Should a Democratic President add 2 more Justices on the Supreme Court?

[Xeuma]

This proposal, and the fact that it has such substantial support in the poll, shows very clearly which side is truly authoritarian.

I voted and think that its a bad idea, but the Republicans are the one who first started playing this game. Hold your own accountable.

[DataGuy]

This proposal, and the fact that it has such substantial support in the poll, shows very clearly which side is truly authoritarian.

I voted and think that its a bad idea, but the Republicans are the one who first started playing this game. Hold your own accountable.

When exactly were Republicans the first ones to start "playing this game"?

[wxtransit]

This proposal, and the fact that it has such substantial support in the poll, shows very clearly which side is truly authoritarian.

I voted and think that its a bad idea, but the Republicans are the one who first started playing this game. Hold your own accountable.

When exactly were Republicans the first ones to start "playing this game"?

When, as we all remember on January 20, 2017, Trump decreed 10 new seats on the Court.

As for my own opinion, I think this would set horrible precedent and is a terrible idea.

[Xeuma]

This proposal, and the fact that it has such substantial support in the poll, shows very clearly which side is truly authoritarian.

I voted and think that its a bad idea, but the Republicans are the one who first started playing this game. Hold your own accountable.

When exactly were Republicans the first ones to start "playing this game"?

When they refused to consider Obama's judicial appointees, forcing Schumer Reid to use the nuclear option to do regular business.

[Calthrina950]

This proposal, and the fact that it has such substantial support in the poll, shows very clearly which side is truly authoritarian.

I voted and think that its a bad idea, but the Republicans are the one who first started playing this game. Hold your own accountable.

When exactly were Republicans the first ones to start "playing this game"?

When they refused to consider Obama's judicial appointees, forcing Schumer to use the nuclear option to do regular business.

That was Harry Reid.

[TML]

I think the next Democratic president should definitely threaten to add justices to the court. If the end result is the SC staying at 9 justices, but one or more of the "conservative" justices flipping, then I would still consider that outcome a success. Remember that although FDR did not succeed in increasing the number of justices, he only abandoned that effort after one justice flipped from voting against his New Deal legislation to voting for such legislation.

[brucejoel99]

I just don't see it as a good solution to our problem when the Republicans will turn around next time and just appoint 20 conservative justices when they can. Maybe it at least buys us a few years of control that we otherwise wouldn't have, but it just seems like it is going to lead to more chaos.

This. Expanding the Court will just make things worse; b/c of current polarization, the Court will just expand w/ every new administration that takes office.

Plus, the problem w/ a perpetually expanding court is that it'll just be totally & completely partisan rather than a court of law, which leads to a weak court whose rulings (& the institution as a whole) are no longer respected by the people.

[DataGuy]

This proposal, and the fact that it has such substantial support in the poll, shows very clearly which side is truly authoritarian.

I voted and think that its a bad idea, but the Republicans are the one who first started playing this game. Hold your own accountable.

When exactly were Republicans the first ones to start "playing this game"?

When they refused to consider Obama's judicial appointees, forcing Schumer Reid to use the nuclear option to do regular business.

Not exactly. As per The Washington Post:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yes they should. especially after the disgraceful manner in which Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were appointed.
Any political backlash will be limited, IMHO. This isn't the 30's, people only care for policy if it directly affects their pockets. And Republicans will anyway be energized in the midterms of a Democratic president even if he/she was the most bipartisan person alive.

[Slander and/or Libel]

This proposal, and the fact that it has such substantial support in the poll, shows very clearly which side is truly authoritarian.

I voted and think that its a bad idea, but the Republicans are the one who first started playing this game. Hold your own accountable.

When exactly were Republicans the first ones to start "playing this game"?

When they refused to consider Obama's judicial appointees, forcing Schumer Reid to use the nuclear option to do regular business.

Not exactly. As per The Washington Post:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL at “DataGuy” citing an opinion piece from Marc Thiessen as though it’s just a dispassionate recounting of facts.

[DataGuy]

This proposal, and the fact that it has such substantial support in the poll, shows very clearly which side is truly authoritarian.

I voted and think that its a bad idea, but the Republicans are the one who first started playing this game. Hold your own accountable.

When exactly were Republicans the first ones to start "playing this game"?

When they refused to consider Obama's judicial appointees, forcing Schumer Reid to use the nuclear option to do regular business.

Not exactly. As per The Washington Post:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL at “DataGuy” citing an opinion piece from Marc Thiessen as though it’s just a dispassionate recounting of facts.

