Harris , Gillibrand and Warren endorse packing the Supreme Court

[GoTfan]

A Democrat with a hundred times the mandate that could be won today already tried.

Spoiler alert: it failed.

[GoTfan]

A Democrat with a hundred times the mandate that could be won today already tried.

Spoiler alert: it failed.

This is a faulty comparison.  FDR was in his second term by the time he started arguing for judicial reform, and at that point practically no big initiatives were getting through Congress--the country was on the mend and there was a general disinterest in further societal/political change (aside from arming our ally Great Britain).  Furthermore, Congressional Democrats torpedoes FDR's Court proposal because they feared a more liberal Court might interfere in the Jim Crow system in the South.  So, once again, systemic racism kept the country from progress.  The important point is that future Democratic presidents won't have these handicaps.

It also gives precedence for the Republicans to do the same, which is extremely dangerous.

[GoTfan]

A Democrat with a hundred times the mandate that could be won today already tried.

Spoiler alert: it failed.

This is a faulty comparison.  FDR was in his second term by the time he started arguing for judicial reform, and at that point practically no big initiatives were getting through Congress--the country was on the mend and there was a general disinterest in further societal/political change (aside from arming our ally Great Britain).  Furthermore, Congressional Democrats torpedoes FDR's Court proposal because they feared a more liberal Court might interfere in the Jim Crow system in the South.  So, once again, systemic racism kept the country from progress.  The important point is that future Democratic presidents won't have these handicaps.

It also gives precedence for the Republicans to do the same, which is extremely dangerous.

Are you being serious?  "Oh no!  Republicans might steal a Supreme Court majority!  We can't ever can't let that happen!"  I hate to be the one to tell you this, but that ship has already sailed.  If Democrats don't take back the majority when they have the chance (which, let's be honest, they probably won't even though they should), they are essentially endorsing what Republicans have done.

And in any case, it would be an improvement on our current system to normalize more frequent changes in the Court's ideological balance.  Let's just accept that every time a party has control of both the presidency and the Senate it can reapportion the Court.  That happens about once a decade, so the Court would still be significantly more stable than the presidency or the Senate, and it would add some democratic accountability to the Court's actions.  Adding more democracy to our political system would be a good thing!

[GoTfan]

A Democrat with a hundred times the mandate that could be won today already tried.

Spoiler alert: it failed.

"FDR did it and it didn't work, so let's not try at all." I find it interesting that the maroon avatars seem to be against this idea on the basis that "it won't work".

Okay, so let me use the other argument: What will prevent Republicans from doing the same and then embarking on a 19th century social agenda overturning Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges?

[GoTfan]

A Democrat with a hundred times the mandate that could be won today already tried.

Spoiler alert: it failed.

"FDR did it and it didn't work, so let's not try at all." I find it interesting that the maroon avatars seem to be against this idea on the basis that "it won't work".

Okay, so let me use the other argument: What will prevent Republicans from doing the same and then embarking on a 19th century social agenda overturning Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges?

There's nothing to stop them from doing that if they gain control the Presidency and both houses of Congress again. Fear of what could happen in a hypothetical scenario is not a good enough reason to not at least attempt to expand the court.

You mean what they had from early 2017- early 2019?

[GoTfan]

Are any Democrats aware of the precedent this would actually set? Pack the court, and when Republicans hold the trifecta, they'll increase the seats to suit their own agenda. Only that time, they'll use it to enforce discrimination agains the LGBT community, strip women of their right to choose, and roll back renvironmental regulations.

But it's okay, because we got to one-up them once.

[GoTfan]

Are any Democrats aware of the precedent this would actually set? Pack the court, and when Republicans hold the trifecta, they'll increase the seats to suit their own agenda. Only that time, they'll use it to enforce discrimination agains the LGBT community, strip women of their right to choose, and roll back renvironmental regulations.

But it's okay, because we got to one-up them once.

And we're supposed to believe if we just completely fold to them on the Garland issue and let it go, that they'll never do this again? We're supposed to just let them have their one cheat and not fight back?

Ideally, we can come up with a grand compromise with Republicans where we get something that makes up for the Garland Debacle and then there is some kind of new understanding that prevents this from ever happening again. If Republicans won't agree to that, we're getting the D+1 balance on the Supreme Court back however we can (the D+1 balance assumes no other seats become vacant during Trump's presidency), and Republicans only have themselves to blame if they don't like the method?

Congratulations on not reading my post at all.

[GoTfan]

Too much democracy is a bad thing.

Jesus.  Do you really think our problem is that we have too much democracy?  I'd say we're pretty far from that being an issue of concern.  It seems to me that adding more accountability and democracy to our government, by normalizing court packing or whatever other means, would only make our politics more functional.

And I'll just repeat a point I made earlier but that no one has responded to:  most other developed countries lack anything close to our over-powered, accountability-free judicial system, and they're all doing just fine.  Let's learn from the rest of the developed world and curtail judicial overreach and institute some accountability.

The reason why you should avoid packing the courts is that Republicans will do the exact same thing and use it to enforce an archaic social agenda, and no one will be able to stop them.

How are you incapable of seeing that?

[GoTfan]

Too much democracy is a bad thing.

Jesus.  Do you really think our problem is that we have too much democracy?  I'd say we're pretty far from that being an issue of concern.  It seems to me that adding more accountability and democracy to our government, by normalizing court packing or whatever other means, would only make our politics more functional.

And I'll just repeat a point I made earlier but that no one has responded to:  most other developed countries lack anything close to our over-powered, accountability-free judicial system, and they're all doing just fine.  Let's learn from the rest of the developed world and curtail judicial overreach and institute some accountability.

The reason why you should avoid packing the courts is that Republicans will do the exact same thing and use it to enforce an archaic social agenda, and no one will be able to stop them.

How are you incapable of seeing that?

Voters will be able to stop them. The fear of electoral loss is the check on power that makes democracy work. How are you incapable of seeing that?

Because that worked fantastically 2014-2016

[GoTfan]

Too much democracy is a bad thing.

Jesus.  Do you really think our problem is that we have too much democracy?  I'd say we're pretty far from that being an issue of concern.  It seems to me that adding more accountability and democracy to our government, by normalizing court packing or whatever other means, would only make our politics more functional.

And I'll just repeat a point I made earlier but that no one has responded to:  most other developed countries lack anything close to our over-powered, accountability-free judicial system, and they're all doing just fine.  Let's learn from the rest of the developed world and curtail judicial overreach and institute some accountability.

The reason why you should avoid packing the courts is that Republicans will do the exact same thing and use it to enforce an archaic social agenda, and no one will be able to stop them.

How are you incapable of seeing that?

Voters will be able to stop them. The fear of electoral loss is the check on power that makes democracy work. How are you incapable of seeing that?

Because that worked fantastically 2014-2016

2014-2016 proves my point!  Senate Republicans were willing to break the rules because they recognized they were about to be relegated to a minority on the Court for a generation or more and they'd have no recourse. Unlike Democrats, Republicans haven't spent the last thirty years lying to themselves and pretending like SCOTUS is some kind of nonpartisan, objective body. SCOTUS appointments are incredibly high stakes because its ideological tilt can persist for decades. If a party could reshape the partisan balance through electoral wins, it would drastically improve incentives and ratchet down the stakes significantly.

Say you add two extra seats . . . okay, next time the Republicans hold the trifecta, they'll add three or four.

It's a dangerously arbitrary thing you're pushing for, and if Democrats care about getting elected at all, they won't pursue it.