)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/33 "2017-10-04T16:03:21Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Hold it- when’s the last time a majority of Democrats voted to confirm a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court? > > You don’t know, do you? At the very least you’d have to do a little research. Which is fine, but it proves my point: the Democrats have been playing hardball on the Supreme Court a loooong time. The OP is either Uninformed or dishonest if he’s claiming the GOP started this fight. The Democrats decided in the EIGHTIES that conservatism alone was a valid reason to vote against a Supreme Court nominee. The Republicans took decades to fight back in kind. > > If Robert Bork were alive, he could buy Merrick Garland a beer and tell him, “I know how you feel- sucks, huh?” The last time a majority of democrats in the Senate voted for a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court was actually only 2 times ago, during the last Republican administration. There were 45 democratic-caucusing members of the Senate in 2005 when John Roberts was up for confirmation. 23 of them voted “yes”, 22 “no” for a total vote of 78-22. [Cite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts_Supreme_Court_nomination). ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/34 "2017-10-04T16:06:10Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > By this reasoning we might as well have a maximum age with mandatory retirement. I don’t see this as significant – there’s tons of individual variation in potential justices, regardless of age. In guessing a maximum age would be unconstitutional. Only terms would achieve your end imo. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/35 "2017-10-04T16:11:02Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > In guessing a maximum age would be unconstitutional. Only terms would achieve your end imo. I think a high minimum age would accomplish my aims – but that would probably require a Constitutional amendment. If every SCOTUS justice had to be 70, or 72, or 75, then the average tenure would be a lot shorter than it is now – perhaps less than 10 years. That would mean that, on average, you’d have a vacancy every year, which would mean every President nominates about 4 replacements per term. And thus an individual vacancy wouldn’t be nearly the enormous political deal it is now. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/36 "2017-10-04T16:33:42Z")
I think there would be a lot of perverse incentives created by a system in which a party that controls the Presidency and Senate for 5 years controls the Supreme Court. It would certainly reduce the counter-majoritarian role of the Court, and probably ultimately lead to the destruction of _stare decisis_ as new majorities seek to undo the work of prior majorities more aggressively. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/37 "2017-10-04T16:48:01Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Hold it- when’s the last time a majority of Democrats voted to confirm a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court? > > You don’t know, do you? At the very least you’d have to do a little research. Which is fine, but it proves my point: the Democrats have been playing hardball on the Supreme Court a loooong time. The OP is either Uninformed or dishonest if he’s claiming the GOP started this fight. The Democrats decided in the EIGHTIES that conservatism alone was a valid reason to vote against a Supreme Court nominee. The Republicans took decades to fight back in kind. > > If Robert Bork were alive, he could buy Merrick Garland a beer and tell him, “I know how you feel- sucks, huh?” Is this a joke?? Reagan’s appointee, Anthony Kennedy, won _ **unanimous** _ confirmation from the United States Senate in February 1988. That’s “unanimous” with a “U.” Reagan’s appointee, the _ **hard-right Antonin Scalia** _, won _ **unanimous** _ confirmation from the United States Senate in September 1986. Again that’s “unanimous” with a “U.” Yes, some nominees were rejected, e.g. Harriet Miers who had never served as a judge. Many Democrats opposed the unqualified sexual harasser Clarence Thomas, or the extreme right-winger Samuel Alito, _ **but they did let these incompetents serve.** _ What’s your point? That if Sean Hannity or Jared Kushner were nominated the Democrats have an obligation to acquiesce? Alito is best noted for some of his dissents. He voted to strike down a law against owning submachine guns. He voted to restrict abortions. He voted against free speech at military funerals. He supported police who strip-searched a woman and her daughter without an applicable search warrant. Yet the Democrats permitted this contemptible right-wing oaf to sit on the highest court in the land. **astorian** must be getting his facts from Fake News. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/38 "2017-10-04T17:04:17Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > Blatant goalpost moving. Bork was an extremist, as well as having a personal history of unethical behavior. The Democrats were quite right to save the country from him, and they subsequently approved the next nominee. That’s not remotely analogous to what the GOP did, refusing to even consider ANY Democratic nominee. So which are you, uninformed or dishonest? Ohhhhhh… Bork was an extremist. Okay, then. He was a rare exception. So, the Democrats voted overwhelmingly to confirm John Roberts and Sam Alito, right? No wait, THEY were extremists too. Right? See, that’s the problem. The Democrats decided decades ago that all conservatives are extremists. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/39 "2017-10-04T17:07:19Z")
> [@Celidin](#): > > The last time a majority of democrats in the Senate voted for a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court was actually only 2 times ago, during the last Republican administration. > > There were 45 democratic-caucusing members of the Senate in 2005 when John Roberts was up for confirmation. 23 of them voted “yes”, 22 “no” for a total vote of 78-22. > > [Cite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts_Supreme_Court_nomination). So, 22 Democrats (nearly half) voted no on John Roberts. By contrast, how many Republicans voted against RBG? ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/40 "2017-10-04T17:07:31Z")
No, since we’re still in the Pit, I can point out, as two others already have, that the problem is that you are a fucking idiot who doesn’t know what he is talking about. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916.md?page=3)