Legal/scotus thread

[Metaphysicist]

Tell me when McConnell proposed adding 4 justices when the left had their majority?

Yesterday you were telling us all this was nonsense. Today legislation is being introduced.

A useful idiot is useful

Lol when did the "left have their majority" during McConnell's Leadership. The "Left" hasn't had a majority since... the 60s/70s. Kennedy and O'Connor were the swing justices and solid Reagan conservatives. If you think those people were liberals then you are even dumber than I thought.

McConnell definitely "stacked" the courts. He would proudly tell you that. Court "packing" is a term of art, but stacking? Ooooh baby that deck is definitely stacked. That was like... the whole thing?

Wow legislation was "introduced" I guess this is really happening now (idiot)

 

[striker42]

Striker, I’m not the smartest guy and I know there’s loopholes in laws, but could the Dems force this through or not without the Senate votes?

They could kill the filibuster and require just a simple majority. The problem is the Senate is split 50-50 and you have multiple Democrats already on the record opposing raising the number of justices.

If the Democrats were to somehow manage to get 50 senators together, they'd kill the filibuster in a heartbeat to pass it.

 

[sturg33]

Gonna be fun watching the playbook regression of the useful idiots.

1. Yall are dumb conspiracy theorists lol they aren't gonna expand the court!

2. He is just setting up the commission to silence the crazies in his party. Yall should be happy!

3. Oh lol I guess the introduction of legislation means it's gonna happen? Ha!

4. When you think about it, it makes total logical sense to to expand the court after the nazi Republicans stacked it in their favor

5. Quit whining about the bigger court! Change your policies to win more elections and you can affect it yourself!

Like clockwork

 

[thethe]

Love the guy who has done nothing but school in his life and thinks welfare has been diminished calls someone else an idiot.

Hurry break out some pedantic phrases!

 

[Metaphysicist]

Gonna be fun watching the playbook regression of the useful idiots.

1. Yall are dumb conspiracy theorists lol they aren't gonna expand the court!

2. He is just setting up the commission to silence the crazies in his party. Yall should be happy!

3. Oh lol I guess the introduction of legislation means it's gonna happen? Ha!

4. When you think about it, it makes total logical sense to to expand the court after the nazi Republicans stacked it in their favor

5. Quit whining about the bigger court! Change your policies to win more elections and you can affect it yourself!

Like clockwork

I have no problem with a bigger court, so this whole line makes no sense. I think we should probably make it huge so confirming each individual justice is not "the most important thing ever." I would be perfectly happy making it bigger and waiting until XX number of years so it doesn't give Biden specifically an appointment.

I just think it is hilarious how riled up you all get by right wing scaredy cats. You just seem to have no idea how the government actually works. I will take this seriously when there is any indication of 50 votes for it.

 

[sturg33]

I have no problem with a bigger court, so this whole line makes no sense. I think we should probably make it huge so confirming each individual justice is not "the most important thing ever." I would be perfectly happy making it bigger and waiting until XX number of years so it doesn't give Biden specifically an appointment.

I just think it is hilarious how riled up you all get by right wing scaredy cats. You just seem to have no idea how the government actually works. I will take this seriously when there is any indication of 50 votes for it.

Whether it happens in next two years or not, the seed has been planted to normalize it.

Hell, it will be hilarious when they kill the filibuster but don't get the 50 for the court... and the GOP decides to add the justices themselves. Yall will cry about dirty politics as you always do

 

[striker42]

I have no problem with a bigger court, so this whole line makes no sense. I think we should probably make it huge so confirming each individual justice is not "the most important thing ever." I would be perfectly happy making it bigger and waiting until XX number of years so it doesn't give Biden specifically an appointment.

I just think it is hilarious how riled up you all get by right wing scaredy cats. You just seem to have no idea how the government actually works. I will take this seriously when there is any indication of 50 votes for it.

There are a lot of problems with larger courts that aren't obvious on the face. Would moving the court from 9 to 11 or even 9 to 13 be a big deal? No, it's not ideal but it wouldn't be the end of the world. If Republicans retaliated and raised the number to 17 or 19 or even more, then we get into problems.

First, people think there are only two sides to every issue the court takes. Either something is allowed or it isn't. That's completely wrong. Often the question has any number of sides, or worse, is asking the court to create a test. The more people you add to the court, the more likely you are to get opinions where there's no majority.

What do you do when you have a 17 member court with 5 justices thinking the test should be A, 4 thinking the test should be B, 4 thinking C, and 4 thinking D? Some might say the test should be A because that got 5 justices. Except for the fact that you have 12 justices saying the test should be not A.

