omnibus Supreme Court-packing thread

Politics & Elections
21

It’s too fucking late.

The Dems can continue to treat things like the filibuster and monkeying with the court like they’re playing bocce while the GOP is throwing hand grenades, or they can level the playing field with a Sherman tank. If they choose option 1, they’ll wind up controlling nothing despite having won the popular vote everywhere besides the Deep South, Great Plains, and the northern Rockies.

What’s going on is no joke, son. I’m all for the Dems playing fair if there’s some way to ensure that the GOP does the same. But if the Dems let the GOP walk all over them, the losers are the American people, who will have an insultingly low minimum wage, no overtime pay, and no health care, and a future to look forward to where the planet turns into a hellscape.

22

Look out everyone! The sky is falling!

23

I suspect his motivation was some combination of your a) and b). I suspect he’s looking at not just the short-term benefit but also the long-term consequences. Do you think the Dems calling for court-packing now are doing that?

24

Given that the wall is not being built, does it matter if it’s just as dubious? Pointing to a failed project as a comparison doesn’t seem like a wise choice.

25

Whack-a-Mole, did we clear up your confusion about what the legislative filibuster is and why it would be relevant to any court-packing scheme?

26

They didn’t really care about much besides the tax cut and killing Obamacare. They used reconciliation on both, so the tax cut passed, but they couldn’t even get a majority to kill Obamacare. It made more sense to Mitch to keep it because the Dems might not have the guts to kill it, and if so, he’d win a massive series of victories by doing essentially nothing.

That SOB is an SOB, but he knows what he’s doing. The Dems need a Mitch of their own; instead, they’ve got Schumer.

27

Since when can one arm of the government limit another arm of the government?

The law exists but can congress make the judiciary one or none people? The constitution does not give them this power.

ISTM the senate is the gate keeper and can allow/disallow whoever they want per the constitution. The constitution certainly does not allow congress to limit the court otherwise.

28

Unfortunately, the scientific backing for that assertion is pretty much overwhelming at this point.

29

I was not confused. You were unclear.

30

When? When I used the term “legislative filibuster”? Or when you said:

31

How would you rate the scientific backing for “a future to look forward to where the planet turns into a hellscape”?

32

The Republicans have, in fact, killed the legislative filibuster. Reconciliation can only be used to pass bills that decrease the deficit, and they used it to pass the tax cuts which increased the deficit. If the party in power just plain ignores the rules, then the rules effectively don’t exist.

33

The senate refused to consider the nomination of Garland.

The Senate can do as it wills in this regard. Who can say otherwise? The law mandated nine justices but they let it continue with eight for over a year.

If the Senate can stall on eight justices why not seven or fewer? Who can stop them from making it 10 or more?

Can congress make the supreme court one or no justices? If they can set it at nine why not one or none?

I am not saying I like this arrangement but it seems to be where we are.

34

Both sides need to consider the long-term effects of their actions.

Question: What happens if you end the legislative filibuster and pack the Supreme Court?

Simple Partisan Answer: Why, everything stays the same, except now we have control of the court and can pass any agenda we want! Win!

Complex Answer: You get your way for a year or two, at the cost of pissing off half the country and making yourselves look like you’re engaging in a major power grab. So you lose the next election bigly, and your enemies get to use all the tools you ruined yourselves over.

A good example is Obamacare. Institutionally, there had always been a sort of unwritten rule that seriously major legislation that would make wholesale changes to the economy or the government must be passed in a bipartisan fashion. That gives it the legitimacy necessary to withstand the shrieking that will no doubt come from special interests and partisans. The Democrats did away with that and passed a major change to the country on a strict party-line vote. The result has been eight years of fighting, court cases, and ultimately the possible destruction of the entire law.

The notion that when your side gets ‘control’ it’s time to clean house and use every trick in the book to pass everything you want, whether done by Republicans or Democrats, is a recipe for social breakdown, chaotic governance, and the transformation of a country from one with high trust in its institutions to a low-trust society, and all the damage that brings.

