Harris , Gillibrand and Warren endorse packing the Supreme Court

[7,052,770]

There's a very easy compromise to avoid this. Gorsuch (or Kavanaugh) steps down and is replaced by Merrick Garland OR a different Democratic appointee if Republicans have a substantive reason to vote him down.

[7,052,770]

There's a very easy compromise to avoid this. Gorsuch (or Kavanaugh) steps down and is replaced by Merrick Garland OR a different Democratic appointee if Republicans have a substantive reason to vote him down.

That would be nice...but is even less likely than passing a constitutional amendment reforming the Supreme Court.

There have been a few rumors that Roberts was so mad at McConnell for destroying the Supreme Court's legitimacy that he's planning to step down once a Democratic president gets in. Personally I'm pretty skeptical, but we'll see. Getting Obama in as Chief Justice would be pretty great.

[7,052,770]

If they become President and they do try to pack the court , I would cheer on the GOP to not only totally obstruct them but do it at unprecedented levels too and. I would even favor if the GOP shut down the government, in that case, to stop it .

So you support what the GOP did to Obama and will certainly do to the next democratic president anyway.

[7,052,770]

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?

[7,052,770]

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?

Republicans already did it in 2016. We can either correct the imbalance they caused (but go no further) and then try for a permanent solution that prevents either party from ever doing it again, or we can just roll over and let them get away with it.

The latter makes it a whole lot more likely that they do it again in the future than the former.