The more justices you add the harder it is to build a coalition to get to a majority. 9 gives a good balance of diluting the importance of any one justice without making the court so large it can't reach decisions. I could keep going into a host of other issues too.

I'm currently not worried as I don't see there being 50 votes. I am a little concerned though that the idea of expanding the court is being normalized and will become a litmus test for future candidates.

 

[nsacpi]

I am a little concerned though that the idea of expanding the court is being normalized and will become a litmus test for future candidates.

Both parties are a bit too willing to throw a bone to their wingnuts. A committee to study expanding the court does no apparent harm. Except it is a way of placating people who take it seriously and this could lead to harm. I'll add that I see a similarity to the Republikaners © appeasing the trumpophiles who think the election was stolen by passing "election reforms." Even though the content of those reforms are fairly benign it is generally a bad idea to appease the wingnuts on either side of the spectrum.

 

[sturg33]

You mean the jim crow laws that just got passed?

Somehow your takeaway is the Republicans are the problem

 

[striker42]

Both parties are a bit too willing to throw a bone to their wingnuts. A committee to study expanding the court does no apparent harm. Except it is a way of placating people who take it seriously and this could lead to harm. I'll add that I see a similarity to the Republikaners © appeasing the trumpophiles who think the election was stolen by passing "election reforms." Even though the content of those reforms are fairly benign it is generally a bad idea to appease the wingnuts on either side of the spectrum.

The core problem is the wingnuts control who gets to run in the general election. Until that changes, you'll see all kinds of appeasement.

 

[nsacpi]

The core problem is the wingnuts control who gets to run in the general election. Until that changes, you'll see all kinds of appeasement.

Yup. The people who introduced the legislation to expand the court are doing this with primary elections in mind. I would guess it plays well among people who vote in Democratic primaries in most parts of the country. It is part of the ongoing battle between the Biden-Klobuchar wing and the Sanders-Warren wing. credibly accused creepy joe tried to finesse it with his committee, but I think he would be smarter to repudiate the whole idea.

 

[goldfly]

Your continued ignorance on what happened in GA is astounding. I'm embarrassed for you

how cute

 

[goldfly]

"WHAAAAAAA for the first time in decades we don't have a liberal activist majority on the court. We have to change the rules whaaaaaaaaaaa!!!"

oh

you think there has been a liberal activist majority for decades until recently lol

 

[Metaphysicist]

There are a lot of problems with larger courts that aren't obvious on the face. Would moving the court from 9 to 11 or even 9 to 13 be a big deal? No, it's not ideal but it wouldn't be the end of the world. If Republicans retaliated and raised the number to 17 or 19 or even more, then we get into problems.

There are ways to do this that explicitly are non-partisan. The idea is to de-emphasize the court, not claim it's power for "my" side. The Republican focus on "winning" the courts has made them a party that refuses to actually govern and the Democratic (false) belief that the courts will save them has made the party pretty dumb. De-power the court, especially devalue the power of each individual justice, and force Congress to actually focus on doing Congress stuff.

What do you do when you have a 17 member court with 5 justices thinking the test should be A, 4 thinking the test should be B, 4 thinking C, and 4 thinking D? Some might say the test should be A because that got 5 justices. Except for the fact that you have 12 justices saying the test should be not A.

The more justices you add the harder it is to build a coalition to get to a majority.

Good. This makes the court weaker.

I am a little concerned though that the idea of expanding the court is being normalized and will become a litmus test for future candidates.

Maybe. But who cares. 9 is not a special number for any reason but inertia. I'm more concerned about stopping the court from being this polarizing force in our society. Look at how stupid everyone in thread is.

 

[nsacpi]

Increasing the size of the court in the immediate future (which aint happening) would dilute the power of Thomas/Alito/ACB.

Increasing the size of the court in some distant future has no predictable consequences. It might have consequences, but we simply cannot foresee them.

 

[striker42]

There are ways to do this that explicitly are non-partisan. The idea is to de-emphasize the court, not claim it's power for "my" side. The Republican focus on "winning" the courts has made them a party that refuses to actually govern and the Democratic (false) belief that the courts will save them has made the party pretty dumb. De-power the court, especially devalue the power of each individual justice, and force Congress to actually focus on doing Congress stuff.



Good. This makes the court weaker.



Maybe. But who cares. 9 is not a special number for any reason but inertia. I'm more concerned about stopping the court from being this polarizing force in our society. Look at how stupid everyone in thread is.

I'm not interested in making the court weaker. It's the only branch marginally functional right now.

I also don't think those wanting to expand the court want to make it weaker. They just want their voice on the court to be louder and are taking a very short sighted approach. Court packing only works as long as the other side doesn't gain power. If they do then you've just handed them the gun to shoot you with.