Specific to court-packing, that looks like such a blatant power grab that I predict that any governing party that tries to do it will face such a public backlash that they will get routed in the next election after.

Also, if you are going to pack the court you need a justification for doing so other than, “They keep using the constitution against our progressive ideas.” FDR tried to claim that the court was overworked, but that was shot down by the court itself. The next idea was to force judges over 70 to retire, which would have disproportionally affected Republican judges and given FDR the ability to make multiple appointments in a short period of time. Unfortunately for the Democrats, if they tried to age-out the justices at 70, they would lose Ginsberg and Breyer, and the Republicans would only lose Thomas and I guess Alito if it’s a couple of years from now. But 70 today isn’t like it was in the 30’s, and I doubt you could ever make a forced retirement at 70 stick. And if you did, the only justices that will hit 70 in the next term are Sotomayor and Roberts.

As a reminder, FDR’s court-packing scheme did not succeed. In today’s era, such an attempt would trigger massive civil unrest on the right, who would rightly see it as a massive power grab.

35

In fairness to the Democrats, there was just about no major healthcare reform that they could enact that would have passed with any significant amount of Republican support.
But what’s being proposed with SCOTUS court-packing is very different. It’s being proposed that the judiciary - which ought to be an impartial referee that holds the other, partisan branches of government in check - *jump into the game and take one team’s side. * Like buying off the referee in a Super Bowl.

36

At least since 1869. When FDR was considering packing the court, he wasn’t going to just nominate some additional justices and have the Senate approve them. His proposal took the form of legislation: the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937

37

The Supreme Court has become completely politicized. There is a reason McConnell didn’t let Garland get a vote.

Republicans made it this way so democrats have a reason to push back.

38

Sure.

You have not shown where it is allowed for one branch of government to limit another branch of government.

Nor have you shown why, when making a government with checks and balances, that this would even be a good idea.

39

Velocity: I agree with both those points, but would add that the fact that the Democrats couldn’t get ANY support from the representatives of approximately half the country was a good reason to not do it, not a justification for doing it.

I think Obamacare was one of the factors that has led to increasing polarization, and that in turn helped elect Donald Trump. Unintended consequences, and all that. So perhaps the choice back then was, “No sweeping health care reform”, vs “Sweeping health care reform, coupled with an energizing of a populist right and the election of Donald Trump.”

Was Obamacare worth Donald Trump being President and the Republicans holding a large majority in the Supreme Court? Because that may have been the price. It was unknowable at the time, except for the understanding that passing sweeping legislation against the wishes of half the country will likely lead to some bad outcomes. If Trump gets re-elected, he will get to appoint at least one more Supreme Court Justice, and more likely two or three. Breyer and Ginsberg are not spring chickens. That will give the conservative side of the court a comfortable majority for a generation, which is now leading to talk of further breakdowns of norms through court-packing schemes. That may be the real legacy of Obama, but it didn’t have to be.

And in case you think I’m saying this as a partisan, I think the same thing applies to the Republicans. One of the reasons I oppose Trump and his methods is that I think they are directly responsible for further radicalizing the left, which may lead to an even worse President next time. Rinse and Repeat. Norms are there for a reason. Break them, and expect unintended consequences.

40

Refusing to fill a particular vacancy at a particular time isn’t the same things as changing the size of the Court. The law sets the size of the Court currently at 9. But if the Senate won’t confirm anyone to fill a vacancy of course it will be smaller until the political gridlock resolves. Theoretically they could all die off and there would be no Justices at all. But the Senate can’t add a 10th Justice (unless both Houses pass a law allowing them to do so). They can’t remove Justices (other than through impeachment), either; if they were to pass a law reducing the size of the Court to five, none of the current Justices would have to leave. But the next four to die or resign wouldn’t be replaced.