If RBG leaves the bench and rewards the GOP with another justice, then I want court packing – I demand it. I will accept nothing less as a Dem voter. The nation has had the court system stolen from them, and it will require unusual action to restore the balance of power.
Why, in your opinion, has the GOP not started in with court packing?
That would be the end of the Supreme Court as an independent institution. If dems pack the court, the GOP will do it when they’re in power.
I’m surprised that they haven’t. I wouldn’t rule it out.
SCOTUS is already just another political arm. This is a shame, but pretending it’s still an independent, non political branch of the government is just putting our heads in the sand and handing it over to the bad guys (who already own it). Reforming it with terms or age limits would be best, but since that would probably require the near impossibility of a constitutional amendment, we should try to win the politics of the court when we have a chance.
They haven’t yet because they’ve already won. They’ve owned the court for years.
What Mitch McConnell and the GOP have done is certainly damaging to the Court as an institution. Don’t for a moment pretend that the GOP care about institutions.
The Democrats need to either a) impeach Kavanaugh and Thomas, or b) pack the Court.
Yes, this, exactly.
A law can be passed establishing a non-partisan commission* to send, say, two nomination possibilities to the president for each vacancy.
Would this violate anything in the US Constitution?
Not that I can see.
Could the President be punished for nominating someone else? Not in the short run. But in two decades or so, the tradition would be ingrained to the point where ignoring the commission would be politically damaging.
As for term limits, I’m not sure what problem that would solve. You would just have the same sort of political appointees we have now switching off.
- Rules for who gets on the commission are beyond this post. It could include people from NGO’s like the American Bar Association, American Management Association, and AFL/CIO.
AFL/CIO is not non-partisan, for starters. Secondly, why would any president feel beholden to nominate the commissions’ picks? It would only ever become damaging to ignore them if it catches on at some point, and I don’t think it ever would.
LOL. You liberals have been whining about things being “stolen” ever since since Bush won the 2000 election fair and square.
Face it–you’re just a bunch of sore losers.
Damn right I’m a sore loser. I don’t like watching kleptocrats steal the country from the people.
Court packing attempt won’t end well.
The status quo won’t end well.
You’re both right, octopus and Andy. I don’t think it ends well, regardless of what happens.
Cocaine Mitch’s deliberate attempt to undermine Obama was a decision to hyperpoliticize the court. I will concede that Obama’s appointments were also quite political - there’s no denying that. I think both parties have done a fantastic job of exposing a glaring flaw in the court appointments process. If Dems somehow regain control of congress and the WH, I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to congressionally imposed reforms that aim at a fairer process, but in the end, whoever is in power has to respect the norms of the system and the Constitution. This generation of conservatives clearly don’t, and that’s the problem.
In the two years or so that this idea has been thrown about, not a single Democrat or liberal has satisfactorily answered the question, “If D’s do this, what prevents R’s from packing on a much bigger scale when it’s their turn down the road?”
The only response I’ve ever read that came close was, (Reddit): “D’s should pack the courts to such an extent that they become an unstoppable tyranny, then squash the R’s so they need never worry about R’s again!” Which, although perhaps technically logical, would be morally problematic.
Damn those thieves! I’m going to steal everything they gots, the crooks!
There is no good answer to this without a Constitutional amendment. The SCOTUS is just another political branch, not the independent judiciary it ought to be. So the Democrats should treat it as such, and try to get any advantage they can get away with (as the GOP already does).
So for your first question, there is no answer to the question. The GOP already owns the SCOTUS. The Democrats lose nothing by trying to get an advantage for their side. The alternative is letting the GOP continue to own the SCOTUS with no attempt to change it.
You are saying that having highly politicized courts is inevitable in the U.S. system. It isn’t. In the 1980’s, three justices were confirmed by unanimous votes, erven though one of them, Scalia, should not have been due to being too political. Then Souter, the model of a qualified non-political appointee, had 9 Senators against, and we were off the the partisan races.
Democratic norms, once in place, are hard to overturn. To prevent a Trump Jr. from actually succeeding in areas where DJT’s threats are, so far, empty, we should try creating a few more – such as establishing, by law, a judicial nominating commission. If the new norms don’t stick, my country wasn’t destined to remain free regardless.
Quit it with this. SCOTUS is so clearly, obviously not an independent institution but rather an extension of the Republican Party that maintaining that it’s this apolitical body is downright insulting and grade-A gaslighting. Seriously, the entire reason why Merrick Garland is not a SCOTUS Justice is because the GOP is quite aware that SCOTUS is part of its political arm.
So cut it out.