Instead of fallaciously attacking the source, prove that Democrats didn't filibuster Bush's nominees. Prove that Estrada memo didn't exist.

[SteveRogers]

This proposal, and the fact that it has such substantial support in the poll, shows very clearly which side is truly authoritarian.

I voted and think that its a bad idea, but the Republicans are the one who first started playing this game. Hold your own accountable.

When exactly were Republicans the first ones to start "playing this game"?

When they refused to consider Obama's judicial appointees, forcing Schumer Reid to use the nuclear option to do regular business.

Not exactly. As per The Washington Post:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

SCOTUS nominees used to be held to a different standard of decorum than the petty squabbles over lower court nominees. McConnell escalated those games to the level of the Supreme Court when he invented the Garland “precedent” out of thin air and decreed that it is perfectly fine to leave one branch of our country’s government crippled for over a year for blatantly partisan reasons.

[Calthrina950]

This proposal, and the fact that it has such substantial support in the poll, shows very clearly which side is truly authoritarian.

I voted and think that its a bad idea, but the Republicans are the one who first started playing this game. Hold your own accountable.

When exactly were Republicans the first ones to start "playing this game"?

When they refused to consider Obama's judicial appointees, forcing Schumer Reid to use the nuclear option to do regular business.

Not exactly. As per The Washington Post:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL at “DataGuy” citing an opinion piece from Marc Thiessen as though it’s just a dispassionate recounting of facts.

Instead of fallaciously attacking the source, prove that Democrats didn't filibuster Bush's nominees. Prove that Estrada memo didn't exist.

It's interesting that no one here wants to rebut your points with facts. Instead, they resort to ad hominem attacks and derision.

[Slander and/or Libel]

This proposal, and the fact that it has such substantial support in the poll, shows very clearly which side is truly authoritarian.

I voted and think that its a bad idea, but the Republicans are the one who first started playing this game. Hold your own accountable.

When exactly were Republicans the first ones to start "playing this game"?

When they refused to consider Obama's judicial appointees, forcing Schumer Reid to use the nuclear option to do regular business.

Not exactly. As per The Washington Post:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL at “DataGuy” citing an opinion piece from Marc Thiessen as though it’s just a dispassionate recounting of facts.

Instead of fallaciously attacking the source, prove that Democrats didn't filibuster Bush's nominees. Prove that Estrada memo didn't exist.

Not claiming anything of the sort. It’s not worth arguing with someone who’s going to present an opinion column as a cold, dispassionate statement of all the relevant context and history.

[DataGuy]

SCOTUS nominees used to be held to a different standard of decorum than the petty squabbles over lower court nominees. McConnell escalated those games to the level of the Supreme Court when he invented the Garland “precedent” out of thin air and decreed that it is perfectly fine to leave one branch of our country’s government crippled for over a year for blatantly partisan reasons.

Joe Biden in 1992:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As noted by The New York Times: "Mr. Biden’s words ... are a direct contradiction to President Obama’s position in the battle over naming a successor to Justice Antonin Scalia."

Instead of fallaciously attacking the source, prove that Democrats didn't filibuster Bush's nominees. Prove that Estrada memo didn't exist.

Not claiming anything of the sort. It’s not worth arguing with someone who’s going to present an opinion column as a cold, dispassionate statement of all the relevant context and history.

You're bailing out. You still haven't proven me wrong. The fact is that Democrats filibustered ten Bush nominees, and the first filibuster was against a Honduran immigrant (and the first Hispanic that could have sat on D.C. Circuit) for racist and partisan reasons.

In 2007, Chuck Schumer said that Democrats should "reverse the presumption of confirmation" and also stated, "We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances."

[Slander and/or Libel]

SCOTUS nominees used to be held to a different standard of decorum than the petty squabbles over lower court nominees. McConnell escalated those games to the level of the Supreme Court when he invented the Garland “precedent” out of thin air and decreed that it is perfectly fine to leave one branch of our country’s government crippled for over a year for blatantly partisan reasons.

Joe Biden in 1992:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As noted by The New York Times: "Mr. Biden’s words ... are a direct contradiction to President Obama’s position in the battle over naming a successor to Justice Antonin Scalia."

Instead of fallaciously attacking the source, prove that Democrats didn't filibuster Bush's nominees. Prove that Estrada memo didn't exist.

Not claiming anything of the sort. It’s not worth arguing with someone who’s going to present an opinion column as a cold, dispassionate statement of all the relevant context and history.

