RBG against court-packing

[Heebie Jeebie]

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.

Packing the Court would be more democratic than our current method of filling the bench.

[brucejoel99]

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.

Packing the Court would be more dDemocratic than our current method of filling the bench.

Fixed.

[Heebie Jeebie]

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.

Packing the Court would be more dDemocratic than our current method of filling the bench.

Fixed.

No, this isn't a partisan view. If roles were reversed, and Republicans were able to win the presidency, the Senate, and the House after decades of liberal justices striking down duly enacted laws, I think they would be fools not to act.  (The partisan hack in me would want to see them fail, of course, but I couldn't blame them for acting on the principle that if you get more votes you are entitled to govern.)

[100% pro-life no matter what]

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.

Packing the Court would be more dDemocratic than our current method of filling the bench.

Fixed.

No, this isn't a partisan view. If roles were reversed, and Republicans were able to win the presidency, the Senate, and the House after decades of liberal justices striking down duly enacted laws, I think they would be fools not to act.  (The partisan hack in me would want to see them fail, of course, but I couldn't blame them for acting on the principle that if you get more votes you are entitled to govern.)

So I assume you would be OK with Trump appointing 10 Amy Coney Barrett-clones onto SCOTUS if Republicans win a trifecta in 2020 and striking down Roe, Obergefell, Obamacare, and virtually every "progressive" decision post-1970?

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

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.

Packing the Court would be more dDemocratic than our current method of filling the bench.

Fixed.

No, this isn't a partisan view. If roles were reversed, and Republicans were able to win the presidency, the Senate, and the House after decades of liberal justices striking down duly enacted laws, I think they would be fools not to act.  (The partisan hack in me would want to see them fail, of course, but I couldn't blame them for acting on the principle that if you get more votes you are entitled to govern.)

So I assume you would be OK with Trump appointing 10 Amy Coney Barrett-clones onto SCOTUS if Republicans win a trifecta in 2020 and striking done Roe, Obergefell, Obamacare, and virtually every "progressive" decision post-1970?

I don't support court-packing, but you guys effectively de-packed the court (from 9 to 8 ) and then repacked it after you took power.  Which is the only thing the right cares about - power.

Say what you will about Mayor Pete and other supporters of court-packing, but at least their intentions are honest, and they don't invoke made-up bullsh!t "precedents" like the "Biden rule" to remake the country in their image.

[brucejoel99]

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.

Packing the Court would be more dDemocratic than our current method of filling the bench.

Fixed.

No, this isn't a partisan view. If roles were reversed, and Republicans were able to win the presidency, the Senate, and the House after decades of liberal justices striking down duly enacted laws, I think they would be fools not to act.  (The partisan hack in me would want to see them fail, of course, but I couldn't blame them for acting on the principle that if you get more votes you are entitled to govern.)

I don't care about roles being reversed & getting to do what you wanna do when you're entitled to govern. Aside from potentially opening up the Court to charges of inherently partisan illegitimacy, Democratic court packing is stupid because: (A) political double standards make it so that the optics of court packing would be significantly worse for Democrats than they'd ever be for Republicans; & (B) Democratic court packing opens up a precedent for even worse Republican court packing down the line if/when the pendulum swings back toward them.

[Heebie Jeebie]

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.

Packing the Court would be more dDemocratic than our current method of filling the bench.

Fixed.

No, this isn't a partisan view. If roles were reversed, and Republicans were able to win the presidency, the Senate, and the House after decades of liberal justices striking down duly enacted laws, I think they would be fools not to act.  (The partisan hack in me would want to see them fail, of course, but I couldn't blame them for acting on the principle that if you get more votes you are entitled to govern.)

So I assume you would be OK with Trump appointing 10 Amy Coney Barrett-clones onto SCOTUS if Republicans win a trifecta in 2020 and striking down Roe, Obergefell, Obamacare, and virtually every "progressive" decision post-1970?

Again, I believe that if you win more votes you should be entitled to govern.  Your hypothetical complicates things a bit because given Senate apportionment, gerrymandering, and the electoral college, it's easy to imagine Republicans getting the trifecta while simultaneously getting fewer votes than Democrats for all three branches/chambers.  It must feel nice for Republicans knowing that minority rule is always their most likely option.

But having said all that, the rules are what they are, and yes, if Republicans won the trifecta I would expect them to secure control of the Court, for the same reason I would expect them to secure control of the EPA or the CFPB or the NLRB.  Of course, Republicans have controlled the Court for more than a generation, so I wouldn't expect some sea change in American jurisprudence or anything.

