Zone1 Democrats reviving calls to pack the SCOTUS

[Mr. Friscus]

When the court rules in favor of leftist desires:

Democrats: “THE SCOTUS IS AN IRONCLAD SYMBOL OF THE MORALITY OF OUR COUNTRY AND OF DEMOCRACY ITSELF”

When the court rules against leftist desires:

Democrats: “THE SCOTUS IS CORRUPTED AND WE MUST INSTALL RADICALS TO BALANCE IT OUT BECAUSE ITS NOT POSSIBLE WE ARE WRONG”

 

[1srelluc]

They can't do shit and they know it, just more empty promises to try to glean votes from useful idiots....You would think that the ballot harvesters would be enough to where they would not bother..

 

[Blaster]

Democrats won't pack SCOTUS.

 

[peacefan]

When the court rules in favor of leftist desires:

Democrats: “THE SCOTUS IS AN IRONCLAD SYMBOL OF THE MORALITY OF OUR COUNTRY AND OF DEMOCRACY ITSELF”

When the court rules against leftist desires:

Democrats: “THE SCOTUS IS CORRUPTED AND WE MUST INSTALL RADICALS TO BALANCE IT OUT BECAUSE ITS NOT POSSIBLE WE ARE WRONG”

that's a fact, but the Republicans would do the same thing. every single time.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

that's a fact, but the Republicans would do the same thing. every single time.

I don’t think republicans/conservatives are nearly as dramatic and unstable as leftists overall… there’s a reason why theatre attracts flaming radical leftists.. drama/performance is inherent

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Make believe cases to change the rules by SCOTUS will result in the court being rendered.

 

[Votto]

Democrats won't pack SCOTUS.

Sure they would, if they could.

 

[Blaster]

Sure they would, if they could.

They can't.

 

[candycorn]

I don’t think republicans/conservatives are nearly as dramatic and unstable as leftists overall… there’s a reason why theatre attracts flaming radical leftists.. drama/performance is inherent

Yeah....those on the left have an attention span longer than 5 seconds. The right wing? Not so much.

 

[Pellinore]

Assuming the OP defines 'packing' as 'expanding' ...

The first thing the Democrats would need would be both houses of Congress, and the White House. In the Senate, they would further need enough of a majority to first pass a filibuster carve-out.

I can't imagine the resulting bill would be "Add four seats immediately, which President Biden will fill right away." A split Supreme Court would probably shoot that down; the current Supreme Court definitely would. It would have to be incremental expansion, which would make it a massive issue on next year's election ticket. They'd probably throw in some ethical reform language as well.

So it's possible, but it would have to be an all-in expenditure of political capital, with no guarantee of success.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

One, the Congress and expand or contract the number of seats.

Two, the Congress can withdraw the Court's jurisdiction over the expansion legislation.

Yes, it can be done, but is it worth the fall out?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

One, the Congress and expand or contract the number of seats.

Two, the Congress can withdraw the Court's jurisdiction over the expansion legislation.

Yes, it can be done, but is it worth the fall out?

It’s clear leftists don’t care about maintaining institutions overall, they largely want to tear it all down because it’s inherently evil due to straight white men building it and slavery existing.

They only respect institutions when they can exploit them. Once they don’t get their way, it’s calls to change them

 

[Mr. Friscus]

They definitely are calling for it though:

Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA): “Expanding the size of the Supreme Court isn’t extreme or unprecedented — but the opinions of this Court certainly are.”

When Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) asked about adding more justices: “So everything should be on the table: reform and expansion.”

Newsweek Headline: “Biden Won’t Pack the Supreme Court, and It’s Killing Democracy,”

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Expanding the Court is neither new nor extreme nor unprecedented.

 

[task0778]

A couple of years ago, back when the democrats did have control of the House, Senate, and WH, they came that close to ending the filibuster. Which essentially meant that with 50% +1 votes they could pretty much do whatever they wanted. Thankfully, Manchin and Sinema shot that down but picture a day when the democrats can and would do it. Imagine if they passed legislation that would allow them to remove from office any sitting justice (Clarence Thomas) via impeachment, which actually they can already do but also remove him from office with only a 50%+1 vote in the Senate. Think they wouldn't so that? Would it be unconstitutional? I wouldn't bet on it. Or could they pass legislation to create term limits for justices? They'll find a way to get the Supreme court back to what they want it to be.

These are people with the same fervor as any religious fanatic when it comes to politics. Many democrats might not agree or want to go that far, but many of them would go along with it much like many Germans did when Hitler and the Nazis took over nearly a century ago. You don't like the comparison? I don't care. People will fall in line to avoid the penalties for stepping out from the party line, and don't tell me that can't happen. Look at the hatred for Trump and the MAGA people, you think they wouldn't use that as justification to do whatever they can to create and sustain a one-party gov't?

 

[Pellinore]

A couple of years ago, back when the democrats did have control of the House, Senate, and WH, they came that close to ending the filibuster. Which essentially meant that with 50% +1 votes they could pretty much do whatever they wanted. Thankfully, Manchin and Sinema shot that down but picture a day when the democrats can and would do it. Imagine if they passed legislation that would allow them to remove from office any sitting justice (Clarence Thomas) via impeachment, which actually they can already do but also remove him from office with only a 50%+1 vote in the Senate. Think they wouldn't so that? Would it be unconstitutional? I wouldn't bet on it. Or could they pass legislation to create term limits for justices? They'll find a way to get the Supreme court back to what they want it to be.

First of all, the filibuster is not in the Constitution; it is a matter of Senate procedures. It derived from Ye Olde English Parliamentary procedures, and was unused until Aaron Burr wiped out the procedural safeguard that prevented it from happening. The Constitution is designed to have laws passed without a filibuster; that is, with exactly the 50%+1 majority that you so dreadfully fear.

Second, the filibuster has nothing to do with judicial impeachment. Any attempt to remove Clarence Thomas from office would need a two-thirds majority.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

It is time for the Senate to end its filibuster rules.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

It is time for the Senate to end its filibuster rules.

I still remember when the Democrats created the nuclear option, and then they and the MSM whined about it when the GOP used it.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I still remember when the Democrats created the nuclear option, and then they and the MSM whined about it when the GOP used it.

I agree that they should have used it across the legislative function.