Thanks.
Not exactly. There are the issues of the Senate filibuster, and a presidential veto. And that most Congress critters are self-aware enough to realize that if they do it, the other side will respond in kind when the opportunity arises.
I think the only possible way Congress even begins to consider removing justices is if voluminous and absolutely incontrovertible evidence comes to light that actual votes were tampered with to the extent that everyone agrees that Trump didn’t really win the Electoral College.
I don’t foresee that happening, but if it did, you could argue that any justices added during his administration were not legitimately appointed. If Trump is impeached and removed from office, you couldn’t make that argument, and – as others have pointed out – it would set a terrible precedent of any party with enough seats just picking off justices they don’t like.
-
The Dems would theoretically be able to impeach them, but removal would fail, since they’d need a 2/3 vote of the Senate, which means they’d need a shitload of GOP votes. So it ain’t happening.
-
If it could be done with a mere majority of the Senate, it would be an absolutely horrible precedent to set: removing Federal judges or Justices because they’d been chosen by the ‘wrong’ President. You’d end up with each party removing all judges too liberal/conservative for their tastes every time either party had unified control of Congress.
It’s a really good thing that impeachment is hard.
Moved to GD
Democracy would work a whole lot better if we deserved it.
So does refusing to allow a nomination to come to the floor - that also sets a nasty precedent. And so does refusing to do oversight while the leader of your party claims extra-constitutional authority - that sets a nasty precedent too.
Setting nasty precedent is a ship that sailed like a mighty long fucking time ago.
Joe Biden will campaign on being a normal president, and on returning the country to normalcy. The problem is that he will have to unfuck a lot of the things this president has fucked up, and he will face an opposition party that will still be committed to procedural warfare and obstructionism, short of being completely and utterly crushed in the elections. Trump has put a Democratic president in the position of having to be unconventional and having to assert extra-constitutional authority in order to reverse the extra-constitutional damage done by this moron and his enablers. People don’t understand the permanent damage that this president and his kooks have inflicted on this country, and they won’t until it personally bites them in the ass.
This.
But I’m not convinced that we do. To paraphrase Churchill, though, what other choices do we have?
“Democracy is the worst political system, save for all the others that have been tried.”
I agree with this sentiment.
Specifically what “permanent damage” has President Trump done that you think would require “extra-constitutional authority to reverse”? What sort of extra-constitutional actions are you imaging Biden might take?
An excellent point, you are wise to express your concern about the possible spectacle of a power-mad Joe Biden running rampant and berserk over Constitutional safeguards against authoritarian rule! Clearly, this man is a threat to the calm and orderly system enhanced by Donald, of House Harkonnen, worst of his name…
Court-packing by adding just 2 new liberal justices to SCOTUS would be like “going nuclear” by lobbing “just 2 nukes” at Russia. It gives you the worst of both worlds; not only have you crossed the threshold and invited your opponent to go all the way, much further than you did, but you didn’t even accomplish. A 6-5 liberal majority wouldn’t necessarily hand Democrats many judicial victories; that one-vote margin is very slim. Whereas Republicans could just pack 20 or 100 new justices when it’s their time.
As somebody who is firmly behind Court-packing and is thrilled that groups like Pack the Courts are out there building support for the idea, I still don’t think that Democrats will actually pursue it until/unless SCOTUS issues an obviously bullshit legal opinion that crosses a Democratic red line (i.e., think about a decision that overturns Medicare-for-All or DC statehood or something). Others have contended that Court-packing becomes more viable as well if Court decisions begin to usurp election results or make elections more difficult (e.g., the upcoming census case which has the potential to dilute Democratic representation in Congress).
I honestly think a more plausible alternative to Court-packing is plain and simple jurisdiction stripping, which is perfectly constitutional and eliminates the possibility that SCOTUS would ever overturn a key Democratic law. So, for example, a Dem president and Congress would pass Medicare-for-All legislation that also includes language that dictates that ‘no court may adjudicate the constitutionality of this legislation in any way’ (or a similarly phrased passage).
Also, and this is something that David Faris has discussed, a Dem president could hold Court-packing legislation hostage in order to spur a Constitutional amendment. I.e., Court-packing legislation could reach the Dem POTUS’s desk, but then the president could announce that (s)he will first give the states three months to pass an amendment that removes Gorsuch/Kavanaugh, sets the number of justices at 9, and establishes term limits. If the states do not do so, then the Court-packing legislation is enacted. And I think it’s an equally solid approach.
Let’s say that first thing tomorrow evidence comes to light that Bill Clinton did something really bad. I mean we all agree that it was really bad. Clinton holds a press conference and admits it.
Why does it follow that Ginsburg and Breyer should be impeached?
Well, there’s the small matter that the President only has ten days to decide what to do with a bill. If he does nothing and Congress is in session, it becomes law. If he does nothing and Congress has adjourned it does not become law (the pocket veto).
McConnell has made it clear only SCOTUS nominees put forward by a Republican President will ever be granted a hearing as long as the GOP controls the Senate. Nasty precedent has already been established by that shit sucking fuckwad. I say the Dems should pack the Court and impeach any conservative Justice they can at the first opportunity. Once McConnell retires or dies there is no reason to think the GOP will allow things to go back to how they were before the Garland nomination. The Democrats would be wise to keep that in mind and act as soon as they are able.
No less an authority than Gerald ford once opined that ground for impeachment is whatever a majority of the House thinks it is. As for changing the size of the court, Mitch effectively and temporarily changed it to eight.
You don’t have the votes to do any of this. Talking about it makes it less likely you’ll ever get the votes to do any of it.
Nothing the Democrats could do would stop McConnell and those like him from doing everything they can get away with to prevent popular progressive policies from being enacted. They might as well fight under the same principles rather than just give up and surrender. “Nuclear option” already happened years ago. There are no rules any more, except what they can get away with.