Federalist Society proposes court-packing scheme to Congress

[Virginiá]

https://thinkprogress.org/federalist-society-chairman-court-packing-454b5047bea1/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I mean obviously without gutting the filibuster, this proposal will go nowhere, but it is kind of interesting to see what some conservatives are thinking about right now. It's a bit alarming how greedy for power people can be, and I think it goes to show that Congress might not act that much different than North Carolina's legislature if Republicans just held enough power to enable such behavior.

Given that a wave seems to be forming against Republicans, I do find it odd that they'd suggest this. This is what you would expect to happen if Republicans were in, say, the position of Democrats post-Watergate, where they had carte blanche more or less. Instead, they do it knowing all Republicans have is a slim Senate majority, a House majority that may fall, and a deeply unpopular president who probably won't even get reelected absent a drastic boost in popularity by 2020.

[Orser67]

There's a precedent for this, too, with the Midnight Judges Act. Good thing there's a filibuster.

[KingSweden]

They couldn’t even get Flake’s proposal to create a new circuit out of the oversized 9th off the runway. This is DOA

[Virginiá]

bumping this just for spite

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Comes to show that the left doesn't monopolize indulging in the stupidity of considering court-packing.

[Torrain]

There's a precedent for this, too, with the Midnight Judges Act. Good thing there's a filibuster.

And this right here is why I’m worried about killing the filibuster next year.

Sooner or later a GOP trifecta is going to use a small majority in both houses to do some heinous crap. I suppose they’d just do it themselves though.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The D's have to win and get a 55 seat majority, we will see if that happens

[Hindsight was 2020]

Hmm I wonder why OSR didn’t blow up in this thread back in the day 🤔

[Fuzzy Bear]

Comes to show that the left doesn't monopolize indulging in the stupidity of considering court-packing.

There is a difference in expanding the Federal District Courts, and even the Appellate Courts, from expanding the number of Justices on the SCOTUS.

Expanding the number of Judges in the District and Appellate Courts is a step taken to account for increases in population and larger caseloads in District and Appellate Courts.  I would certainly think that if the caseloads in those divisions were resulting in significant backlogs of cases, it would be an argument for expanding the number of individual courts.  Is it true that Justice Delayed is Justice Denied?  If so, expanding the number of Federal Courts and Federal Judges at the Circuit Court and Appellate Court levels makes a degree of sense.  Such a move (at least in theory) reduces the size of Court Dockets and increase the speed at which verdicts can be rendered.  These Lower Courts would not have the power to overrule SCOTUS precedent (although the lens through which interpretation of precedent would occur would be ideologically tinted to a degree). 

That's a different act from expanding the number of Justices of the ONE Highest Court with very different ramifications.  The two (2) acts aren't comparable.  "Packing the SCOTUS" isn't expanding the number of Court's; it's altering the makeup for purely partisan reasons, and altering what precedents Lower Courts will have to follow in the future.  It's also an act that, unlike expansion of the number of lower Court judges, has an effect on the legitimacy of the entire Federal Court System.  We are fortunate that states, institutions, and individuals choose to obey Federal Court decisions, however wise or foolish they may be.  This has always been a concern of the SCOTUS, given the finality of IT'S decisions.  The key Civil Rights decisions, US v. Nixon, and others of overwhelming National significance were decided UNANIMOUSLY when it seemed that people were ready to defy them.  Compromise was made for the sake of Unity, and for the preservation of the Authority of the Court.  The current "packing" scheme is being made with the assumption that people will simply grant such a Court the legitimacy the SCOTUS has received all along.  Perhaps we'll see.  I'm certainly not looking forward to that, and I'm certainly not looking forward to a society where Courts cannot enforce their own orders.     

[brucejoel99]

There's a precedent for this, too, with the Midnight Judges Act. Good thing there's a filibuster.

And this right here is why I’m worried about killing the filibuster next year.

Sooner or later a GOP trifecta is going to use a small majority in both houses to do some heinous crap. I suppose they’d just do it themselves though.

Eh, if McConnell actually believed that abolishing the legislative filibuster was in the best interests of the GOP over the long-term, then he would've already done so. The fact that he hasn't - even though the incumbent Republican President has called on him to do so - reflects the fact that the GOP knows fully well that the only thing which helps them is the continued existence of the filibuster. For example, undoing the enactment of social-welfare benefits (e.g., Medicare for All, free college tuition, etc.) after they've already been implemented would be exceptionally difficult - with or without a filibuster (e.g., Trump & repealing Obamacare, W. & Social Security privatization, Reagan's initial stances on Social Security & Medicare) - because public opposition would just be so overwhelming. By contrast, a wide array of progressive proposals for expanding social benefits carry the support of a majority of Americans, yet are currently impossible to implement thanks to the combination of the Senate GOP & its ability to filibuster when in the minority. All of this is to say that the filibuster merely does more to preserve America's regressive political/economic status quo rather than frustrate GOP efforts to actively render our political/economic realities even more regressive.

