zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
The thing about court packing is that the GOP response would be to flood SCOTUS when they got back in, and they would. 9 justices to 13 or 17. To 41 justices to 85 justices, whatever would give them the majority to overturn everything they don’t like. And no party is going to do sign a constitutional amendment when they are the minority party with a SCOTUS disadvantage.
0
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
The thing about court packing is that the GOP response would be to flood SCOTUS when they got back in, and they would. 9 justices to 13 or 17. To 41 justices to 85 justices, whatever would give them the majority to overturn everything they don’t like. And no party is going to do sign a constitutional amendment when they are the minority party with a SCOTUS disadvantage.
If we're adding crazy amounts of Justices, there would be enough to review all past decisions of the Roberts Court and overturn the nonsense, while we're at it.
Everyone adds more and more judges on an exponential curve until every voting adult is a Supreme Court member and BOOM the United States has an active national Plebiscite you're welcome.
+26
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
On the other hand, more Sotomayors would be good. And your most likely Biden nominations are probably people like her.
EDIT: Though I think he's promised the first seat goes to a black woman, so start your research there.
Michelle Obama, just for the troll factor.
jesus fuckin christ, naming either Obama to the bench would be staggeringly funny. Just put their names on the list, Biden! The troll factor is immeasurable!
The thing about court packing is that the GOP response would be to flood SCOTUS when they got back in, and they would. 9 justices to 13 or 17. To 41 justices to 85 justices, whatever would give them the majority to overturn everything they don’t like. And no party is going to do sign a constitutional amendment when they are the minority party with a SCOTUS disadvantage.
To which my counterargument is that the GOP in its current condition can't survive the court being packed, hence why Roberts is engaged in his legal highwire routine, trying to placate his allies and achieve his goals while working to keep political solutions to the court like packing off the table. A packed court that upholds the For The People Act as constitutional has just undermined several key tools in supporting GOP minority rule.
The GOP has already packed the courts with McConnel's fuckery during Obama's second term.
There's no reason not to respond in kind. Prisoner's dilemma may be oversimplifying things, but the correct strategy against someone who keeps betraying is to betray back until they stop.
And lay it out, simply, concisely. No, the makeup and power of SCOTUS isn't going to fit into a 15 second soundbite that will break through the most fervent Trumpist, but I do think it's possible to find a balance that would open some eyes.
"This is what should be the norm, McConnell has been flagrantly playing by his own rules (cite cite cite), to bring balance back to the courts the following remedy will be pursued because (citation citation). Until the Republicans wish to play by the norms and rules they have manipulated and broken, the administration/house/senate/whatever (I'm Canadian and god damn some of your shit is whack) will pursue returning balance through the following measures; (measures go here, be they court packing or whatever)."
Yeah yeah, the GOP base will scream bloody murder, 'omg stealing seats argle bargle', McConnell will McConnell as only McConnell can, and over half the voting population doesn't give a fuck.
Whatever. At least try. Do the right thing for the right reasons and explain why.
If they end up making the effort, it'll need to be clearly explained why, how, and that if McConnell and the republicans would stop being such assholes, this shit wouldn't be necessary.
Yeah yeah yeah, it'll be 'omg death panels' all over again. I'm aware it'll be hawt taeks and bad faith bullshit (and as we've seen, a massive heaping helping of projection). We've seen what they did and what they'll do, tweak the messaging and strive to do better.
Doing it would be difficult. Doing it without at least trying to get the public perception onside would make it all the more Herculean a task. The US educational system has failed a great many people for a very long time. Fixing that won't be easy, but it has to be tried all the same.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
The thing about court packing is that the GOP response would be to flood SCOTUS when they got back in, and they would. 9 justices to 13 or 17. To 41 justices to 85 justices, whatever would give them the majority to overturn everything they don’t like. And no party is going to do sign a constitutional amendment when they are the minority party with a SCOTUS disadvantage.
I mean, the alternative is just conceding the judiciary to conservative control for the next generation or more.
