Red avatars only: Your opinion on Democratic court-packing

[gottsu]

Mine vote is yes. Republicans are breaking down politics since few decades, so why the Democrats can not start to do that for their benefit?

[GeorgiaModerate]

Terrible idea.  What would stop the Republicans from then packing it further the next time they're in power?  Run through a few cycles of this and the court will have 50 members.

[หมูเด้ง]

Terrible idea.  What would stop the Republicans from then packing it further the next time they're in power?  Run through a few cycles of this and the court will have 50 members.

It’s either that or make it the Court’s own responsibility to enforce its rulings. The eventual goal will be a compromise where the Court’s power could be unilaterally and voluntarily diminished for 20 years which happened the last time the Court was overwhelming partisan.
Another idea is to introduce term limits or allow Congress to determine that a dissent joined by at least 2 justices is the correct ruling.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Terrible idea.  What would stop the Republicans from then packing it further the next time they're in power?  Run through a few cycles of this and the court will have 50 members.

What was to stop the Republicans from holding a seat open until they were the ones able to fill it? They're already doing all of these things to entrench their power. Don't let fear convince you that they're only doing bad things because you made them.

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

Terrible idea.  What would stop the Republicans from then packing it further the next time they're in power?  Run through a few cycles of this and the court will have 50 members.

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

the GOP says thank you for helping them advance the case that the government is dysfunctional!
I'm sure toying around with the SCOTUS in this sort of fashion and unleashing massive partisan fights over the court's size would reflect well on the party of functional government...

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

I've been back and forth on this.

On the one hand, it's nice to see people acknowledging that Republicans are not and will not operate in good faith, and we've got to start moving outside the box ourselves if we're going to save our nation from them.


On the other hand, this is the sort of technically legal gimmick that I loathe the Republicans for pulling. It's not actually addressing the problem, it's just a trick to seize power, seen as acceptable because it's being used against the "bad guys".

In the final analysis, I believe that ends determine the means you can use to reach them. What do we, as Americans, as Democrats, want? An America that is like the GOP's vision, but run by us? This is a good way to get that. What I want is a functioning, representational democracy. I think that's going to take real reform, not legal tricks. All this is just fantasy until we actually win more elections anyway. Lets focus on getting organized enough to get the Republicans out of power for a good long time, then we can argue about the best way to fix the damage they've done.

[GP270watch]

 If the shoe was on the other foot the Republicans would do it in 5 seconds.

[หมูเด้ง]

I've been back and forth on this.

On the one hand, it's nice to see people acknowledging that Republicans are not and will not operate in good faith, and we've got to start moving outside the box ourselves if we're going to save our nation from them.


On the other hand, this is the sort of technically legal gimmick that I loathe the Republicans for pulling. It's not actually addressing the problem, it's just a trick to seize power, seen as acceptable because it's being used against the "bad guys".

In the final analysis, I believe that ends determine the means you can use to reach them. What do we, as Americans, as Democrats, want? An America that is like the GOP's vision, but run by us? This is a good way to get that. What I want is a functioning, representational democracy. I think that's going to take real reform, not legal tricks. All this is just fantasy until we actually win more elections anyway. Lets focus on getting organized enough to get the Republicans out of power for a good long time, then we can argue about the best way to fix the damage they've done.

Yes but next time let's not try to rebuild things until they are truly buried? That was the biggest n00b mistake in 2009.

[Sir Mohamed]

I oppose court packing because the GOP will do the same once they come back to power. What I'm supporting is appointments limited to 12-15 years of service. Lifetime appointments should be ended. Ideally a certain number of vacancies occur in each presidential term. And nominees should be required to have a floor vote. It's outrageous one dude (majority leader) can block candidates who may get enough votes for confirmation.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I oppose court packing because the GOP will do the same once they come back to power. What I'm supporting is appointments limited to 12-15 years of service. Lifetime appointments should be ended. Ideally a certain number of vacancies occur in each presidential term. And nominees should be required to have a floor vote. It's outrageous one dude (majority leader) can block candidates who may get enough votes for confirmation.