Regardless, this is why we have (mostly) free and fair elections--if the party in charge does unpopular things that hurt people, they get voted out of office and we try with a different party.  This is how it works in the rest of the free world, and it's how it should work here.  Don't forget that the US is an outlier in terms of having a system that incorporates Judicial Supremacy--most other developed countries don't have anything like our overpowered courts.

[Heebie Jeebie]

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.

Packing the Court would be more dDemocratic than our current method of filling the bench.

Fixed.

No, this isn't a partisan view. If roles were reversed, and Republicans were able to win the presidency, the Senate, and the House after decades of liberal justices striking down duly enacted laws, I think they would be fools not to act.  (The partisan hack in me would want to see them fail, of course, but I couldn't blame them for acting on the principle that if you get more votes you are entitled to govern.)

I don't care about roles being reversed & getting to do what you wanna do when you're entitled to govern. Aside from potentially opening up the Court to charges of inherently partisan illegitimacy, Democratic court packing is stupid because: (A) political double standards make it so that the optics of court packing would be significantly worse for Democrats than they'd ever be for Republicans; & (B) Democratic court packing opens up a precedent for even worse Republican court packing down the line if/when the pendulum swings back toward them.

(A) "the optics of court packing"  I don't understand what you mean by this.

(B) "even worse down the line"  You've got this backwards.  Democratic accountability encourages moderation and consensus-building, not extremism.

[brucejoel99]

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.

Packing the Court would be more dDemocratic than our current method of filling the bench.

Fixed.

No, this isn't a partisan view. If roles were reversed, and Republicans were able to win the presidency, the Senate, and the House after decades of liberal justices striking down duly enacted laws, I think they would be fools not to act.  (The partisan hack in me would want to see them fail, of course, but I couldn't blame them for acting on the principle that if you get more votes you are entitled to govern.)

I don't care about roles being reversed & getting to do what you wanna do when you're entitled to govern. Aside from potentially opening up the Court to charges of inherently partisan illegitimacy, Democratic court packing is stupid because: (A) political double standards make it so that the optics of court packing would be significantly worse for Democrats than they'd ever be for Republicans; & (B) Democratic court packing opens up a precedent for even worse Republican court packing down the line if/when the pendulum swings back toward them.

(A) "the optics of court packing"  I don't understand what you mean by this.

Meaning Republicans will be able to successfully paint Democrats as "the evil bad guys who are seeking to destroy the Court for their own partisan gain" in the eyes of the public.

(B) "even worse down the line"  You've got this backwards.  Democratic accountability encourages moderation and consensus-building, not extremism.

May I introduce you to the concept of (hyper-)polarization? Because nobody cares about "accountability" anymore. The only thing that people care about at this point is whether or not "their team" wins.

[Heebie Jeebie]

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.

Packing the Court would be more dDemocratic than our current method of filling the bench.

Fixed.

No, this isn't a partisan view. If roles were reversed, and Republicans were able to win the presidency, the Senate, and the House after decades of liberal justices striking down duly enacted laws, I think they would be fools not to act.  (The partisan hack in me would want to see them fail, of course, but I couldn't blame them for acting on the principle that if you get more votes you are entitled to govern.)

I don't care about roles being reversed & getting to do what you wanna do when you're entitled to govern. Aside from potentially opening up the Court to charges of inherently partisan illegitimacy, Democratic court packing is stupid because: (A) political double standards make it so that the optics of court packing would be significantly worse for Democrats than they'd ever be for Republicans; & (B) Democratic court packing opens up a precedent for even worse Republican court packing down the line if/when the pendulum swings back toward them.

(A) "the optics of court packing"  I don't understand what you mean by this.

(B) "even worse down the line"  You've got this backwards.  Democratic accountability encourages moderation and consensus-building, not extremism.

Meaning Republicans will be able to successfully paint Democrats as "the evil bad guys who are seeking to destroy the Court for their own partisan gain" in the eyes of the public.

May I introduce you to the concept of (hyper-)polarization? Because nobody cares about "accountability" anymore. The only thing that people care about at this point is whether or not "their team" wins.

(A)  After Merrick Garland and Christine Blasey Ford, I don't think the public is likely to see Democrats as "the evil bad guys" in the fight over the Court's partisan balance.  Yeah, Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting will flood the airwaves with anti-Democratic propaganda the next time there's a Court fight, but they'd do that anyway.  And let's not overstate the public's concern for process and procedure--most voters probably couldn't even tell you how large the current Court is, let alone express informed opinions about the proper way to balance the Court's partisan leanings.