You're bailing out. You still haven't proven me wrong. The fact is that Democrats filibustered ten Bush nominees, and the first filibuster was against a Honduran immigrant (and the first Hispanic that could have sat on D.C. Circuit) for racist and partisan reasons.

In 2007, Chuck Schumer said that Democrats should "reverse the presumption of confirmation" and also stated, "We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances."

Was filibustering a Court appointee something that was not allowed? Since when is the Republican Party against using the available rules maximally?

[SteveRogers]

SCOTUS nominees used to be held to a different standard of decorum than the petty squabbles over lower court nominees. McConnell escalated those games to the level of the Supreme Court when he invented the Garland “precedent” out of thin air and decreed that it is perfectly fine to leave one branch of our country’s government crippled for over a year for blatantly partisan reasons.

Joe Biden in 1992:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As noted by The New York Times: "Mr. Biden’s words ... are a direct contradiction to President Obama’s position in the battle over naming a successor to Justice Antonin Scalia."

Instead of fallaciously attacking the source, prove that Democrats didn't filibuster Bush's nominees. Prove that Estrada memo didn't exist.

Not claiming anything of the sort. It’s not worth arguing with someone who’s going to present an opinion column as a cold, dispassionate statement of all the relevant context and history.

You're bailing out. You still haven't proven me wrong. The fact is that Democrats filibustered ten Bush nominees, and the first filibuster was against a Honduran immigrant (and the first Hispanic that could have sat on D.C. Circuit) for racist and partisan reasons.

In 2007, Chuck Schumer said that Democrats should "reverse the presumption of confirmation" and also stated, "We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances."

Please stop using that Biden quote to try to rationalize what Republicans did to Merrick Garland. If you actually read the quote, Biden wasn’t saying Bush should be barred from making any further SCOTUS appointments. Rather, he was specifically proposing that any such confirmation hearing for a hypothetical vacancy should be tabled until the lame duck session after the election. That’s not comparable to what happened to Garland. The GOP didn’t table hearings on Obama’s nominee until after the election. They didnt fillibuster Obama’s nominee. They couldn’t even be bothered to make up a reason to vote against Obama’s nominee on the floor of the Senate. Instead, the GOP took the unprecedented step of announcing that they would simply refuse to fulfill their constitutional duty to weigh in on the sitting President’s nominee for the Supreme Court. Anyone who tries to spin that move as par for the course in American politics is simply a liar.

[136or142]

The Republicans started the whole thing by blocking all sorts of Clinton court nominees.  The idea that this started under W Bush is more dishonest Republican revisionist history.

[DataGuy]

Was filibustering a Court appointee something that was not allowed? Since when is the Republican Party against using the available rules maximally?

Filibustering was allowed, obviously. But the point is that Democrats blocked and filibustered Bush's judicial nominees before the Republicans did the same to Obama's. It's a lie that Republicans "started it" during Obama's presidency. Democrats had no standing to criticize the Republicans for building on the methods they pioneered.

Please stop using that Biden quote to try to rationalize what Republicans did to Merrick Garland. If you actually read the quote, Biden wasn’t saying Bush should be barred from making any further SCOTUS appointments. Rather, he was specifically proposing that any such confirmation hearing for a hypothetical vacancy should be tabled until the lame duck session after the election. That’s not comparable to what happened to Garland. The GOP didn’t table hearings on Obama’s nominee until after the election. They didnt fillibuster Obama’s nominee. They couldn’t even be bothered to make up a reason to vote against Obama’s nominee on the floor of the Senate. Instead, the GOP took the unprecedented step of announcing that they would simply refuse to fulfill their constitutional duty to weigh in on the sitting President’s nominee for the Supreme Court. Anyone who tries to spin that move as par for the course in American politics is simply a liar.

I will not stop using it. Anyone who tries to spin Biden's quote as consistent with Obama's nomination is also a liar.

Again, The New York Times was intellectually honest enough to note that "Mr. Biden’s words ... are a direct contradiction to President Obama’s position in the battle over naming a successor to Justice Antonin Scalia."

The most significant judicial nomination in 1992 was George H. W. Bush's nomination of John Roberts to the D.C. Circuit (the second-most powerful court in the nation). Biden was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and he killed it using the strong-arm tactics that Democrats decried when applied by Republicans. Biden would not give him a Senate vote, a committee vote or even a hearing at all. He absolutely refused to consider it.