[lfromnj]

Comes to show that the left doesn't monopolize indulging in the stupidity of considering court-packing.

There is a difference in expanding the Federal District Courts, and even the Appellate Courts, from expanding the number of Justices on the SCOTUS.

Expanding the number of Judges in the District and Appellate Courts is a step taken to account for increases in population and larger caseloads in District and Appellate Courts.  I would certainly think that if the caseloads in those divisions were resulting in significant backlogs of cases, it would be an argument for expanding the number of individual courts.  Is it true that Justice Delayed is Justice Denied?  If so, expanding the number of Federal Courts and Federal Judges at the Circuit Court and Appellate Court levels makes a degree of sense.  Such a move (at least in theory) reduces the size of Court Dockets and increase the speed at which verdicts can be rendered.  These Lower Courts would not have the power to overrule SCOTUS precedent (although the lens through which interpretation of precedent would occur would be ideologically tinted to a degree). 

That's a different act from expanding the number of Justices of the ONE Highest Court with very different ramifications.  The two (2) acts aren't comparable.  "Packing the SCOTUS" isn't expanding the number of Court's; it's altering the makeup for purely partisan reasons, and altering what precedents Lower Courts will have to follow in the future.  It's also an act that, unlike expansion of the number of lower Court judges, has an effect on the legitimacy of the entire Federal Court System.  We are fortunate that states, institutions, and individuals choose to obey Federal Court decisions, however wise or foolish they may be.  This has always been a concern of the SCOTUS, given the finality of IT'S decisions.  The key Civil Rights decisions, US v. Nixon, and others of overwhelming National significance were decided UNANIMOUSLY when it seemed that people were ready to defy them.  Compromise was made for the sake of Unity, and for the preservation of the Authority of the Court.  The current "packing" scheme is being made with the assumption that people will simply grant such a Court the legitimacy the SCOTUS has received all along.  Perhaps we'll see.  I'm certainly not looking forward to that, and I'm certainly not looking forward to a society where Courts cannot enforce their own orders.     

Will you be fine with Democrats proposing to do the same?
I expect them to,

Overall I oppose both measures of expanding lower courts in such an immediate way. I would prefer an expansion to be done over a few years as I do think it is a problem.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Comes to show that the left doesn't monopolize indulging in the stupidity of considering court-packing.

There is a difference in expanding the Federal District Courts, and even the Appellate Courts, from expanding the number of Justices on the SCOTUS.

Expanding the number of Judges in the District and Appellate Courts is a step taken to account for increases in population and larger caseloads in District and Appellate Courts.  I would certainly think that if the caseloads in those divisions were resulting in significant backlogs of cases, it would be an argument for expanding the number of individual courts.  Is it true that Justice Delayed is Justice Denied?  If so, expanding the number of Federal Courts and Federal Judges at the Circuit Court and Appellate Court levels makes a degree of sense.  Such a move (at least in theory) reduces the size of Court Dockets and increase the speed at which verdicts can be rendered.  These Lower Courts would not have the power to overrule SCOTUS precedent (although the lens through which interpretation of precedent would occur would be ideologically tinted to a degree). 

That's a different act from expanding the number of Justices of the ONE Highest Court with very different ramifications.  The two (2) acts aren't comparable.  "Packing the SCOTUS" isn't expanding the number of Court's; it's altering the makeup for purely partisan reasons, and altering what precedents Lower Courts will have to follow in the future.  It's also an act that, unlike expansion of the number of lower Court judges, has an effect on the legitimacy of the entire Federal Court System.  We are fortunate that states, institutions, and individuals choose to obey Federal Court decisions, however wise or foolish they may be.  This has always been a concern of the SCOTUS, given the finality of IT'S decisions.  The key Civil Rights decisions, US v. Nixon, and others of overwhelming National significance were decided UNANIMOUSLY when it seemed that people were ready to defy them.  Compromise was made for the sake of Unity, and for the preservation of the Authority of the Court.  The current "packing" scheme is being made with the assumption that people will simply grant such a Court the legitimacy the SCOTUS has received all along.  Perhaps we'll see.  I'm certainly not looking forward to that, and I'm certainly not looking forward to a society where Courts cannot enforce their own orders.     

Will you be fine with Democrats proposing to do the same?
I expect them to,

Overall I oppose both measures of expanding lower courts in such an immediate way. I would prefer an expansion to be done over a few years as I do think it is a problem.

I'm certainly opposed to SCOTUS packing, as it would undermine the Court's ability to enforce it's decisions.  To what degree that would be would depend on the degree of the "packing".