(B)  Accountability matters more than you're allowing for.  There's a reason Trump and Congressional Republicans have all but abandoned their efforts to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and even Obamacare.  There's a reason they've given up on fighting marriage equality or on pushing for Middle Eastern military adventures.  Moderates win elections.  Not coincidentally, the places you find the most extreme are the same places that are furthest removed from electoral consequence, namely the federal judiciary. 

[brucejoel99]

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.

Packing the Court would be more dDemocratic than our current method of filling the bench.

Fixed.

No, this isn't a partisan view. If roles were reversed, and Republicans were able to win the presidency, the Senate, and the House after decades of liberal justices striking down duly enacted laws, I think they would be fools not to act.  (The partisan hack in me would want to see them fail, of course, but I couldn't blame them for acting on the principle that if you get more votes you are entitled to govern.)

I don't care about roles being reversed & getting to do what you wanna do when you're entitled to govern. Aside from potentially opening up the Court to charges of inherently partisan illegitimacy, Democratic court packing is stupid because: (A) political double standards make it so that the optics of court packing would be significantly worse for Democrats than they'd ever be for Republicans; & (B) Democratic court packing opens up a precedent for even worse Republican court packing down the line if/when the pendulum swings back toward them.

(A) "the optics of court packing"  I don't understand what you mean by this.

(B) "even worse down the line"  You've got this backwards.  Democratic accountability encourages moderation and consensus-building, not extremism.

Meaning Republicans will be able to successfully paint Democrats as "the evil bad guys who are seeking to destroy the Court for their own partisan gain" in the eyes of the public.

May I introduce you to the concept of (hyper-)polarization? Because nobody cares about "accountability" anymore. The only thing that people care about at this point is whether or not "their team" wins.

(A)  After Merrick Garland and Christine Blasey Ford, I don't think the public is likely to see Democrats as "the evil bad guys" in the fight over the Court's partisan balance.  Yeah, Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting will flood the airwaves with anti-Democratic propaganda the next time there's a Court fight, but they'd do that anyway.  And let's not overstate the public's concern for process and procedure--most voters probably couldn't even tell you how large the current Court is, let alone express informed opinions about the proper way to balance the Court's partisan leanings.

(B)  Accountability matters more than you're allowing for.  There's a reason Trump and Congressional Republicans have all but abandoned their efforts to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and even Obamacare.  There's a reason they've given up on fighting marriage equality or on pushing for Middle Eastern military adventures.  Moderates win elections.  Not coincidentally, the places you find the most extreme are the same places that are furthest removed from electoral consequence, namely the federal judiciary. 

After everything that has happened (& that the Republicans have been able to get away with) over these last few years, you have too much faith in the American people. And yeah, the reason he abandoned those efforts was because enough independents & even Republicans opposed them. They weren't as popular as policies that sound good to the American people's ears, like "tax cuts," which did pass. If the Democrats were to seriously attempt a court packing scheme, I guarantee you that the Republicans will frame it (successfully so, because the Democrats suck at media wars & framing narratives), & that the general public will oppose it, as an undue power grab, not least because that's exactly what happened when we tried this 8 decades ago too.

[Pandaguineapig]

the line of thinking among many red avatars tends to be very similar to when they encouraged a senile Harry Reid to nuke the filibuster. for some reason many democrats fall under the delusion that once they hold political power that they will never lose an election again so they really fail to consider how a plan to expand the court to 11 can really backfire when another Republican president is elected and decides the court needs 15 justices, idiots

[Sir Mohamed]

Folks, RGB is dead for months, but the evil left is covering it up keep TRUMP from making another months. tHE sYsTEm iS rIGgeD!!1!

[Insomnian]

the line of thinking among many red avatars tends to be very similar to when they encouraged a senile Harry Reid to nuke the filibuster. for some reason many democrats fall under the delusion that once they hold political power that they will never lose an election again so they really fail to consider how a plan to expand the court to 11 can really backfire when another Republican president is elected and decides the court needs 15 justices, idiots

This is because American liberals tend to cluster in small echo chambers with other American liberals and interpret every modest wax in conservative support as a sign of a permanent liberal democratic majority. We saw this in...2000 before 2002/2004 hit. We saw people cheer it in 2006/2008 before 2010 hit. And we even saw people in 2012 cheer before 2014/2016 hit. And now people are doing the same thing in 2018.

