RBG against court-packing

[Roll Roons]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/24/ginsburg-expand-supreme-court-1428426?fbclid=IwAR1rT_gbhNm4yrikYU7o6sSU7WbpuP2lYf2FPUsR7iSd5jaCvVd8lP-wG5U

[|˶˙ᵕ˙ )ﾉﾞ]

She's just being facetious

[Jumped off the American Sinking Ship]

I find the idea pretty stupid too. It undermines our institutions even further and, in my opinion, would essentially start a "court arms race" where whenever a party goes into power they try to put as many justices on as possible to dilute the other side's influence.

[VPH]

Probably because she understands the gravity of undermining the institution like that.

[Senator Incitatus]

hashtag who care

[Farmlands]

The Supreme Court still has legimitacy, that it's newer members were put there by a fluke president is part of how the nomination process has always been. Packing the Court is a dictatorial power grab out of Maduro's playbook and only being brought up because a few leftists are mad things didn't go their way. I dislike Trump, but value democracy more.

[Pollster]

The American Supreme Court is one of the smallest in the world, and also one of the most powerful constitutionally. Expanding the court (which decreases the power of a single justice) is a fine idea. Dems are obviously pursuing it for political reasons, but it is rather overdue structurally.

[DrScholl]

It's would be really hilarious if conservative cited Ginsburg in their argument against court packing considering that they hate her and want her to go away so that Trump can have another court appointment.

There are 11 circuits, so there should be 11 justices. It's quite simple. If McConnell wants to show out and play games, then when Democrats have the power they need to show out and play games as well. Expanding the court is perfectly legal and is in no way a dirty trick like what McConnell pulled with Merrick Garland.

[brucejoel99]

Good. Court packing isn't something to be celebrated, especially considering that it's a bad idea in that it's destined to bite the Democrats in the ass in the future as well.

[Beet]

Court packing, meaning putting people on the Court just to advance one's partisan agenda, has never been the solution, but defenders of the status quo are kidding themselves if they think the Court's legitimacy has not been seriously eroded in recent years. This is not the court of the 20th century or even early 21st century. It has become a highly partisan institution where a justice's vote -- as in the gerrymandering case -- can be fairly predicted by which party the president who appointed them was. Where nominees are determined by lists put together by activist institutions and any decision a judge makes at any point in their career that breaks with the party line can derail their chances for higher office. This is corrosive to the core, not only for SCOTUS but the entire federal judicial system.

Ginsburg is a creature of the existing institution that gives her, personally, a great deal of power, so it's not surprising that she would defend it. Ironically, she has been one of the worst players in Court partisanship, making no bones about her political agenda.

[AN63093]

I find the idea pretty stupid too. It undermines our institutions even further and, in my opinion, would essentially start a "court arms race" where whenever a party goes into power they try to put as many justices on as possible to dilute the other side's influence.

The court arms race is the best argument against.  Legitimacy or "undermining the institution" is not too much of a concern of mine, given that there isn't much legitimacy to be lost.  Any 1L taking constitutional law quickly sees the man behind the curtain and can tell you that the branch is (and always has been) a political branch, no matter how much some will try and obfuscate to the contrary.  When you say this is "not the court of the 20th century" Beet, and that "it has become a highly partisan institution", I would invite you to go to your local library and just browse a 1L con law casebook.. you will quickly discover that the Court, since the founding of the country, has been a partisan institution that has been issuing controversial opinions ever since it was created.

But that being said, the arms race is a valid concern.  We have settled on nine for 150 years at this point, and while that may seem arbitrary to some, I would rather see that than it increase by a few here and there for the next 50 years until we get an oligarchic body of 100 unelected philosopher kings writing the law.  Which some may claim the Court is now (and perhaps rightfully so), but at least currently the members are somewhat visible, we know who they are, and they still write opinions and such.  It hasn't gotten to the point (yet) where they're just doing voice votes on what new national legislation to adopt under the auspices of the equal protection clause.

[Heebie Jeebie]

She's wrong.

1.  SCOTUS has been a partisan, political institution since at least the days of John Marshall.  It's silly to pretend otherwise.
2.  There's ample precedent for changing the size of the Court.
3.  Court-packing would make our system more (small-d) democratic, which is almost always an improvement on the status quo.
4.  Court-packing, by introducing some tiny measure of electoral accountability, would if anything make SCOTUS less likely to engage in judicial over-reach, not more.

[eric82oslo]

The American Supreme Court is one of the smallest in the world, and also one of the most powerful constitutionally. Expanding the court (which decreases the power of a single justice) is a fine idea. Dems are obviously pursuing it for political reasons, but it is rather overdue structurally.

All this is true. Having a Supreme Court made up of between 16 and 20 judges would make far more sense.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Nope, sorry. Needs to happen.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

There's ways for GOP to block this anyways. The Court didnt change much since Roberts became swing judge instead of Kennedy

[History505]

Makes sense.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

All the candidates but Warren hasn't committed to Crt packing. If Warren wins IA and NH, she will be tough to beat, in the primary

[President Johnson]

She's right. And court-packing won't happen even with a Democratic trifecta because there will be no 50 senators voting for this with the Democrats having a best-case scenario of 51-52 seats. The Republicans would also filibuster this and issue legal challenges. And it would set a horrible precedent for the future. Next time there is a Republican trifecta, they will start court packing as well. This whole idea is a fantasy debate with no actual substance.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

I find the idea pretty stupid too. It undermines our institutions even further and, in my opinion, would essentially start a "court arms race" where whenever a party goes into power they try to put as many justices on as possible to dilute the other side's influence.

Count me in as "pro-court arms race." I fail to see how our current system isn't basically that already

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

It really depends on Roberts and how he handles new trifecta bills. We know he supports Citizens United and 2nd Amendment.  But, we dont know about comprehensive immigration reform and PR statehood. Only if Warren is Prez, which is now a possibility, she is tied with Biden in IA and NH, will Dems attempt this

[Pollster]

If I recall correctly, Buttigieg's plan is to amend the constitution so that 10 judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and another 5 are selected by a unanimous decision of the other 10 judges.

15 justices is fairly average for European Supreme Courts (Asian Supreme Courts can approach 30).

[Heebie Jeebie]

If I recall correctly, Buttigieg's plan is to amend the constitution so that 10 judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and another 5 are selected by a unanimous decision of the other 10 judges.

15 justices is fairly average for European Supreme Courts (Asian Supreme Courts can approach 30).

"Plans" that are built around proposed Constitutional amendments aren't plans at all--they're just bs.  Why pursue a Constitutional amendment (an almost impossible lift in today's polarized environment) when the make-up of the Court can be changed through the standard legislative process?

[Jumped off the American Sinking Ship]

I find the idea pretty stupid too. It undermines our institutions even further and, in my opinion, would essentially start a "court arms race" where whenever a party goes into power they try to put as many justices on as possible to dilute the other side's influence.

Count me in as "pro-court arms race." I fail to see how our current system isn't basically that already

Well, unlike what we have going on right now, there would basically be no limit to it. Imagine like 20 justices getting confirmed by trump instead of 2

[Heebie Jeebie]

https://twitter.com/karpmj/status/1054749247717994496

[NYSforKennedy2024]

The Supreme Court still has legimitacy, that it's newer members were put there by a fluke president is part of how the nomination process has always been. Packing the Court is a dictatorial power grab out of Maduro's playbook and only being brought up because a few leftists are mad things didn't go their way. I dislike Trump, but value democracy more.