Jurisdiction-stripping might come back into vogue as a talking point, and there are also other creative ways for a vengeful political system to harass the court.
I’m not necessarily advocating for this, but Congress could, without packing the Supreme Court:
-Require a supermajority of justices to sign on to any particular ruling. For instance, a 5-4 or 6-3 ruling could be treated as a tie and default to the lower court’s ruling (and politically, it’s easier to pack the lower courts). This has an advantage in that it can be dressed up to sound like a Sensible Moderate Consensus-Building idea rather than a crazy radical idea. If it’s good enough for the world’s greatest deliberative body, the cooling saucer of democracy, it’s good enough for the world’s greatest court, you see.
-Diminish the court’s ability to choose its own work by abolishing the certiorari process and making the court choose cases out of a bingo tumbler.
-Pressure justices to retire by making the job less cushy. Congress can’t reduce their salaries, but they could ban them from receiving book royalties or speaking fees, ban them from going on all-expense-paid junkets, take away their clerks, make them sit 48 weeks a year, bring back circuit-riding, move the court to Nome, etc.
There are some Pandora’s box issues that shouldn’t be touched because of how it will go when the pendulum swings. I believe the Republicans opened a small one when they refused to have hearings and blocked Obama’s pick. It will inevitably lead to it happening to them when the roles are reversed.
Packing the court is a huge Pandora’s box that will not go well for either party that does it. As was noted FDR tried and realized the country would turn on him. There are no FDRs in the Democratic Party now. If a democrat congress rams that through things will not go well for them in the next election. I don’t see that happening at all.
It’s an ethical dilemma. Republicans are more successful at getting their agenda enacted than Democrats, because Republicans are willing to break long standing traditions, ethics, and the law when necessary. I don’t expect Democrats to revive judicial appointment filibusters or blue slips when in power. In fact, I’d like them to kill the filibuster once and for all and with a Democratic House, Senate, and White House I expect them to undo all of this administration’s works of Satan.
You’re right, but their choices would be to either have a Court majority some of the time, or none of the time.
I doubt it would affect 2022 much at all. Either the Dems make things better in tangible ways for their less reliable voters, and they have some minor, no-big-deal, losses in the midterms, or they don’t, in which case it’ll be 2010 and 1994 all over again.
This is why the Dems need to be bold next year. Kill the filibuster, statehood for DC and (if they want it) PR, pack the court, and get shit done.
I should add that demographics are moving the Dems’ way, but that only makes a difference if they (a) enable everyone to vote and have it count, and (b) give the less reliable voters in their coalition good reasons to turn out.
I believe a permanent Dem majority is within reach, IF the Dems are bold. But as long as they continue to be the Scared Rabbit Party, they’ll continue to be ineffectual, and Mitch will continue to own them.
OK then, long enough so that at such point the GOP gets back in power, it won’t look anything like this GOP.
It’s been maintaining its hold on power through voter suppression, gerrymandering, keeping the Dems from appointing judges and Justices to the Federal courts, the Electoral College, the filibuster, and changing the rules when they lose (e.g. changing the powers of the governor in multiple states after losing the governorship, and doing away with change via referendum).
If the Dems get into a position where they’re able and willing to sweep all of this rule-by-artifice into the wastebasket, it’s going to be hard for the GOP to get back into the game even with today’s demographics. But people under 40, as a group, are a hell of a lot more liberal than the older generations, and they’re starting to enter their prime voting years. And meanwhile the Fox News generation is aging into nursing homes and cemeteries.
The electorate of 2028 will be noticeably more liberal than the electorate of 2020 - and they’ll vote Dem, as long as the Dems don’t put them in a position of voting Green out of sheer frustration.
Significant election reform is needed the second they take control of Congress. And it has to happen in a way that is obvious and recognizable as good by all and that repealing it will reflect too badly on Republicans for them to gain power again in our lifetimes. I know that sounds like a tall order but it can be done without constitutional amendments, and representation can be more fair and voting rights expanded in ways that not only will benefit voters overall but will be popular as well.
Opposing good electoral policies will make the Republicans look awful to the majority of voters. Seize the day, Dems.
How would the public respond to SCOTUS appointment before Nov? Between Nov and Jan 2021?
Simple. IOKIARDI. There are rules for Republicans, and different rules for Democrats. The Republican Party has made this plain and obvious, and the public seems to agree.
That particular problem isn’t really fixable by Congress. Increasing the size of the House is often proposed here, but while it might be a good idea on its own, it would do nearly nothing in the electoral college, where the big problem is caused by winner-take-all in large states, not by small states having more electors per capita.
The most it could do, I think, is officially approve of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, to head off one of the many legal arguments against it.