Harris , Gillibrand and Warren endorse packing the Supreme Court

[Galeel]

I don't think Democrats realize that Republicans will take back the presidency at some point and pack the courts.

[emailking]

Yeah, that's a nice story, but it's not what we have in practice.  In the real world, the Court arbitrarily decided that the incentives the ACA created to expand Medicaid were excessively powerful and states should be allowed to opt out of expansion without losing access to existing federal funding streams. There is absolutely no basis for this idea anywhere in the text of the Constitution — and millions of Americans have been deprived of their health insurance as a result.   In the real world, we have the case of Bush v. Gore, a refusal to look at the problem of partisan gerrymandering,  a series of judicial decisions striking down efforts to regulate the campaign finance system, the Shelby County v. Holder decision in which five conservative justices arbitrarily decided that racially motivated voter suppression was no longer a problem, etc. etc.  In what world are rulings like these not prescriptive?

I don't see how any of that contradicts what I said. I'm not saying any of those rulings were arrived at correctly. Rather they were cases between parties in which the Supreme Court gave opinions, and the "striking down" aspect is yours, and the political world's, interpretation of the practical effect of those rulings.

Like how would things be different if there was no judicial review. Take the medicaid expansion. Lower courts should not follow the precedent? Each state that doesn't want the medicaid expansion has to get their exemption individually from the SCOTUS? What's the point? It's going to be the same result each time, only with a lot of time and money wasted getting there.

[Heebie Jeebie]

These were FDR's majorities in both houses when he tried


House:

Democrats: 334
Republicans: 88

Senate:

Democrats: 74
Republicans 17

Again, this is misrepresents the actual circumstances.  A large block of those Congressional Democrats were pro-segregationists conservatives from the South (and Congressional leadership in particular was overwhelmingly from the South) who were opposed to expanding judicial authority lest it threaten Jim Crow.  A modern Democratic president wouldn't have the numbers you cite, but the Congress he or she would be working with would be infinitely more unified ideologically.

Even then , Liberals still had a clear majority in both houses of Congress. It wasnt until after the 1938 midterms that the Conservative Coalition was able to take control

I gotta keep pushing back on this.  Roosevelt spent 1938 openly campaigning against members of his own party because they were already kneecapping his agenda.  Even at the height of New Deal liberalism, Congressional leaders were always very careful to place limits on federal power, to protect "states' rights" to segregate, and to exclude black people from federal assistance whenever possible.  That's why so many of those New Deal programs only passed with clear sunset provisions, why universal health care and UBI were nonstarters, and why Social Security initially excluded service workers and agricultural workers.  The running theme is that Congressional Democrats during FDR's presidency were willing to support liberal initiatives up to the point that those acts might threaten the racist status quo.  And as subsequent decades would prove, they were right to fear that a more liberal Supreme Court would undermine institutional segregation.

FDR's agenda really didnt start to unravel until the court packing attempt and the 1937 recession.  Until then he had basically rammed through almost everything he wanted

I don't want to keep hijacking this thread with this tangent, and if you want to continue this discussion in another more appropriate forum I'll be happy to, but I'll just make one final comment on this here before letting it drop.  This isn't an accurate description of FDR's terms in office.  He got a lot accomplished, but he and his administration were constantly watering down their legislative initiatives almost from the start because of Congressional resistance.  He was a canny enough politician to adapt and keep making progress, but he and his closest advisors were constantly frustrated by obstinate (Southern) Congressional Democrats. 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Yeah, that's a nice story, but it's not what we have in practice.  In the real world, the Court arbitrarily decided that the incentives the ACA created to expand Medicaid were excessively powerful and states should be allowed to opt out of expansion without losing access to existing federal funding streams. There is absolutely no basis for this idea anywhere in the text of the Constitution — and millions of Americans have been deprived of their health insurance as a result.   In the real world, we have the case of Bush v. Gore, a refusal to look at the problem of partisan gerrymandering,  a series of judicial decisions striking down efforts to regulate the campaign finance system, the Shelby County v. Holder decision in which five conservative justices arbitrarily decided that racially motivated voter suppression was no longer a problem, etc. etc.  In what world are rulings like these not prescriptive?