+14
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
The thing about court packing is that the GOP response would be to flood SCOTUS when they got back in, and they would. 9 justices to 13 or 17. To 41 justices to 85 justices, whatever would give them the majority to overturn everything they don’t like. And no party is going to do sign a constitutional amendment when they are the minority party with a SCOTUS disadvantage.
I mean, the alternative is just conceding the judiciary to conservative control for the next generation or more.
Not really. Based on life style, actuary tables, it'll be about 7-9 years of the status quo.
On the other hand, more Sotomayors would be good. And your most likely Biden nominations are probably people like her.
EDIT: Though I think he's promised the first seat goes to a black woman, so start your research there.
Michelle Obama, just for the troll factor.
jesus fuckin christ, naming either Obama to the bench would be staggeringly funny. Just put their names on the list, Biden! The troll factor is immeasurable!
Nonono.
BOTH of them. Also give them a button to push when anyone says "conflict of interest?" that just says "Clarence Thomas's wife".
The thing about court packing is that the GOP response would be to flood SCOTUS when they got back in, and they would. 9 justices to 13 or 17. To 41 justices to 85 justices, whatever would give them the majority to overturn everything they don’t like. And no party is going to do sign a constitutional amendment when they are the minority party with a SCOTUS disadvantage.
Actually, what's happened in the past was that the number of justices would drop when the part in power is about to lose the Presidency and/or one of the chambers of Congress so that as they die/retire the opposing party gets no picks to replace them (at least so long as the other party can't gather the votes to undo it.)
...Such as when John Adams signed the law that reduced the size of SCOTUS from 8 to 7 just two days before Thomas Jefferson took office, after having appointed his Secretary of State (who continued to serve as Secretary of State) as Chief Justice earlier in the lame duck session. Though in that case I believe Jefferson was able to overturn that part of the law before any vacancy appeared.
Political Fuckery with SCOTUS; an American tradition since 1801.
Anyway, as pertinent to this conversation, I don't see McConnell making any move on a hypothetical SCOTUS vacancy (at least one created by the absence of a liberal justice) until after the election. He may not give a fuck about what history books will write of him, but he is certainly aware that a packed liberal court could undo nearly all the "acomplishments" that their decades-long court packing scheme in 2-4 years with the right cases, and it would be smart of him to gauge the ability and willingness of Dems to go through with any plan that shifts the Court to the left before making any move.
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
The thing about court packing is that the GOP response would be to flood SCOTUS when they got back in, and they would. 9 justices to 13 or 17. To 41 justices to 85 justices, whatever would give them the majority to overturn everything they don’t like. And no party is going to do sign a constitutional amendment when they are the minority party with a SCOTUS disadvantage.
Actually, what's happened in the past was that the number of justices would drop when the part in power is about to lose the Presidency and/or one of the chambers of Congress so that as they die/retire the opposing party gets no picks to replace them (at least so long as the other party can't gather the votes to undo it.)
...Such as when John Adams signed the law that reduced the size of SCOTUS from 8 to 7 just two days before Thomas Jefferson took office, after having appointed his Secretary of State (who continued to serve as Secretary of State) as Chief Justice earlier in the lame duck session. Though in that case I believe Jefferson was able to overturn that part of the law before any vacancy appeared.
Political Fuckery with SCOTUS; an American tradition since 1801.
Anyway, as pertinent to this conversation, I don't see McConnell making any move on a hypothetical SCOTUS vacancy (at least one created by the absence of a liberal justice) until after the election. He may not give a fuck about what history books will write of him, but he is certainly aware that a packed liberal court could undo nearly all the "acomplishments" that their decades-long court packing scheme in 2-4 years with the right cases, and it would be smart of him to gauge the ability and willingness of Dems to go through with any plan that shifts the Court to the left before making any move.
that's fair enough, although, if a SCOTUS spot opens up McConnell/Trump will fill it. They won't put in the political calculus. Because it isn't about their accomplishments as much as it is about appeasing their base. And their base want to see them "stick it to the libs" with their SCOTUS nom. So if a spot opens up 2 days before new congress, expect an emergency session, preceded by trump putting forth a hack as fast as he can sign a pen.
