# omnibus Supreme Court-packing thread
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873
**Category:** Politics & Elections
**Created:** [April 1, 2019, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873 "2019-04-01T18:10:57Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2019, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/1 "2019-04-01T18:10:57Z")
Court-packing of SCOTUS is an idea that’s gaining more and more traction among Democrats, including Kamala, Beto, Ocasio-Cortez and Warren (links: [here](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/court-packing-ideas-get-attention-from-democrats/2019/03/10/d05e549e-41c0-11e9-a0d3-1210e58a94cf_story.html?utm_term=.ea99c2e09c96)and [here](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/03/court-packing-2020/)and [here](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/us/politics/reparations-court-packing-filibuster-2020-democrats.html)and [here](https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2019/03/31/op-ed-democrats-court-packing-plan-is-unwise/))
There are several ways in which this would be disastrous. 1) Republicans will just do the same thing on an even bigger scale when they get the chance years down the road, 2) it ruins the legitimacy of SCOTUS as the SCOTUS becomes perceived as nothing but a political arm, 3) it’s simply flat-out partisan. Sure, McConnell blocking Garland was partisan, but that was wrong, too.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2019, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/2 "2019-04-01T18:15:33Z")
1. Obviously.
2. This has already occurred.
3. Obviously.
Until something major changes – like amending the Constitution to make 9 or 18 year terms for SCOTUS, or a minimum age of ~70 or so – SCOTUS is an overtly political institution, and will be treated as such. As long as this is the case, the Democrats should try to make sure they have just as much partisan influence on this political institution as the Republicans, IMO. And this may help push the country to the point that we’ll actually come together and amend the Constitution.
The alternative may be that someone starts shooting SCOTUS justices, since that could gain one side a significant advantage. Then we’d be in big, big trouble.
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2019, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/3 "2019-04-01T18:20:00Z")
All their campaign rhetoric won’t amount to anything if the Dems don’t:
1. retake the Senate
2. exercise the nuclear option to destroy the legislative filibuster
Both of those things seem like rather dubious prospects, at least in 2020-2022.
---
### Author:  [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2019, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/4 "2019-04-01T18:33:23Z")
About as dubious as building a wall across the entire southern border? More? Less?
---
### Author:  [@AlsoNamedBort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlsoNamedBort)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2019, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/5 "2019-04-01T18:39:56Z")
> [@Velocity](#):
>
> Court-packing of SCOTUS is an idea that’s gaining more and more traction among Democrats, including Kamala, Beto, Ocasio-Cortez and Warren (links: [here](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/court-packing-ideas-get-attention-from-democrats/2019/03/10/d05e549e-41c0-11e9-a0d3-1210e58a94cf_story.html?utm_term=.ea99c2e09c96)and [here](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/03/court-packing-2020/)and [here](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/us/politics/reparations-court-packing-filibuster-2020-democrats.html)and [here](https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2019/03/31/op-ed-democrats-court-packing-plan-is-unwise/))
Okay, I had to dig through all those cites to find some actual quotes. It doesn’t look like anyone is actually campaigning on this issue. They’re being asked about it and giving a generic answer that basically says “we’ll look into it.”
---
### Author:  [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2019, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/6 "2019-04-01T18:42:53Z")
> [@AlsoNamedBort](#):
>
> Okay, I had to dig through all those cites to find some actual quotes. It doesn’t look like anyone is actually campaigning on this issue. They’re being asked about it and giving a generic answer that basically says “we’ll look into it.”
But the very fact that they’re giving it consideration is significantly different than in the past. In, say, 2000, if Gore had been asked about court-packing, he’d probably have said “uh…what? No.”
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2019, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/7 "2019-04-01T18:45:25Z")
Newsflash – politicians are treating a political institution in a political fashion.
Dog bites man.
---
### Author:  [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2019, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/8 "2019-04-01T19:25:55Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> Newsflash – politicians are treating a political institution in a political fashion.
>
> Dog bites man.
But it\*\*\* shouldn’t \*\*\*be. The whole point of the 3 branches of government is that the first two (presidency and Congress) are for politics but the Supreme Court+judiciary is supposed to serve as referees.
Your comment is akin to, “Sports team tries to bribe referees, dog bites man.”
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2019, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/9 "2019-04-01T19:27:46Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> 1. exercise the nuclear option to destroy the legislative filibuster
Already likely done:
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*McConnell sets stage for ‘nuclear option’ to change rules on judges
> \*\*
> Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) filed a procedural motion Thursday to set up a rules change in the Senate next week that will speed up votes to confirm President Trump’s nominees to federal district courts and sub-Cabinet-level executive branch positions.
>
> SOURCE: [https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/436332-mcconnell-sets-stage-for-nuclear-option-to-change-rules-on-judges](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/436332-mcconnell-sets-stage-for-nuclear-option-to-change-rules-on-judges)
Also, I seem to recall McConnell rescinded some procedural hurdles to get Gorsuch through.
Why in the world would Dems want to play nice now?
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2019, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/10 "2019-04-01T19:30:41Z")
> [@Velocity](#):
>
> But it\*\*\* shouldn’t \*\*\*be. The whole point of the 3 branches of government is that the first two (presidency and Congress) are for politics but the Supreme Court+judiciary is supposed to serve as referees.