I don't see how any of that contradicts what I said. I'm not saying any of those rulings were arrived at correctly. Rather they were cases between parties in which the Supreme Court gave opinions, and the "striking down" aspect is yours, and the political world's, interpretation of the practical effect of those rulings.

Interpretation?  If these aren't clear examples of "striking down" duly enacted laws, then what would be?  Do words even have meaning?

Like how would things be different if there was no judicial review. Take the medicaid expansion. Lower courts should not follow the precedent? Each state that doesn't want the medicaid expansion has to get their exemption individually from the SCOTUS? What's the point? It's going to be the same result each time, only with a lot of time and money wasted getting there.

Most other developed countries have perfectly functioning political systems without our form of "judicial review."  The worldview you're advocating is that Congress lacks the power to decide for itself what its own laws mean or how to set up regulatory agencies, that the agencies themselves lack the power to decide how to enforce the rules, and that American citizens lack enforceable rights to have their votes counted.  This is a perverse viewpoint that is profoundly undemocratic and, frankly, un-American. 

[Heebie Jeebie]

I don't see how any of that contradicts what I said. I'm not saying any of those rulings were arrived at correctly. Rather they were cases between parties in which the Supreme Court gave opinions, and the "striking down" aspect is yours, and the political world's, interpretation of the practical effect of those rulings.

Interpretation?  If these aren't clear examples of "striking down" duly enacted laws, then what would be?  Do words even have meaning?

Like how would things be different if there was no judicial review. Take the medicaid expansion. Lower courts should not follow the precedent? Each state that doesn't want the medicaid expansion has to get their exemption individually from the SCOTUS? What's the point? It's going to be the same result each time, only with a lot of time and money wasted getting there.

Most other developed countries have perfectly functioning political systems without our form of "judicial review."  The worldview you're advocating is that Congress lacks the power to decide for itself what its own laws mean or how to set up regulatory agencies, that the agencies themselves lack the power to decide how to enforce the rules, and that American citizens lack enforceable rights to have their votes counted.  This is a perverse viewpoint that is profoundly undemocratic and, frankly, counter to American ideals.  

[JGibson]

Disgraceful in every way,

Mitch McConnell says hi.

Republicans are held to different standards.

It was bad but packing the court would mean the court would basically cease to even exist as that means every president will pack it

The court has no legitimacy. It's already a partisan hellscape thanks to Mitch McConnell, our modern day John C. Calhoun. Were you as angry as you are now when Mitch McConnell decided to become the arbiter of who is allowed to join the court? Now the courts are filled with partisan thugs like Rao who believe rape is the woman's fault. I can't stand Republican moralistic bemoaning after all the crap they have pulled.

I second that. It's time to add justices to SCOTUS and possibly either set an 18-year term limit and/or a mandatory retirement rule at 80.

[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?

[RI]

The only sustainable path forward is deescalation and devolution. We need to return control of most policies to the state level. It's not ideal--I'd rather a more unitary system--but the fact is that we're proving that we as a people can not be responsible and respectful with such totalizing power. We cling to every slight grievance in perpetuity as a foundation to justify taking everything at any cost. The only way to thwart this is to depower the prize everyone fights so viciously for.

[DrScholl]

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.

[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?

[OSR stands with Israel]

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 .

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

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 .

Wah wah wahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[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.

[Politician]

If they try to nominate Garland , 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 .

If they try to block Kavanaugh , 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 .

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

No cause Obama didn't try to pack the court , but if the next Dem President did then not only would I support doing to them what the GOP did to Obama but at least twice as hard as well

[OSR stands with Israel]

If they try to nominate Garland , 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 .

If they try to block Kavanaugh , 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 .

[Politician]

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.