The thing about court packing is that the GOP response would be to flood SCOTUS when they got back in, and they would. 9 justices to 13 or 17. To 41 justices to 85 justices, whatever would give them the majority to overturn everything they don’t like. And no party is going to do sign a constitutional amendment when they are the minority party with a SCOTUS disadvantage.
Actually, what's happened in the past was that the number of justices would drop when the part in power is about to lose the Presidency and/or one of the chambers of Congress so that as they die/retire the opposing party gets no picks to replace them (at least so long as the other party can't gather the votes to undo it.)
...Such as when John Adams signed the law that reduced the size of SCOTUS from 8 to 7 just two days before Thomas Jefferson took office, after having appointed his Secretary of State (who continued to serve as Secretary of State) as Chief Justice earlier in the lame duck session. Though in that case I believe Jefferson was able to overturn that part of the law before any vacancy appeared.
Political Fuckery with SCOTUS; an American tradition since 1801.
Anyway, as pertinent to this conversation, I don't see McConnell making any move on a hypothetical SCOTUS vacancy (at least one created by the absence of a liberal justice) until after the election. He may not give a fuck about what history books will write of him, but he is certainly aware that a packed liberal court could undo nearly all the "acomplishments" that their decades-long court packing scheme in 2-4 years with the right cases, and it would be smart of him to gauge the ability and willingness of Dems to go through with any plan that shifts the Court to the left before making any move.
that's fair enough, although, if a SCOTUS spot opens up McConnell/Trump will fill it. They won't put in the political calculus. Because it isn't about their accomplishments as much as it is about appeasing their base. And their base want to see them "stick it to the libs" with their SCOTUS nom. So if a spot opens up 2 days before new congress, expect an emergency session, preceded by trump putting forth a hack as fast as he can sign a pen.
McConnell is up for reelection this year though. By then he's either one of the few (the first?) Senate Majority Leaders to be voted out of office or 6 years away from anyone being able to vote on his actions (which yes, cut both ways, but he's certainly cynical enough to believe noone will hold *not* filling the seat against him by that time either) and while Trump might have the ability to pressure McConnell to do something, baring the doomsday scenarios that keep us awake at night, a large chunk that pressure largely disappears the hypothetical moment Trump is a lame duck, especially if he loses big and loses it in an ineffectual way.
Things can obviously change a lot in the 4-5 months till then (as the first half of 2020 has shown us) but if McConnell has his way, the number 1 factor on going through with a lame duck appointment is how likely he believes it would push Democrats to do what FDR couldn't.
The thing about court packing is that the GOP response would be to flood SCOTUS when they got back in, and they would. 9 justices to 13 or 17. To 41 justices to 85 justices, whatever would give them the majority to overturn everything they don’t like. And no party is going to do sign a constitutional amendment when they are the minority party with a SCOTUS disadvantage.
Actually, what's happened in the past was that the number of justices would drop when the part in power is about to lose the Presidency and/or one of the chambers of Congress so that as they die/retire the opposing party gets no picks to replace them (at least so long as the other party can't gather the votes to undo it.)
...Such as when John Adams signed the law that reduced the size of SCOTUS from 8 to 7 just two days before Thomas Jefferson took office, after having appointed his Secretary of State (who continued to serve as Secretary of State) as Chief Justice earlier in the lame duck session. Though in that case I believe Jefferson was able to overturn that part of the law before any vacancy appeared.
Political Fuckery with SCOTUS; an American tradition since 1801.
Anyway, as pertinent to this conversation, I don't see McConnell making any move on a hypothetical SCOTUS vacancy (at least one created by the absence of a liberal justice) until after the election. He may not give a fuck about what history books will write of him, but he is certainly aware that a packed liberal court could undo nearly all the "acomplishments" that their decades-long court packing scheme in 2-4 years with the right cases, and it would be smart of him to gauge the ability and willingness of Dems to go through with any plan that shifts the Court to the left before making any move.
For context, that was also when the lame duck period lasted over half a year for some godawful reason. Same with the second place winner becoming Veep. Because the founding fathers made stupid mistakes.