Basically, it was precisely what Democrats accused Republicans of doing to Merrick Garland. It also predated Clinton's presidency and the Republican Congress, so once again Republicans did not "start it."

[SteveRogers]

Was filibustering a Court appointee something that was not allowed? Since when is the Republican Party against using the available rules maximally?

Filibustering was allowed, obviously. But the point is that Democrats blocked and filibustered Bush's judicial nominees before the Republicans did the same to Obama's. It's a lie that Republicans "started it" during Obama's presidency. Democrats had no standing to criticize the Republicans for building on the methods they pioneered.

Please stop using that Biden quote to try to rationalize what Republicans did to Merrick Garland. If you actually read the quote, Biden wasn’t saying Bush should be barred from making any further SCOTUS appointments. Rather, he was specifically proposing that any such confirmation hearing for a hypothetical vacancy should be tabled until the lame duck session after the election. That’s not comparable to what happened to Garland. The GOP didn’t table hearings on Obama’s nominee until after the election. They didnt fillibuster Obama’s nominee. They couldn’t even be bothered to make up a reason to vote against Obama’s nominee on the floor of the Senate. Instead, the GOP took the unprecedented step of announcing that they would simply refuse to fulfill their constitutional duty to weigh in on the sitting President’s nominee for the Supreme Court. Anyone who tries to spin that move as par for the course in American politics is simply a liar.

I will not stop using it. Anyone who tries to spin Biden's quote as consistent with Obama's nomination is also a liar.

Again, The New York Times was intellectually honest enough to note that "Mr. Biden’s words ... are a direct contradiction to President Obama’s position in the battle over naming a successor to Justice Antonin Scalia."

The most significant judicial nomination in 1992 was George H. W. Bush's nomination of John Roberts to the D.C. Circuit (the second-most powerful court in the nation). Biden was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and he killed it using the strong-arm tactics that Democrats decried when applied by Republicans. Biden would not give him a Senate vote, a committee vote or even a hearing at all. He absolutely refused to consider it.

Basically, it was precisely what Democrats accused Republicans of doing to Merrick Garland. It also predated Clinton's presidency and the Republican Congress, so once again Republicans did not "start it."

Read the Biden quote again. He said Bush could still make a nomination if a Supreme Court vacancy occurred, but that the Senate should condider tabling the confirmation hearings until after the election.

Again, both parties are certainly guilty of engaging in those games over the years when it comes to the lower courts. But McConnell escalated that fight to the realm of SCOTUS nominations.

[MarkD]

That depends. If the goal is to get two more liberals on the Court and make a liberal majority, then no. If the goal is to get two of the most objective interpreters of law in the country -- people like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Benjamin Cardozo, and Hugo Black -- then absolutely yes, you should appoint as many people as possible like that: two, four, or even six more Justices, so long as they're all objective.

[Mister Mets]

This is a stupid thing for Democrats to suggest while Republicans have the Presidency and the Senate. It also hurts their moral standing on other questions to do with electoral abuses, giving Republicans cover to use shady tactics.

[Beet]

This is a stupid thing for Democrats to suggest while Republicans have the Presidency and the Senate. It also hurts their moral standing on other questions to do with electoral abuses, giving Republicans cover to use shady tactics.

If the Republicans want to stack the courts while they have the Presidency and Senate, go ahead. It'll only further push us along a needed process of admitting the current system is broken.

It has nothing to do with electoral abuses, since those abuses attack the idea of democracy, the peaceful transition of power, and one man one vote, which have been sacred values of the United States for years.

On the other hand, a Court system where justices are just stand-ins for political ideology not only is not a sacred value, but goes against the sacred value that judges tasked with interpreting the Constitution are supposed to be, is not impartial, at least not foot soldiers in partisan fights. Attacking that system is actually a good thing.

[Virginiá]

This entire argument over Garland seems to revolve around bringing up old examples of Democrats saying things or occasionally blocking lower court nominees. The fact is, we never told a Republican president that they are not getting a supreme court seat and then actually did that. If Democrats wanted to, they could have stolen a ton of supreme court seats from Republicans from Eisenhower through GHWB. They controlled the Senate for the vast majority of that time, including for Kennedy and Thomas. But they did not do that. I think we should all be able to agree that Republicans would not even consider doing the same for Democrats, nor would they confirm the leftist version of Thomas either. No, they would close ranks and either vote against them or simply refuse to hold a hearing at all, for anyone. That is the best theory until proven otherwise.