No cause Obama didn't try to pack the court , but if the next Dem President did then not only would I support doing to them what the GOP did to Obama but at least twice as hard as well

You and your fellow moderate heroes never made a peep when the GOP tried to ruin Obama's life.

[Landslide Lyndon]

If they try to nominate Garland , 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 .

If they try to block Kavanaugh , 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 .

Karma is a bitch, ain't it?

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

No cause Obama didn't try to pack the court , but if the next Dem President did then not only would I support doing to them what the GOP did to Obama but at least twice as hard as well

You and your fellow moderate heroes never made a peep when the GOP tried to ruin Obama's life.

I opposed the 2013 Gov Shutdown, and I believe I said many things against what the GOP did to Obama , and some of them I believe on this forum. You can search my post history from late 2014-2016 if you would like.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The only sustainable path forward is deescalation and devolution. We need to return control of most policies to the state level. It's not ideal--I'd rather a more unitary system--but the fact is that we're proving that we as a people can not be responsible and respectful with such totalizing power. We cling to every slight grievance in perpetuity as a foundation to justify taking everything at any cost. The only way to thwart this is to depower the prize everyone fights so viciously for.

I agree, as soon as we’ve packed the court with young liberal justices, it’s important to start descalating the judicial wars.  Republicans should lead by example.

[Lechasseur]

At this point it's become clear that both sides want to use the Court as a political weapon. I've come to the point where I think it should simply be abolished

[Progressive Pessimist]

At this point it's become clear that both sides want to use the Court as a political weapon. I've come to the point where I think it should simply be abolished

It's been that way since its inception though, the Framers just never thought we would ever become this polarized or that their system would be exploited by an eventual Senate Majority Leader from Kentucky. But yes, with how it functions today, something significant needs to change for the good of the country.

[S019]

This is a dangerous move that undermines the independence and integrity of our judiciary. The Democrats are increasingly acting like a fringe party. This declaration is declaring war on the independence of our judiciary and by extension, our system of checks and balances, and by extension, our democracy. This preposterous idea should not even be considered, I wonder if Atlas Dems and Dem leadership will do the right thing and disavow these looks and endorse Biden, Hickenlooper, Delaney, or Gabbard.

[Progressive Pessimist]

This is a dangerous move that undermines the independence and integrity of our judiciary. The Democrats are increasingly acting like a fringe party. This declaration is declaring war on the independence of our judiciary and by extension, our system of checks and balances, and by extension, our democracy. This preposterous idea should not even be considered, I wonder if Atlas Dems and Dem leadership will do the right thing and disavow these looks and endorse Biden, Hickenlooper, Delaney, or Gabbard.

Let's calm down a little here. I'm not huge on this idea either but it is a reflection of the lack of balance in our politics. McConnell stole an appointment and violated our institutional norms first, now Democrats are looking to rectify that decision which holds consequences over millions of Americans. Not to mention that Trump tramples on our norms and institutions on a daily basis with little to no resistance from his own party.

Advocating for this idea is indeed a radical move, but it isn't out of selfishness, ignorance, or tribalism. Anyway, if they somehow manage to seize upon doing this (which is unlikely) Republicans will undoubtedly be able to pounce on the precedent and do it themselves too. The high road doesn't exist anymore.

[Tartarus Sauce]

This is a terrible mistake to have so many prominent Democrats pushing court packing like this. Yes, Republicans were sh*tbags to do what they did with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, but don’t respond to it by opening the Pandora’s Box that would undermine the branch’s independence by effectively turning SCOTUS into a rubber stamp for the party in power. It’s not exactly a mystery what sort of precedent this would set.

If we were 20 years in the future and progressive agendas were being gutted left and right in an arbitrary and capricious manner, despite a popularly elected Democratic trifecta, by a conservative Supreme Court that is not in fact professional but a bunch of hack, legislating-from-the-bench activists (which can be just as much a problem with conservative justices as liberal ones, despite conventional wisdom) then maybe I could see why we might feel like there’s little left to lose going down that route. We are very clearly not there right now.