McConnell is not going to lose, and I think he'd rather put a 6-3 SCOTUS than keep his seat anyway. People got excited about what's-her-name last time and he won by like 10 points.
Mitch is 78 (also his first name is apparently Addison?) so I'm pretty sure he doesn't give a shit if he loses as he could eaisly retire at this point. Scoring a 6-3 supreme court would be a hell of a way to go out for him.
Mitch is 78 (also his first name is apparently Addison?) so I'm pretty sure he doesn't give a shit if he loses as he could eaisly retire at this point. Scoring a 6-3 supreme court would be a hell of a way to go out for him.
Also, it's basically the only thing he can do.
Foefaller mentioned the Adams/Jefferson transition, but without the House, there's a limit to what the Senate can enact alone.
And while it's TECHNICALLY possible, the chance that Republicans retake the House, keep the Senate, but lose the Presidency (allowing passage of bills between early January and January 20th) is almost in the "in quantum mechanics, anything is possible" level of chance.
+2
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
The thing about court packing is that the GOP response would be to flood SCOTUS when they got back in, and they would. 9 justices to 13 or 17. To 41 justices to 85 justices, whatever would give them the majority to overturn everything they don’t like. And no party is going to do sign a constitutional amendment when they are the minority party with a SCOTUS disadvantage.
Actually, what's happened in the past was that the number of justices would drop when the part in power is about to lose the Presidency and/or one of the chambers of Congress so that as they die/retire the opposing party gets no picks to replace them (at least so long as the other party can't gather the votes to undo it.)
...Such as when John Adams signed the law that reduced the size of SCOTUS from 8 to 7 just two days before Thomas Jefferson took office, after having appointed his Secretary of State (who continued to serve as Secretary of State) as Chief Justice earlier in the lame duck session. Though in that case I believe Jefferson was able to overturn that part of the law before any vacancy appeared.
Political Fuckery with SCOTUS; an American tradition since 1801.
Anyway, as pertinent to this conversation, I don't see McConnell making any move on a hypothetical SCOTUS vacancy (at least one created by the absence of a liberal justice) until after the election. He may not give a fuck about what history books will write of him, but he is certainly aware that a packed liberal court could undo nearly all the "acomplishments" that their decades-long court packing scheme in 2-4 years with the right cases, and it would be smart of him to gauge the ability and willingness of Dems to go through with any plan that shifts the Court to the left before making any move.
For context, that was also when the lame duck period lasted over half a year for some godawful reason. Same with the second place winner becoming Veep. Because the founding fathers made stupid mistakes.
Eh, second place being VP makes more sense to me if they are actively using their position as president of the Senate.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
The thing about court packing is that the GOP response would be to flood SCOTUS when they got back in, and they would. 9 justices to 13 or 17. To 41 justices to 85 justices, whatever would give them the majority to overturn everything they don’t like. And no party is going to do sign a constitutional amendment when they are the minority party with a SCOTUS disadvantage.
Actually, what's happened in the past was that the number of justices would drop when the part in power is about to lose the Presidency and/or one of the chambers of Congress so that as they die/retire the opposing party gets no picks to replace them (at least so long as the other party can't gather the votes to undo it.)
...Such as when John Adams signed the law that reduced the size of SCOTUS from 8 to 7 just two days before Thomas Jefferson took office, after having appointed his Secretary of State (who continued to serve as Secretary of State) as Chief Justice earlier in the lame duck session. Though in that case I believe Jefferson was able to overturn that part of the law before any vacancy appeared.
Political Fuckery with SCOTUS; an American tradition since 1801.
Anyway, as pertinent to this conversation, I don't see McConnell making any move on a hypothetical SCOTUS vacancy (at least one created by the absence of a liberal justice) until after the election. He may not give a fuck about what history books will write of him, but he is certainly aware that a packed liberal court could undo nearly all the "acomplishments" that their decades-long court packing scheme in 2-4 years with the right cases, and it would be smart of him to gauge the ability and willingness of Dems to go through with any plan that shifts the Court to the left before making any move.
For context, that was also when the lame duck period lasted over half a year for some godawful reason. Same with the second place winner becoming Veep. Because the founding fathers made stupid mistakes.
