RBG against court-packing

[GoTfan]

People are missing the point that Republicans have already turned it into a political weapon.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

Bernie doesn't like cameras, you see.

[Trends Are Fake]

...Why was this year old thread necro'd? And why the way that it was with a random quote that's barely even topical?

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Even if Dems get a majority, as the minority, Cruz said they will use the same tactics as Ds tried to do, when they were in the minority, deny a quorum, in the Judiciary Committee, use unanimous consent request, see the Senate is a Parliament, its not the House, its a reason why the filibuster rule stood so long.

Heroes act wasn't voted on, on the floor, it was denied by Senator Portman on a unanimous consent request, and it didn't come up for a vote

[Pericles]

RBG was also against retiring in 2013 or 2014, look how that worked out for Dems.

[YE]

Moving to USGD.

[KoopaDaQuick]

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

Why would the Democrats make CRT televisions, and what does that have to do with courts? OC, peace be upon you, cathode-ray tube televisions haven't been in style for over a decade.

[R.P. McM]

RBG was also against retiring in 2013 or 2014, look how that worked out for Dems.

Yeah, she deserves a lot of blame for this mess, so I'm not interested in heeding her posthumous advice. And neither are Senate Republicans, as it happens. Poor, egotistical Ruth — it's not enough that she served on the Court for a quarter-century and imperiled future generations with her stubborn refusal to retire, she now expects her sage advice to echo beyond the grave. No thanks.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

RBG was also against retiring in 2013 or 2014, look how that worked out for Dems.

Yeah, she deserves a lot of blame for this mess, so I'm not interested in heeding her posthumous advice. And neither are Senate Republicans, as it happens. Poor, egotistical Ruth — it's not enough that she served on the Court for a quarter-century and imperiled future generations with her stubborn refusal to retire, she now expects her sage advice to echo beyond the grave. No thanks.

Breyer may take the hint and retire in 2022, but it's not looking very good for Democrats on the Supreme Court for a while.

[Calthrina950]

RBG was also against retiring in 2013 or 2014, look how that worked out for Dems.

Yeah, she deserves a lot of blame for this mess, so I'm not interested in heeding her posthumous advice. And neither are Senate Republicans, as it happens. Poor, egotistical Ruth — it's not enough that she served on the Court for a quarter-century and imperiled future generations with her stubborn refusal to retire, she now expects her sage advice to echo beyond the grave. No thanks.

Perhaps it could be that Ginsburg-like Chief Justice Roberts and all the other Justices-recognized the danger which court-packing would pose to the Court's independence and integrity. But as I've discovered, most people on here don't have a problem with court-packing, and see it as the proper means to fight back against Republicans for "stealing" Scalia's seat.

[Brittain33]

Cool. If we’re listening to RBG on this, let’s listen to her dying wish to have her successor chosen by the next President, then. We can compromise and agree: honor her wish, and in return, Dems won’t pack the courts.

[Calthrina950]

Cool. If we’re listening to RBG on this, let’s listen to her dying wish to have her successor chosen by the next President, then. We can compromise and agree: honor her wish, and in return, Dems won’t pack the courts.

I would agree with this-as I've made clear that it would be an unwise move for Republicans to fill her seat before the election. But unfortunately, this is not going to happen.

[R.P. McM]

RBG was also against retiring in 2013 or 2014, look how that worked out for Dems.

Yeah, she deserves a lot of blame for this mess, so I'm not interested in heeding her posthumous advice. And neither are Senate Republicans, as it happens. Poor, egotistical Ruth — it's not enough that she served on the Court for a quarter-century and imperiled future generations with her stubborn refusal to retire, she now expects her sage advice to echo beyond the grave. No thanks.

Breyer may take the hint and retire in 2022, but it's not looking very good for Democrats on the Supreme Court for a while.

Well, assuming they hit the trifecta this year, Democrats have a remedy at their disposal. If they decline to pursue it owing to an unreciprocated regard for unenforceable norms, they'll have no one to blame but themselves for whatever horrors the proto-fascist GOP visits upon them.

[SWE]

Yet another bad Ginsburg opinion!

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.

If maintaing an institution of all powerful unelected officials who are essentially picked based on the random dice roll of who dies when, and a third of which were appointed by a man who got three million fewer votes than his opponent is "democracy" then I can't think of anything that wouldn't meet that generous definition of democracy. It sounds a lot more like something designed by Maduro than court packing.