Republicans are not shy about using raw political power when they can and when it gains them more power.
I think President Biden should do the same, and make the ultimatum in the topic’s subject line.
Pack the court with 2-3 more Associate Justices. Make sure Garland is one of them, if he wants it, because he was cheated of it when Obama nominated him.
Cancel Thomas, making it clear that the reason for expanding the court is that Thomas in ethically unfit to serve.
Any thoughts?
You can’t “cancel” a justice unless the Senate votes 2/3 to remove him.
We should expand the court, but we’ll need the House and Senate to do so.
The bigger problem is the entire Court, conservatives and liberals, agreed on one thing. They don’t want ethics oversight.
Democrats had a chance to do this before the 2022 election, but needed Manchin and Sinema to play ball in the Senate to remove the filibuster rule to allow the legislation to move forward. Which of course they wouldn’t, because they’re Manchin and Sinema. Ain’t no way it’s happening now with a Republican controlled House.
Not really. Progressives pushed expansion, but pretty much all of Democratic leadership squashed the idea. Manchin and Sinema get blamed for a lot of stuff that Biden and his allies don’t want to do. They came right out and said they didn’t want to do it. Biden formed a “commission” as a way of kicking the can down the road, the commission wrote a report that was just a summary of stuff other people have said, and nothing happened.
It was never getting through regardless of the makeup of Congress.
What do you mean “cancel Thomas?” How would that work?
Two votes from the left for every one vote from Thomas, is the idea.
Of course, if it was something that wasn’t realistic to do in congress, then it would make sense for the administration to say that they didn’t even want to do it.
If Biden had pushed for the idea, and it got squashed by Manchin and/or Sinema, then it would tip the Democrats’ hand and make them look feckless.
Note that I’m not saying that this was what Biden really wanted to do, just that whether he did or didn’t want to, it would have looked pretty much the same.
You say “of course,” but that doesn’t seem clear to me at all. That sounds extremely cynical and awful, actually.
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying Joe Biden either did or didn’t want Congress to pack the courts, but if he did, he came out and actively lied about it when some members of Congress tried to do it. And you’re also saying that if it is what he did, then of course that was the right thing to do. I don’t understand that at all, to such an extent that it’s hard not to wonder whether this is just a reflexive defense, or if this really makes sense to you. If a person who was not a Democrat said what you said as a criticism, it would make more sense to me.
I’m saying that it was a nonstarter due to the realities of congress, and that it would be monumentally stupid to come out and push for it with that knowledge.
Let’s say you think about going to Disney Land, but you look at your budget and see that that’s not happening. Would it be a good idea to push for it anyway? Are you actively lying to your family if you don’t when they try to petition for it? Are you cynical and awful, actually?
I’m saying that sure, the Democrats would love to have a majority on SCOTUS, it would be silly to think anything otherwise. I’m sure that different ways of getting that majority crossed their minds and were even discussed, some that they may even like if it were politically possible, it would be insanely naive to think otherwise.
Everything else you said you understand that I am saying was simply wrong.
Thanks for that Disneyland illustration. I see now where I went wrong.
It’s not just unrealistic in Congress. It’s generally unpopular.
If the court was expanded, it would take years to bring cases that could potentially restore Roe and overrule conservative decisions on campaign spending and gun control. By then, the GOP might be back in control. And when that happens, they could enact their own court pack with little political consequence, since the Democrats had started it.
Court packing would use a lot of Democratic political capital for an impossible to predict policy result. That may explain why the administration doesn’t want it.
If I could make one more comment on this:
The Democrats have repeatedly pushed legislation that had no real chance of success (Trump impeachments, the voting rights bill). When it comes to court packing, Biden is plain against it (as I think he should be).
Um, show that all the members of the court don’t want ethics oversight. It’s clear that Roberts and Thomas are opposed. But let’s get others on the record versus this both sides equivalent jazz. We KNOW that Roberts and Thomas through their spouses have taken in millions.
From a month ago.
Definitely not a good look for the court.
In general I agree there ought to be ethics oversight. And, as discussed in other threads, there ought to be mandatory retirement ages for all Federal appointments and elected officials. Set somewhere south of age 75. There also ought to be rainbows and unicorns, with ponies for all.
But looking at the direction the rest of US politics is going, do you think a congressional oversight committee could be trusted to be anything but a partisan weapon the force out justices from the wrong party on … ahem … trumped-up charges?
If the court created their own ethics panel composed of say, some subset of sitting federal judges to oversee ethics issues in both the Federal judiciary and the SCOTUS, how much faith do you have that would not be promptly and politically weaponized too?
Given the current and likely future balance of power in the Judiciary, the Congress, and probably the Executive in 2024, now is exactly the wrong time to enact such a comprehensive partisan weapon controlled in all three branches by the forces of Reactionary Totalitarianism … err um … I mean the Republican party.
Funny that Reactionary Totalitarianism has the same initials as the Russian propaganda service. Coincidence? Or co-evolution?
Yeah, this is what I was going to say. After a few administration changes we’d end up with a SC the size if congress. A more appropriate curb on long-term entrenchment at the SC is some sort of term limit that guarantees some periodic turnover of justices.
Yeah, pack the court.
Yes, it did. Did you mean that to be sarcastic?