Eh, second place being VP makes more sense to me if they are actively using their position as president of the Senate.
I think it really only makes sense if you assume no parties and everyone acts in good faith.
A lot of the original setup of government makes sense when you consider England prior to that, which hadn’t really developed strong political parties and worked more on a multipolar system where there were several cliques supported by prominent landowners and such rather than a rigidly defined two party system like that which the US constitution strongly inadvertently encouraged.
Once you do have a rigid 2 party system, baking in a guaranteed party swap every time the existing president dies or resigns bakes in some really perverse incentives.
And a 2 party system is just what happens when you use first-past-the-post voting, so until we switch to a different voting method we're stuck with it
To keep this on track, would the SCOTUS come into play if we tried to change how Federal elections function to a different system? Would the conservatives getting 6 out of 9 mean it'd be impossible to switch?
And a 2 party system is just what happens when you use first-past-the-post voting, so until we switch to a different voting method we're stuck with it
To keep this on track, would the SCOTUS come into play if we tried to change how Federal elections function to a different system? Would the conservatives getting 6 out of 9 mean it'd be impossible to switch?
Under John Roberts' Calvinball rules, sure. Roberts isn't going to allow a system that gives full representation to black people. Period.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Mitch is 78 (also his first name is apparently Addison?) so I'm pretty sure he doesn't give a shit if he loses as he could eaisly retire at this point. Scoring a 6-3 supreme court would be a hell of a way to go out for him.
Also, it's basically the only thing he can do.
Foefaller mentioned the Adams/Jefferson transition, but without the House, there's a limit to what the Senate can enact alone.
And while it's TECHNICALLY possible, the chance that Republicans retake the House, keep the Senate, but lose the Presidency (allowing passage of bills between early January and January 20th) is almost in the "in quantum mechanics, anything is possible" level of chance.
And it’s a lot easier for the gop to retake the house than the senate or White House.
They have a baked in advantage do to the home cooking of gerrymandering. The Senate is much less of advantage.
If you think Mcconell would pass on a lame duck appointment, I have a bridge to sell you. SCOTUS picks is one of the main reasons Republicans have stuck by and protected Trump. Getting to pick three justices, one of them replacing a female liberal, is wet dream level stuff for the GOP.
Mitch is 78 (also his first name is apparently Addison?) so I'm pretty sure he doesn't give a shit if he loses as he could eaisly retire at this point. Scoring a 6-3 supreme court would be a hell of a way to go out for him.
Also, it's basically the only thing he can do.
Foefaller mentioned the Adams/Jefferson transition, but without the House, there's a limit to what the Senate can enact alone.
And while it's TECHNICALLY possible, the chance that Republicans retake the House, keep the Senate, but lose the Presidency (allowing passage of bills between early January and January 20th) is almost in the "in quantum mechanics, anything is possible" level of chance.
And it’s a lot easier for the gop to retake the house than the senate or White House.
They have a baked in advantage do to the home cooking of gerrymandering. The Senate is much less of advantage.
This is the last election before the next redistricting, which should be much fairer than 2010's due to the results of the 2018 elections and various reforms since 2012.
+2
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
Mitch is 78 (also his first name is apparently Addison?) so I'm pretty sure he doesn't give a shit if he loses as he could eaisly retire at this point. Scoring a 6-3 supreme court would be a hell of a way to go out for him.
Also, it's basically the only thing he can do.
Foefaller mentioned the Adams/Jefferson transition, but without the House, there's a limit to what the Senate can enact alone.
And while it's TECHNICALLY possible, the chance that Republicans retake the House, keep the Senate, but lose the Presidency (allowing passage of bills between early January and January 20th) is almost in the "in quantum mechanics, anything is possible" level of chance.
And it’s a lot easier for the gop to retake the house than the senate or White House.
They have a baked in advantage do to the home cooking of gerrymandering. The Senate is much less of advantage.
This is the last election before the next redistricting, which should be much fairer than 2010's due to the results of the 2018 elections and various reforms since 2012.
You have more faith in the process than I do...there's still a lot of GOP governors and state houses, and the VRA has been gutted.