I'm not in favor of an expansion of the lower Courts at this time due to the political climate of the Nation.  I do think that issue should be considered to the degree that Court workloads, backlogs, and the amount of time it takes for Courts to render needed decisions on pressing matters is relevant.  The overwhelming work of the Federal Court systems occur at the level of the Lower Courts.  No matter how many Justices you have on the SCOTUS, it's still just one Court with all Justices participating in all of its workings.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The Federalist Society did not propose this.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Hmm I wonder why OSR didn’t blow up in this thread back in the day 🤔

It wasnt proposed by any Senate Republican so there is a difference, while Democrats during the primaries were proposing it left and right

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

There's a precedent for this, too, with the Midnight Judges Act. Good thing there's a filibuster.

And this right here is why I’m worried about killing the filibuster next year.

Sooner or later a GOP trifecta is going to use a small majority in both houses to do some heinous crap. I suppose they’d just do it themselves though. 😙😙😙

Eh, if McConnell actually believed that abolishing the legislative filibuster was in the best interests of the GOP over the long-term, then he would've already done so. The fact that he hasn't - even though the incumbent Republican President has called on him to do so - reflects the fact that the GOP knows fully well that the only thing which helps them is the continued existence of the filibuster. For example, undoing the enactment of social-welfare benefits (e.g., Medicare for All, free college tuition, etc.) after they've already been implemented would be exceptionally difficult - with or without a filibuster (e.g., Trump & repealing Obamacare, W. & Social Security privatization, Reagan's initial stances on Social Security & Medicare) - because public opposition would just be so overwhelming. By contrast, a wide array of progressive proposals for expanding social benefits carry the support of a majority of Americans, yet are currently impossible to implement thanks to the combination of the Senate GOP & its ability to filibuster when in the minority. All of this is to say that the filibuster merely does more to preserve America's regressive political/economic status quo rather than frustrate GOP efforts to actively render our political/economic realities even more regressive.

McConnell can't abplish the legislative filibuster he doesn't have the House, if Speaker Mccarthy and Leader McConnell were in charge and Trump, then he would have abolished the legislative filibuster, it doesn't make sense to abplish it and you don't have the House

Any way, there is reconciliation if both Houses agree to a budget, it doesn't have to go through a filibuster, it goes thru 51 votes. The Rs would have done this with the stimulus and the Appropriations Bills😙😙😙😙

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

It is actually true that the lower courts are overworked, and I would support their expansion on that principle by either party.

Slightly off-topic but this is actually why some progressive groups have been lobbying for limitations on how many cases public defenders take each year, because they are overworked and understaffed and as a result defendants who request public defenders are less likely receive a quality defense.

New York City experimented with this about eleven years ago and it's been very successful.

From my understanding, all the work done in the lower levels of the court system is hell for both the judges and the prosecutors/defense team. SCOTUS judges get a light work load in addition to the fancy title.

[Senator Incitatus]

It is actually true that the lower courts are overworked, and I would support their expansion on that principle by either party.

Slightly off-topic but this is actually why some progressive groups have been lobbying for limitations on how many cases public defenders take each year, because they are overworked and understaffed and as a result defendants who request public defenders are less likely receive a quality defense.

New York City experimented with this about eleven years ago and it's been very successful.

From my understanding, all the work done in the lower levels of the court system is hell for both the judges and the prosecutors/defense team. SCOTUS judges get a light work load in addition to the fancy title.

Serious court reform is needed at the lower levels. At the same time as progressives are pushing for lightened loads for public defenders, they're pushing for a massive reduction in "forced" arbitration. They might be right on moral grounds (I haven't made my mind up; I think it's a case-by-case or issue-by-issue thing), but arbitration clauses are one of the few things keeping public courts above water.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The Federalist Society did not propose this.

Who cares?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The Federalist Society did not propose this.

Who cares?

I don't know, why don't we just claim that this was proposed by the American Bar Association then if it doesn't matter.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The Federalist Society did not propose this.

Who cares?

I don't know, why don't we just claim that this was proposed by the American Bar Association then if it doesn't matter.

OK, I'll be serious and non-cynical: Two members of the Federalist Society, including a founding member of one of the earliest campus chapters, proposed this.

I agree that it's very sloppy and misleading writing at best to say the "the Federalist Society" proposed this rather than a very early member and co-founder of the organization. Distinctions are constantly collapsed in headlines and even article bodies, and perhaps this distinction is important.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

D's probably aren't gonna win 60 seats more like 53 we won't know if they are gonna have enough votes to pass a Crt packing plan

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

If Joe Manchin is even open to unpacking the soon-to-be Republican-supermajority Court, I don't see how the plan fails if the Democrats are brave enough to go for it