Keep it at 9, win elections, and eventually the makeup of the court will change.

 

[Metaphysicist]

I'm not interested in making the court weaker. It's the only branch marginally functional right now.

The court being the only functional branch is a huge problem. The court being overpowered/overvalued is a root cause of the disfunction in Congress.

I also don't think those wanting to expand the court want to make it weaker. They just want their voice on the court to be louder and are taking a very short sighted approach. Court packing only works as long as the other side doesn't gain power. If they do then you've just handed them the gun to shoot you with.

Some people, sure. Plenty of good faith arguments for court reform though. If you choose to belief that all arguments are in bad faith, that is your own partisanship talking.

Keep it at 9, win elections, and eventually the makeup of the court will change.

This is magical thinking and not reflected by the actually "correlation" between elections and appointments. Democrats have had 4 appointments since 1975 despite winning 5 presidential elections. Republicans have won 6 presidential elections but have made 10 appointments. The justices control when they retire.

If you actually wanted what you are describing (tether to the democratic process) then you would be in support of some of the proposed reforms (fixed terms, scheduled appointments).

 

[striker42]

The court being the only functional branch is a huge problem. The court being overpowered/overvalued is a root cause of the disfunction in Congress.



Some people, sure. Plenty of good faith arguments for court reform though. If you choose to belief that all arguments are in bad faith, that is your own partisanship talking.



This is magical thinking and not reflected by the actually "correlation" between elections and appointments. Democrats have had 4 appointments since 1975 despite winning 5 presidential elections. Republicans have won 6 presidential elections but have made 10 appointments. The justices control when they retire.

If you actually wanted what you are describing (tether to the democratic process) then you would be in support of some of the proposed reforms (fixed terms, scheduled appointments).

I don't think I'm reading too much into this attempt. You have the people proposing it literally saying they need to balance out the "court packing" done by Republicans. This attempt is literally partisan motivated.

I also wonder how many who advocate court reform advocated expanding the number of justices during Trump's time in office. I'll admit I tend to take a cynical view of politics though.

It's not as cut and dry as Republican appointees and democrat appointees. Stevens, O'Connor, and Souter were all picked by Republican presidents yet ended up on the left on a lot of major issues. Stevens might be the most liberal justice in the past 50 years. Both Stevens and Souter picked Obama's tenure to retire during.

However, on the whole, win elections and you'll end up with more chances. Had Democrats managed to flip the Senate two years earlier you would have had Biden pick his first justice already.

 

[Jaw]

The court being the only functional branch is a huge problem. The court being overpowered/overvalued is a root cause of the disfunction in Congress.



Some people, sure. Plenty of good faith arguments for court reform though. If you choose to belief that all arguments are in bad faith, that is your own partisanship talking.



This is magical thinking and not reflected by the actually "correlation" between elections and appointments. Democrats have had 4 appointments since 1975 despite winning 5 presidential elections. Republicans have won 6 presidential elections but have made 10 appointments. The justices control when they retire.

If you actually wanted what you are describing (tether to the democratic process) then you would be in support of some of the proposed reforms (fixed terms, scheduled appointments).

The good faith arguments that didn't exist until Dems had control of the House, Senate, and White House? I expect better than Don Lemon level arguments from you.


As for the part about it taking a long time to fill the Court with leftist activists, yes, the whole system is setup to force major change to be a deliberate process. That's a feature, not a bug.

 

[striker42]

Looks like the court packing bill is DOA. Pelosi has said it's not getting to the floor and that she supports Biden's commission.

This makes me speculate what the full plan is for the commission. It could be one of a couple things. First, it could just be an attempt to placate the base while not inciting the right too much. The far left is where you see the most push for court packing. These are also the people most likely to vote in primaries. The commission could give Democrats in congress cover from getting primaried. There are also Democrats in less than safe districts who can't afford to stir up voter turnout against them. The commission is less likely to stir up Republicans than an actual bill being voted on. The commission could just be a way to avoid the question for the moment.

The alternative is that the commission could be a way to try to lure in the moderates that would be necessary to pack the court. Several Democrats are already on the record in opposition of court packing. A commission that concludes there are many non-partisan benefits to packing the court could give those moderates some cover to tow the party line and get a bill through both houses. The filibuster would have to die (or at least be rolled back from judicial bills) but if you have 50 votes then I doubt the filibuster would be the stumbling block.

I'm not sure what the true purpose of this commission is. I highly doubt it's to try to uncover new truths about the SCOTUS. This isn't some new and emerging issue. There's a political reason. Either it's designed to further the idea of court packing or it's designed to suppress it.