+8
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Mitch is 78 (also his first name is apparently Addison?) so I'm pretty sure he doesn't give a shit if he loses as he could eaisly retire at this point. Scoring a 6-3 supreme court would be a hell of a way to go out for him.
Also, it's basically the only thing he can do.
Foefaller mentioned the Adams/Jefferson transition, but without the House, there's a limit to what the Senate can enact alone.
And while it's TECHNICALLY possible, the chance that Republicans retake the House, keep the Senate, but lose the Presidency (allowing passage of bills between early January and January 20th) is almost in the "in quantum mechanics, anything is possible" level of chance.
And it’s a lot easier for the gop to retake the house than the senate or White House.
They have a baked in advantage do to the home cooking of gerrymandering. The Senate is much less of advantage.
This is the last election before the next redistricting, which should be much fairer than 2010's due to the results of the 2018 elections and various reforms since 2012.
You have more faith in the process than I do...there's still a lot of GOP governors and state houses, and the VRA has been gutted.
Also even without the crazy level of gerrymandering by politicians. Democrats live in higher density groupings and we tend to gerrymander ourselves...through poverty.
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Mitch is 78 (also his first name is apparently Addison?) so I'm pretty sure he doesn't give a shit if he loses as he could eaisly retire at this point. Scoring a 6-3 supreme court would be a hell of a way to go out for him.
Also, it's basically the only thing he can do.
Foefaller mentioned the Adams/Jefferson transition, but without the House, there's a limit to what the Senate can enact alone.
And while it's TECHNICALLY possible, the chance that Republicans retake the House, keep the Senate, but lose the Presidency (allowing passage of bills between early January and January 20th) is almost in the "in quantum mechanics, anything is possible" level of chance.
And it’s a lot easier for the gop to retake the house than the senate or White House.
They have a baked in advantage do to the home cooking of gerrymandering. The Senate is much less of advantage.
This is the last election before the next redistricting, which should be much fairer than 2010's due to the results of the 2018 elections and various reforms since 2012.
You have more faith in the process than I do...there's still a lot of GOP governors and state houses, and the VRA has been gutted.
Also even without the crazy level of gerrymandering by politicians. Democrats live in higher density groupings and we tend to gerrymander ourselves...through poverty.
What? No.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Mitch is 78 (also his first name is apparently Addison?) so I'm pretty sure he doesn't give a shit if he loses as he could eaisly retire at this point. Scoring a 6-3 supreme court would be a hell of a way to go out for him.
Also, it's basically the only thing he can do.
Foefaller mentioned the Adams/Jefferson transition, but without the House, there's a limit to what the Senate can enact alone.
And while it's TECHNICALLY possible, the chance that Republicans retake the House, keep the Senate, but lose the Presidency (allowing passage of bills between early January and January 20th) is almost in the "in quantum mechanics, anything is possible" level of chance.
And it’s a lot easier for the gop to retake the house than the senate or White House.
They have a baked in advantage do to the home cooking of gerrymandering. The Senate is much less of advantage.
This is the last election before the next redistricting, which should be much fairer than 2010's due to the results of the 2018 elections and various reforms since 2012.
You have more faith in the process than I do...there's still a lot of GOP governors and state houses, and the VRA has been gutted.
There are 21 Republican trifectas among the States. Of those, 3 have a single congressional district (and so cannot be gerrymandered), and 3 have nonpartisan commissions that draft the maps. Meaning 35 States will have maps drawn with Democrats either fully involved or fully controlling the process. That's a lot compared to the redistricting following the Republican wave election in 2010 which led us to the status quo.
My heart skipped 47 fucking beats before I expanded it and saw it said "discharged".
That woman has clearly made death her bitch, or something. Assuming Biden wins in November and there's a peaceful transfer of power, he better have someone lined up day one to nominate so she can retire, she's well past earning it.
I think the only reasonably controlled solution was adding seats so that the number of seats on SCotUS was the same as the number of US Appellate court circuits, which would be 13. The pro to that is it's there's good arguments to be made both for the increase to that number, and also not to increase beyond that number. The con is that the GOP doesn't care about reasons not to increase that number, because any move the Dems make to try to fix the problems the GOP is creating will be immediately abused, often in the most corrupt or hypocritical way possible, by the GOP to continue advancing their agenda.