Who cares if one party blocks a particular nominee. I could care less really if Republicans said no to an Obama pick but then allowed a confirmation on someone else. The Senate is allowed to do that and it still accepts the established order that presidents get to pick judges, within reason. Obviously they shouldn't be trying to force an older and/or conservative nominee, but to turn down a person isn't wrong - it's saying no to everyone that is.

-

This really boils down to a larger problem with conservatives in that they can't seem to accept that Democrats have a legitimate right to govern if they win elections. The story of lame duck power grabs, stealing judicial/supreme court picks like crazy and rampant obstruction shows a party that feels their concerns are the only ones that matter and that they are so important that they justify any and all tactics to achieve, which is an absolutely terrible way to try to run a country. At some point they are going to have to address this because the Democratic Party's base is getting increasingly more aggressive in its desire to shut out the GOP by whatever means necessary, because they feel they are constantly getting bamboozled by an ethically bankrupt opposition party, occupying countless Congressional/legislative districts rigged in their favor.

I don't know about everyone else, but I don't want a political system where two parties are absolutely ruthless in their political maneuvering and doing the things the GOP has been doing. It is sick, and the manifestation of a deeply unhealthy system.

[DataGuy]

Read the Biden quote again. He said Bush could still make a nomination if a Supreme Court vacancy occurred, but that the Senate should condider tabling the confirmation hearings until after the election.

Again, both parties are certainly guilty of engaging in those games over the years when it comes to the lower courts. But McConnell escalated that fight to the realm of SCOTUS nominations.

Biden emphatically said that Bush should "not -- and not -- name a nominee" and that "action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off." He was very definitive.

Also, it is false that "McConnell escalated that fight to the realm of SCOTUS nominations." To the contrary, it is a fact that Democrats started the SCOTUS confirmation wars (and arguably the broader conflict over all judicial nominations) with their savaging of Reagan's highly qualified SCOTUS nominee Robert Bork in 1987. From Roll Call:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This entire argument over Garland seems to revolve around bringing up old examples of Democrats saying things or occasionally blocking lower court nominees. The fact is, we never told a Republican president that they are not getting a supreme court seat and then actually did that. If Democrats wanted to, they could have stolen a ton of supreme court seats from Republicans from Eisenhower through GHWB. They controlled the Senate for the vast majority of that time, including for Kennedy and Thomas. But they did not do that. I think we should all be able to agree that Republicans would not even consider doing the same for Democrats, nor would they confirm the leftist version of Thomas either. No, they would close ranks and either vote against them or simply refuse to hold a hearing at all, for anyone. That is the best theory until proven otherwise.

Who cares if one party blocks a particular nominee. I could care less really if Republicans said no to an Obama pick but then allowed a confirmation on someone else. The Senate is allowed to do that and it still accepts the established order that presidents get to pick judges, within reason. Obviously they shouldn't be trying to force an older and/or conservative nominee, but to turn down a person isn't wrong - it's saying no to everyone that is.

-

This really boils down to a larger problem with conservatives in that they can't seem to accept that Democrats have a legitimate right to govern if they win elections. The story of lame duck power grabs, stealing judicial/supreme court picks like crazy and rampant obstruction shows a party that feels their concerns are the only ones that matter and that they are so important that they justify any and all tactics to achieve, which is an absolutely terrible way to try to run a country. At some point they are going to have to address this because the Democratic Party's base is getting increasingly more aggressive in its desire to shut out the GOP by whatever means necessary, because they feel they are constantly getting bamboozled by an ethically bankrupt opposition party, occupying countless Congressional/legislative districts rigged in their favor.

I don't know about everyone else, but I don't want a political system where two parties are absolutely ruthless in their political maneuvering and doing the things the GOP has been doing. It is sick, and the manifestation of a deeply unhealthy system.

Republicans also have a right to govern when they win elections, and liberals apparently can't accept that either. Democrats started the modern trend of attacking judicial nominees with their unprecedented assault on Robert Bork. So Democrats have, in fact, denied a duly-elected Republican president his preferred SCOTUS nominee.

Not to mention their ten filibusters of Bush judicial nominees, their attempted filibuster of Alito, and their opposition to Trump's judicial nominees.

As for Republicans confirming "the leftist version of Thomas," they did in fact allow hard-core liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg to sail through with virtually no opposition. She was supported by 93% of Republicans and was confirmed 96-3. That was after 81% of Democrats opposed Clarence Thomas.