The filibuster is gone as soon as Republicans try it on something important. That might scare them enough to bluster a lot without active sabotage. “Might” is an extremely tiny amount given McConnell’s history. All signs point to the filibuster being nuked early in the next term, probably within weeks of the new Democratic majority. The only real question is whether they will wait until after Biden’s inauguration.
All signs aside from actual Senators already coming out against it.
It worked out extremely well for him. He bent the Supreme Court to his will and he won two more Presidential elections.
How would it not be constitutional? The constitution is silent on the terms of SC justices. Just that there’s a Supreme Court and a Chief Justice. No other SC personnel details, requirements, whatev. It’s entirely up to the congress to determine them.
One critical point about this is the court’s willingness to follow popular will instead of creating a lack of confidence in itself. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a non-partisan elder body, but everyone knows it’s very not.
There’s no court packing if McConnell decides not to move forward with an appointment, even if its a COVID related crash and he meant to do it, full stop.
There’s no court packing if the Court starts following Robert’s pragmatic views not to force super right wing outcomes on the nation. The ACA would be the obvious big deal, but breaking something like Medicare or Social Security also qualifies. A 2020 election screwover would also demand a response.
So take this scenario, the Supreme Court has struck down legislation that literally is keeping people alive. This turns into an immediate crisis, the Supreme Court is directly a bad actor and in this fight, Democrats and independent allies will demand action against the supreme court.
Bear in mind that FDR’s court packing plan arose after repeated pieces of the New Deal were struck down as unconstitutional. The entire apparatus of Federal Intervention in the well being of the people of the states emerged as a last resort action, when charities were overwhelmed, farmers were forming militias to fight back against foreclosures, and frankly, it was still legal for children to work.
FDR’s threats against the supreme court pressured one of the justices into supporting the New Deal. The court was not packed, but it did bend.
If the ACA is struck down in the middle of COVID 19, every democrat and every republican in a majority dem district will back some kind of regulation of the court, court packing among them. That this is at all possible speaks to how bizarre this all is. Policies and Traditions are one matter, live and death are the unfortunate standard of our times.
The Supreme Court doesn’t have to do a lot to avoid this implicit threat. If it decides to imperil the lives of many thousand, it will lose credibility, independence and create a low grade constitutional crisis.
But to the question, my suspicion is ‘All of Them’. You don’t fight this fight without a seriously good reason, and you don’t fight this fight without an ironclad way of winning.
Yep, the GOP already nuked it for SCOTUS.
The Constitution is quite explicit that all Article III judges have unlimited terms.
I’m not familiar with the proposed legislation from Rep. Khanna, but I’m guessing it’s similar to other proposals whereby existing Court of Appeals judges would be temporarily billeted to the Supreme Court for a time. Their official office would remain with the Circuit Court to which they would go back when their duty at the Supreme Court is finished.
I have no idea if that would pass constitutional muster or not. The courts are pretty deferential to Congress when it comes to organizing the court system and defining jurisdictional boundaries. But maybe they would object on separation-of-powers principles to a change as big as this would be. I dunno.
I think an amendment establishing term limits for all Article III judges is a better idea. But probably not practical in the current climate.
Nonsense. It says they can be removed if they don’t show good behavior. It says fuckall about terms of office or how many justices on a court.
Stop moving goalposts. Nobody claimed the Constitution said how many justices there are (it doesn’t) and nobody claimed that justices can not be removed (they can, through impeachment.) Unless you’re ready to start impeaching judges all over the place, the fact is that they have de facto unlimited terms, which can not be modified by legislation. This is not controversial.
Exactly 50. If less than 50 supported it, it would never come to a vote in the Senate. Once the vote count got to 50, the remaining Senators who are on the fence or who want to appear bipartisan or who represent red districts would take the meaningless stance of voting against packing the court. Look back at all the “bold stances against [his/her] party” taken in the last four years. None of them amounted to anything because Republicans would only go against their party when it had no effect. Democrats understand that playbook as well.
This is how I see it, too. If this court starts shooting down legislation that has popular support, then suddenly adding new judges doesn’t look so radical to the electorate. In the meantime, the threat remains. Even conservative SC judges know that they can’t buck public opinion forever.
“Explicit” != “de facto”. Who’s moving goalposts?
Getting back to the topic - how many Democrats so far have expressed opposition to packing? How many Democratic Congressmen are from red states, or fall on the moderate/conservative end of the spectrum?
We’re three weeks away from an election. The Democrats are sensibly falling over backwards not to give the Republicans ammunition.
Nothing, and I mean nothing, they’re saying now matters for how it will play out when the new term starts.
Leader Schumer (when did people start using that truncated term? I don’t remember anyone using it even a few years ago when outsiders always said Minority Leader Schumer) will look at the size of his majority, who got elected and who got defeated, and whatever backroom deals he can make with McConnell. Then he can decide a path to take. You won’t get an answer now.
Mod Note:
You are. You have been adequately answered. Stop pretending otherwise. Only be impeachment followed by a trial requiring 67 senators tor agree can a justice be removed.
What now? “Explicit” absolutely does not mean “de facto.” This is ridiculous over-moderating.
@DrDeth made a similar mention of election shenanigans. If they happen, then the Dems at a minimum don’t hold the presidency, so expansion of the court isn’t going to happen.
Note - I think the Dems and supporters should start saying “expand the court” rather than “pack the court”.
Not necessarily. They could try and ultimately fail.
Or succeed.
The worst thing that Pelosi could do, right now, would be to pass a bill increasing the number of SCOTUS’s.
McConnel would have it passed and new judges sat within a week.
But if they fail at SCOTUS (and I assume it would leapfrog to there), then that would seem to show that the court isn’t hopelessly partisan, or certainly undercuts it as an argument.