I think the only reasonably controlled solution was adding seats so that the number of seats on SCotUS was the same as the number of US Appellate court circuits, which would be 13. The pro to that is it's there's good arguments to be made both for the increase to that number, and also not to increase beyond that number. The con is that the GOP doesn't care about reasons not to increase that number, because any move the Dems make to try to fix the problems the GOP is creating will be immediately abused, often in the most corrupt or hypocritical way possible, by the GOP to continue advancing their agenda.
The GOP has been picking betray for the last > decade, at some point you either betray back or you continue to get fucked.
But then we'll be just as bad as them, and both sides really will be the same! *wrings hands*
So we can't ever kill the Joker, just keep bringing him in so he can inevitably escape and kill more people.
(I realize this is a really messed-up metaphor, and yet... it's pretty much where we're at?)
They can't be the same because even if I want to punch a nazi I don't want to subjugate a nazi for being born a nazi. Because one side doesn't ruin peoples lives because of their genetics and no one is born a fucking nazi.
You probably don’t want to pack all at once without solving for lifetime appointments, preferably with some mechanism to make the appointment of replacement justices predictable
Imagine if Trump was able to pick 9 justices this presidential term
Posts
If we're adding crazy amounts of Justices, there would be enough to review all past decisions of the Roberts Court and overturn the nonsense, while we're at it.
this is worse than jury duty!
jesus fuckin christ, naming either Obama to the bench would be staggeringly funny. Just put their names on the list, Biden! The troll factor is immeasurable!
To which my counterargument is that the GOP in its current condition can't survive the court being packed, hence why Roberts is engaged in his legal highwire routine, trying to placate his allies and achieve his goals while working to keep political solutions to the court like packing off the table. A packed court that upholds the For The People Act as constitutional has just undermined several key tools in supporting GOP minority rule.
There's no reason not to respond in kind. Prisoner's dilemma may be oversimplifying things, but the correct strategy against someone who keeps betraying is to betray back until they stop.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
"This is what should be the norm, McConnell has been flagrantly playing by his own rules (cite cite cite), to bring balance back to the courts the following remedy will be pursued because (citation citation). Until the Republicans wish to play by the norms and rules they have manipulated and broken, the administration/house/senate/whatever (I'm Canadian and god damn some of your shit is whack) will pursue returning balance through the following measures; (measures go here, be they court packing or whatever)."
Yeah yeah, the GOP base will scream bloody murder, 'omg stealing seats argle bargle', McConnell will McConnell as only McConnell can, and over half the voting population doesn't give a fuck.
Whatever. At least try. Do the right thing for the right reasons and explain why.
If they end up making the effort, it'll need to be clearly explained why, how, and that if McConnell and the republicans would stop being such assholes, this shit wouldn't be necessary.
Yeah yeah yeah, it'll be 'omg death panels' all over again. I'm aware it'll be hawt taeks and bad faith bullshit (and as we've seen, a massive heaping helping of projection). We've seen what they did and what they'll do, tweak the messaging and strive to do better.
Doing it would be difficult. Doing it without at least trying to get the public perception onside would make it all the more Herculean a task. The US educational system has failed a great many people for a very long time. Fixing that won't be easy, but it has to be tried all the same.
I mean, the alternative is just conceding the judiciary to conservative control for the next generation or more.
Nonono.
BOTH of them. Also give them a button to push when anyone says "conflict of interest?" that just says "Clarence Thomas's wife".
Actually, what's happened in the past was that the number of justices would drop when the part in power is about to lose the Presidency and/or one of the chambers of Congress so that as they die/retire the opposing party gets no picks to replace them (at least so long as the other party can't gather the votes to undo it.)
...Such as when John Adams signed the law that reduced the size of SCOTUS from 8 to 7 just two days before Thomas Jefferson took office, after having appointed his Secretary of State (who continued to serve as Secretary of State) as Chief Justice earlier in the lame duck session. Though in that case I believe Jefferson was able to overturn that part of the law before any vacancy appeared.
