Do you think that McConnell would let this pass so Trump would sign it and this can all happen before the next election? Otherwise its pretty wishful thinking that Trump would be the one to nominate the 10th justice. Something something counting chickens…
For the prospect of putting another conservative on the court, and then having a 6-4 court pick 5 additional justices? Yeah, I’m pretty sure McConnell would let that pass. Schumer would pitch a fit though.
And you think Pelosi would let this pass the house this term?
You’re a bit off the deep end here with your hypothetical
It wasn’t MY hypothetical. It was Richard Parker’s / Buttigieg’s. And no, I don’t think it has even the slimmest chance of passing, for precisely the reason that you complain about: everyone, including Pelosi and Schumer, will look at the political implications of passing it, and oppose it if they feel they’ll end up on the short end of the exchange.
I think you wouldn’t even be considering a change to the court if your side had the plurality. Which means this is not a ‘good government’ reform, but an attempt to gain partisan advantage.
Likewise, the left was perfectly happy with the electoral college when they thought it had created a ‘blue wall’ for Hillary to beat Trump.
I also think that if Republicans had suggested any change at all to the Supreme Court back when it mostly swung to the left, Democrats would be howling that Fascism had arrived or that Republicans were attempting a soft coup and must be stopped.
No. Richard Parker posted the idea, from a Democratic candidate about something that may happen should he be elected president. You created your hypothetical of how you dreamed it would play out if the current legislature passed this plan this term. Your post is what is divorced from reality. Its right there, just scroll up to post #79. All your words.
As Sam Stone noted, if you only like the idea if a Dem is president when it gets implemented, it’s painfully obvious that you only support it “to be able to force our will on the other team”.
All this, accurate or not, ignores that SCOTUS is already a partisan institution. You must realize that suggesting to the Democrats that they play softball while the Republicans play hardball is not likely to fly, right? A political institution will be treated politically, and this shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Sure, it’d be better for the country if this weren’t the case, but the only way to make that happen is with a Constitutional amendment.
What I want is for the Supreme Court to be a legitimate non-political body of government again. What you want is your side to win no matter the cost.
Your side can’t deny a president a supreme court pick, then complain about what the other side is doing by trying to figure out a way to restore legitimacy to the court. Legitimacy that your side destroyed. Why don’t you hold your own side accountable for everything you criticize the other side for? Self delusion is a powerful thing I guess. Really sad for America that so many are falling victim to it so completely, and willingly.
Your side is currently discussing packing the court. That’s literally the topic of this thread. And you want to wax poetic about how you’re just “trying to figure out a way to restore legitimacy”. LMAO!
The talk about “let’s bring back legitimacy to the SCOTUS by court-packing” is like “last time the ref helped out our opponents unfairly, so this time we’ll outright ***bribe ***the refs and league commissioner. That’ll restore faith and trust in officiating.”
I don’t think so - one way or another, the Electoral College was and is a disadvantage for the left. The blue wall didn’t “favor” the Democrats any more than California’s 55 electoral votes favor the D’s; it just happened to be a swath of blue states.
I think they would quite easily find consensus. That aside, I understand the proposal to be that the slots are filled if they find consensus and not filled if they don’t.
Why do you put “political appointees” in quotes?
Also, did you have any substantive comment on the merits of the proposal?
That’s nice. You know very little about me. Any comment on the actual proposal?
This scorched earth, winner take all, fuck the other side politics is going to be the end of our republic. That you find it all a laughing matter is just repulsive.
I hope for both of our sakes and for the sake of the next generations that our better nature as a society wins out in the end.
Maybe one day we’ll have a legitimate Supreme Court again, but as long as one side will use nuclear weapons to get an advantage while demanding the other side put down the water gun because its partisan, we’ll never get there. And that is very bad for our country. Regardless of whatever short term gain you think you’re getting right now, it is harming us greatly for the long term.
I agree. And I don’t think that’s a laughing matter. That you pretend you’re not doing your damnedest to do the exact same thing, in a thread about court-packing, is what I find laughable.
Court-packing isn’t about bringing back “legitimacy” to the SCOTUS. It’s about bringing a gun, instead of a pillow, to a gun fight.
Just a question: would you support it’s passage now, in 2019, with the current President and Senate, or is it only going to be an idea you like the next time a Dem is in the White House?
You don’t know me. You don’t know my motivations.
Read back through this thread. My first post in the thread was a response to you, like an hour ago. What am I “trying my damndest to do”? Read my posts and respond to what I said please. Don’t assign everything you disagree with in this thread to me.
I thought I made it pretty clear in my post that I don’t think it obviously benefits whichever party agrees in passing it.
In fact, I find it a little surprising that you and Sam Stone think it is so obviously a power-grab. You don’t think the consensus appointments of a 5-5 or 6-4 court would result in jurists who would side with conservatives? Why not?
Except that Republicans haven’t packed the Court yet. Court-packing goes significantly beyond what McConnell, etc did.