[Heebie Jeebie]

the line of thinking among many red avatars tends to be very similar to when they encouraged a senile Harry Reid to nuke the filibuster. for some reason many democrats fall under the delusion that once they hold political power that they will never lose an election again so they really fail to consider how a plan to expand the court to 11 can really backfire when another Republican president is elected and decides the court needs 15 justices, idiots

If you really think this, you have no understanding at all.  But I assume you're smarter than that and are just disingenuously putting forward a straw man.  Nobody thinks Democrats will never lose control of government again.  This is really simple:  Democracy and accountability are good.  Our system would work better if we took steps to increase both, but our current process for determining the ideological balance of the Court all but ensures minority rule.  If you hold American values, if you believe in fairness and equality, that should deeply disturb you.

[Heebie Jeebie]

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.

Packing the Court would be more dDemocratic than our current method of filling the bench.

Fixed.

No, this isn't a partisan view. If roles were reversed, and Republicans were able to win the presidency, the Senate, and the House after decades of liberal justices striking down duly enacted laws, I think they would be fools not to act.  (The partisan hack in me would want to see them fail, of course, but I couldn't blame them for acting on the principle that if you get more votes you are entitled to govern.)

I don't care about roles being reversed & getting to do what you wanna do when you're entitled to govern. Aside from potentially opening up the Court to charges of inherently partisan illegitimacy, Democratic court packing is stupid because: (A) political double standards make it so that the optics of court packing would be significantly worse for Democrats than they'd ever be for Republicans; & (B) Democratic court packing opens up a precedent for even worse Republican court packing down the line if/when the pendulum swings back toward them.

(A) "the optics of court packing"  I don't understand what you mean by this.

(B) "even worse down the line"  You've got this backwards.  Democratic accountability encourages moderation and consensus-building, not extremism.

Meaning Republicans will be able to successfully paint Democrats as "the evil bad guys who are seeking to destroy the Court for their own partisan gain" in the eyes of the public.

May I introduce you to the concept of (hyper-)polarization? Because nobody cares about "accountability" anymore. The only thing that people care about at this point is whether or not "their team" wins.

(A)  After Merrick Garland and Christine Blasey Ford, I don't think the public is likely to see Democrats as "the evil bad guys" in the fight over the Court's partisan balance.  Yeah, Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting will flood the airwaves with anti-Democratic propaganda the next time there's a Court fight, but they'd do that anyway.  And let's not overstate the public's concern for process and procedure--most voters probably couldn't even tell you how large the current Court is, let alone express informed opinions about the proper way to balance the Court's partisan leanings.

(B)  Accountability matters more than you're allowing for.  There's a reason Trump and Congressional Republicans have all but abandoned their efforts to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and even Obamacare.  There's a reason they've given up on fighting marriage equality or on pushing for Middle Eastern military adventures.  Moderates win elections.  Not coincidentally, the places you find the most extreme are the same places that are furthest removed from electoral consequence, namely the federal judiciary. 

After everything that has happened (& that the Republicans have been able to get away with) over these last few years, you have too much faith in the American people. And yeah, the reason he abandoned those efforts was because enough independents & even Republicans opposed them. They weren't as popular as policies that sound good to the American people's ears, like "tax cuts," which did pass. If the Democrats were to seriously attempt a court packing scheme, I guarantee you that the Republicans will frame it (successfully so, because the Democrats suck at media wars & framing narratives), & that the general public will oppose it, as an undue power grab, not least because that's exactly what happened when we tried this 8 decades ago too.

I don't know why you think Democrats are so bad at "media wars & framing narratives."  Despite massive structural disadvantages, Democrats are still able to win elections about half the time.  That's despite the broad influence of Republican propaganda outlets like Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting, despite television news and social media that is overly accommodating to far-right perspectives, and despite the antidemocratic trio of Senate apportionment, gerrymandering, and the Electoral College.  Democrats don't have any of those advantages, yet they still win half the time.

[SInNYC]

Court packing doesnt' really make sense for many of the reasons already posted above. The votes aren't there either, and those candidates advocating it know that. However, I think it would be very fair to have a plan aimed specifically at the Garland case. Something like Garland + 1 more, reverting to 9 when Garland or  one of the 2 newer justices leave.

The votes aren't there for that either, not to mention it would be a really weird constitutional amendment. So, I cant take seriously any candidate who is proposing something needing an amendment.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Court packing doesnt' really make sense for many of the reasons already posted above. The votes aren't there either, and those candidates advocating it know that. However, I think it would be very fair to have a plan aimed specifically at the Garland case. Something like Garland + 1 more, reverting to 9 when Garland or  one of the 2 newer justices leave.