Political Fuckery with SCOTUS; an American tradition since 1801.
Anyway, as pertinent to this conversation, I don't see McConnell making any move on a hypothetical SCOTUS vacancy (at least one created by the absence of a liberal justice) until after the election. He may not give a fuck about what history books will write of him, but he is certainly aware that a packed liberal court could undo nearly all the "acomplishments" that their decades-long court packing scheme in 2-4 years with the right cases, and it would be smart of him to gauge the ability and willingness of Dems to go through with any plan that shifts the Court to the left before making any move.
McConnell is up for reelection this year though. By then he's either one of the few (the first?) Senate Majority Leaders to be voted out of office or 6 years away from anyone being able to vote on his actions (which yes, cut both ways, but he's certainly cynical enough to believe noone will hold *not* filling the seat against him by that time either) and while Trump might have the ability to pressure McConnell to do something, baring the doomsday scenarios that keep us awake at night, a large chunk that pressure largely disappears the hypothetical moment Trump is a lame duck, especially if he loses big and loses it in an ineffectual way.
Things can obviously change a lot in the 4-5 months till then (as the first half of 2020 has shown us) but if McConnell has his way, the number 1 factor on going through with a lame duck appointment is how likely he believes it would push Democrats to do what FDR couldn't.
For context, that was also when the lame duck period lasted over half a year for some godawful reason. Same with the second place winner becoming Veep. Because the founding fathers made stupid mistakes.
Also, it's basically the only thing he can do.
Foefaller mentioned the Adams/Jefferson transition, but without the House, there's a limit to what the Senate can enact alone.
And while it's TECHNICALLY possible, the chance that Republicans retake the House, keep the Senate, but lose the Presidency (allowing passage of bills between early January and January 20th) is almost in the "in quantum mechanics, anything is possible" level of chance.
Eh, second place being VP makes more sense to me if they are actively using their position as president of the Senate.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
I think it really only makes sense if you assume no parties and everyone acts in good faith.
A lot of the original setup of government makes sense when you consider England prior to that, which hadn’t really developed strong political parties and worked more on a multipolar system where there were several cliques supported by prominent landowners and such rather than a rigidly defined two party system like that which the US constitution strongly inadvertently encouraged.
Once you do have a rigid 2 party system, baking in a guaranteed party swap every time the existing president dies or resigns bakes in some really perverse incentives.
To keep this on track, would the SCOTUS come into play if we tried to change how Federal elections function to a different system? Would the conservatives getting 6 out of 9 mean it'd be impossible to switch?
Under John Roberts' Calvinball rules, sure. Roberts isn't going to allow a system that gives full representation to black people. Period.
pleasepaypreacher.net
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
They have a baked in advantage do to the home cooking of gerrymandering. The Senate is much less of advantage.
This is the last election before the next redistricting, which should be much fairer than 2010's due to the results of the 2018 elections and various reforms since 2012.
You have more faith in the process than I do...there's still a lot of GOP governors and state houses, and the VRA has been gutted.
What? No.
There are 21 Republican trifectas among the States. Of those, 3 have a single congressional district (and so cannot be gerrymandered), and 3 have nonpartisan commissions that draft the maps. Meaning 35 States will have maps drawn with Democrats either fully involved or fully controlling the process. That's a lot compared to the redistricting following the Republican wave election in 2010 which led us to the status quo.
Jesus fucking christ.
"Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg di"
My heart skipped 47 fucking beats before I expanded it and saw it said "discharged".
That woman has clearly made death her bitch, or something. Assuming Biden wins in November and there's a peaceful transfer of power, he better have someone lined up day one to nominate so she can retire, she's well past earning it.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
The GOP has been picking betray for the last > decade, at some point you either betray back or you continue to get fucked.
So we can't ever kill the Joker, just keep bringing him in so he can inevitably escape and kill more people.
(I realize this is a really messed-up metaphor, and yet... it's pretty much where we're at?)
Imagine if Trump was able to pick 9 justices this presidential term