Yes, but this has spectacularly failed. The SCOTUS is a political institution, whether we like it or not. I hope that this could be changed, but it would require a Constitutional amendment. Asking the Democrats to pretend that it’s not a political institution just helps the Republicans, and I’m not particularly eager to do that.
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2019, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/11 "2019-04-01T19:34:33Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> Already likely done:
>
> Also, I seem to recall McConnell rescinded some procedural hurdles to get Gorsuch through.
>
> Why in the world would Dems want to play nice now?
The adjective “legislative” was included for a reason. Do I need to explain the significance to you?
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2019, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/12 "2019-04-01T19:44:50Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> The adjective “legislative” was included for a reason. Do I need to explain the significance to you?
Yes.
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2019, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/13 "2019-04-01T19:54:04Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> Yes.
I started to write out a lengthy post, but I think this bit of a Wikipedia article is sufficient:
> [@](#):
>
> In November 2013, Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments, but not for the Supreme Court.[1] In April 2017, Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell extended the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominations in order to end debate on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch.[2][3][4]
>
> As of March 2019, a three-fifths majority vote is still required to end debates on legislation.
from [Nuclear option - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option)
ETA: I’ll note that increasing the size of the Supreme Court would require _legislation_
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2019, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/14 "2019-04-01T19:57:36Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> I started to write out a lengthy post, but I think this bit of a Wikipedia article is sufficient:
>
> from [Nuclear option - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option)
>
> ETA: I’ll note that increasing the size of the Supreme Court would require _legislation_
What about all that makes what I wrote wrong?
And where does it say that court packing requires legislation? ISTM it only requires senate approval of a nominee.
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2019, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/15 "2019-04-01T20:05:46Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> What about all that makes what I wrote wrong? …
Not wrong, necessarily, just irrelevant to my point about the _legislative_ filibuster.
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> And where does it say that court packing requires legislation? ISTM it only requires senate approval of a nominee.
“court packing” means expanding the size of the Court. The Court’s size was set (at 9) by the [Judiciary Act of 1869](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869). If someone wanted to add a 10th or 11th (or additional) justices to the Supreme Court, they’ll have to change the law with a piece of legislation. President Trump and the Senate Republicans can’t just nominate ACB and confirm her and suddenly have a SCOTUS with 10 justices.
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2019, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/16 "2019-04-01T20:06:51Z")
There is a law setting the size of the Supreme Court at nine. It’s only a law, not part of the Constitution, and so it could be changed by a mere act of Congress (as opposed to an amendment), but it would still need that act of Congress. Which would require nuclear retaliation in the form of eliminating the Republican filibuster. But that’s pretty much a given, since the Democratic filibuster is already dead: Democrats would be insane, upon taking back the Senate, to leave the rules at “only Republicans are allowed to filibuster”.
---
### Author:  [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2019, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/17 "2019-04-01T20:11:50Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> Not wrong, necessarily, just irrelevant to my point about the _legislative_ filibuster.
McConnell and the GOP have not done away with the legislative filibuster. Do you think the reason for this is:
a) it isn’t politically advantageous for their party
b) they care about traditions and norms in the Senate
Second question, if it was politically advantageous for them to nuke it don’t you think it would already be gone?
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2019, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/18 "2019-04-01T20:18:58Z")
> [@Chronos](#):
>
> There is a law setting the size of the Supreme Court at nine. It’s only a law, not part of the Constitution, and so it could be changed by a mere act of Congress (as opposed to an amendment), but it would still need that act of Congress. Which would require nuclear retaliation in the form of eliminating the Republican filibuster. But that’s pretty much a given, since the Democratic filibuster is already dead: Democrats would be insane, upon taking back the Senate, to leave the rules at “only Republicans are allowed to filibuster”.
I think you’re confused about which filibuster is dead. The filibuster for nominees (executive and judicial branches) is dead, but the _legislative_ filibuster is still very much intact. There’s not really any such thing as the “Democratic filibuster” or the “Republican filibuster”
ETA: the rules don’t say “only Republicans are allowed to filibuster”.
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2019, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/19 "2019-04-01T20:21:39Z")
> [@Airbeck](#):
>
> McConnell and the GOP have not done away with the legislative filibuster. Do you think the reason for this is:
>
> a) it isn’t politically advantageous for their party
> b) they care about traditions and norms in the Senate
>
> Second question, if it was politically advantageous for them to nuke it don’t you think it would already be gone?
It would undoubtedly have been advantageous, at least in the short term, to have nuked it in 2017. The Senate’s legislative filibuster was the main obstacle to the Republicans enacting their agenda in 2017-2018.
---
### Author:  [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2019, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/20 "2019-04-01T20:27:32Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> It would undoubtedly have been advantageous, at least in the short term, to have nuked it in 2017. The Senate’s legislative filibuster was the main obstacle to the Republicans enacting their agenda in 2017-2018.
And in the long term…?
What sort of calculus do you think McConnell used when deciding not to do that against the wishes of Trump who kept tweeting about getting rid of it to push his agenda through.
It’s ok, you can answer. Everyone already knows why, so you can say it.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873.md?page=2)