The votes aren't there for that either, not to mention it would be a really weird constitutional amendment. So, I cant take seriously any candidate who is proposing something needing an amendment.

You wouldn't need a constitutional amendment for that.  Just add two new seats by statute, one of which could be filled by Garland, then refuse to fill new vacancies as they arise.  That'd be a foolish plan for obvious reasons, but not because it would require an amendment.  

[SuperCow]

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.

Disagreeing with someone on certain decisions is far from hating them. I am, in fact, eternally grateful to her that she did not retire in 2009 when Obama had 60 seats in the senate.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Soft Money and 2nd Amendment rights need to be curbed, an 11 judge panel, with 2 additional circuits to get rid of Soft Money, will do justice. If only if Thomas was more like Kennedy or Roberts, instead of Alito, we can ban soft money. But, he wont change

[R.P. McM]

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.

Packing the Court would be more dDemocratic than our current method of filling the bench.

Fixed.

No, this isn't a partisan view. If roles were reversed, and Republicans were able to win the presidency, the Senate, and the House after decades of liberal justices striking down duly enacted laws, I think they would be fools not to act.  (The partisan hack in me would want to see them fail, of course, but I couldn't blame them for acting on the principle that if you get more votes you are entitled to govern.)

So I assume you would be OK with Trump appointing 10 Amy Coney Barrett-clones onto SCOTUS if Republicans win a trifecta in 2020 and striking down Roe, Obergefell, Obamacare, and virtually every "progressive" decision post-1970?

I think you're imagining that we'd simply accept those undemocratic decisions from a party that's lost the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections. No, I'm sorry, we'd no longer be living in the same country. Yeah, the Democratic Party could've blocked Kennedy and Thomas, handing those seats to Bill Clinton. Same story with Eisenhower and Nixon. So the current Court is illegitimate — we weren't mean enough — but now, it's time to stomp some proto-fascist white trash. There's just no scenario in which the Coasts and the Upper Midwest — the prosperous, educated, innovative majority of this country — ever agree to be governed by the social mores of semi-retarded hillbillies. Attempt to impose your racist, rapist ideology on us at your own peril.

[R.P. McM]

It's one of the more ridiculous ideas that progressives have latched on to over the past year or so. Yes, we get that you regret being so timid about judicial appointments under Obama. Yes, we get that you regret that control of the Court depends on the longevity of people who were born before WWII. None of that makes this a good idea!

Mayor Pete's promotion of this absurdity played a big role in turning me off on his campaign.

Our majority was stolen from us when Mitch McConnell changed the unwritten rules. So we can change the unwritten rules once again. Sorry .

[R.P. McM]

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.

I would love to see an undemocratic, corporate, proto-fascist Republican majority attempt to revert social progress to the 1950's. Yeah, that would go over well /s. Nah, man, ya'll are playing with fire. The majority will ultimately prevail, one way or another ...

[MarkD]

I don't care if she's opposed to it.

If anything, [it] would make the Court look partisan.

Well, you're too late for that, Mrs. Ginsburg! Stop for a second and remember Bush v. Gore and tell me how that decision did not make the Court look partisan!

It would be that -- one side saying "When we're in power, we're going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to."

Once, again, you're too late for that! A system in which both parties appoint Supreme Court Justices because they expect their appointees to vote the way the party wants them to vote is already here, with just nine Justices. It won't get any "worse" if we have a greater number of Justices. Mrs. Ginsburg herself is guilty of being a weapon for her party too; she voted on the constitutionality of Obamacare based on the way the Democratic Party wanted her to vote, and she votes on abortion and gay marriage based on the way the Democratic Party wants her to vote. So do Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The system won't be any more politicized if we have more people serving on the Supreme Court.

It won't be any more politicized with a court-packing plan, and it might truly be less politicized, if the party that's promotes court-packing is vowing to make sure that the new appointees filling those additional seats will be chosen in a non-political way. That's why Mayor Pete's proposal for a court-packing plan is so intriguing. This kind of proposal will lessen the politicization of the Court, and that's why it should be embraced. Expanding the size of the Court when you intend to fill most or all of the seats with more ideologues who will serve your party's agenda -- overturn Citizens United v. Fec, but never overturn Roe v. Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges -- is what will make the Court become even more politicized than it already is, which is bad enough.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Everybody but Sanders haven't declined to increase size of Crt. Sanders is the only one opposed to it. McConnell, knows that a Dem Crt will open the Crt up to cameras and end soft money, he fought hard to keep soft money. Thats why he refused Garland. If the wave happens and a trifecta happens; Dem Crt