I really, really hate this framing from people ostensibly on the left, that Republicans only do bad things because they're copying us. It's not true, and it's fighting from a defensive crouch that concedes every bit of bulls**t they want to spew. We should really stop doing it.

[TDAS04]

I generally oppose it, though maybe the option should be kept as a last resort in extreme circumstances.

[Orser67]

I think it's the single worst idea kicking around on the left today. It would be incredibly destabilizing for our country, but it wouldn't even be effective in the long term since the GOP could just counter-pack the court, especially when you consider the fact that the GOP has a structural advantage in the Senate and is likely to have at least partial control of the judicial nomination process in most Congresses.

[TML]

Remember that even though FDR did not succeed in increasing the size of the Supreme Court, he did succeed in getting at least one justice to start ruling in favor of his legislation after previously ruling against them. If the next Democratic president manages to get at least one conservative justice to flip by threatening to pack the court, I would still consider that a win.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I oppose court packing because the GOP will do the same once they come back to power. What I'm supporting is appointments limited to 12-15 years of service. Lifetime appointments should be ended. Ideally a certain number of vacancies occur in each presidential term. And nominees should be required to have a floor vote. It's outrageous one dude (majority leader) can block candidates who may get enough votes for confirmation.

I really, really hate this framing from people ostensibly on the left, that Republicans only do bad things because they're copying us. It's not true, and it's fighting from a defensive crouch that concedes every bit of bulls**t they want to spew. We should really stop doing it.

Lmao Harry Reid is the one who started the trend of blocking judges in the Bush years and sometimes he stalled them from years and then he was the one who first got rid of the judicial filibuster . You guys are not innocent by any means

[Santander]

Lmao Harry Reid is the one who started the trend of blocking judges in the Bush years and sometimes he stalled them from years and then he was the one who first got rid of the judicial filibuster . You guys are not innocent by any means

The filibuster is not an essential part of the Senate's functioning, and he only did it because of Republican obstructionism. Republicans started virtually every stupid partisan conflict that exists today.

[Illiniwek]

Terrible idea. Once they start, Republicans will do it better/worse. There is no other way it ends other than growing at a never-ending exponential rate.

Really simple. 18 year terms. New justice every other year. Next outgoing justice is Chief Justice. No re-appointments.

[DrScholl]

I am all for it. Add 2 more seats under the idea that there are 11 circuits. After McConnell stole a seat it's the right thing to do to achieve a balance on the court.

[TDAS04]

Terrible idea. Once they start, Republicans will do it better/worse. There is no other way it ends other than growing at a never-ending exponential rate.

Really simple. 18 year terms. New justice every other year. Next outgoing justice is Chief Justice. No re-appointments.

This is a good idea.  Hard to change the Constitution, but a good idea nonetheless.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I'm a new red avatar, but much like the legislative filibuster, this is a third rail that both parties fear breaking for fear the other side will use it far more excessively. The only way I can see it happening is if Trump gets to replace Thomas/Ginsburg/Breyer in his second term and it truly becomes "The Trump Court". And then I could see them shutting down court-packing anyway.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I love threads like this. Reminds me why Trump is right to call people like the OP “the enemy” because they are the enemy.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Really simple. 18 year terms. New justice every other year. Next outgoing justice is Chief Justice. No re-appointments.

This is an idea I could get behind.

[Yellowhammer]

That’s ok, any government that does pack the city’s forfeits it’s right to continue existing.

[OSR stands with Israel]

If Democrats try to do this I hope republicans obstruct that president at least 5 times more than they did to Obama


Also if any democrat runs on this is they win the nomination, I will drop my never Trumpism in a second and will vote to re-elect Trump as that Democrat will have proven that they totally hate democracy , and are a total threat to our constitution .

[Orser67]

Remember that even though FDR did not succeed in increasing the size of the Supreme Court, he did succeed in getting at least one justice to start ruling in favor of his legislation after previously ruling against them. If the next Democratic president manages to get at least one conservative justice to flip by threatening to pack the court, I would still consider that a win.

Eh, the idea that court-packing changed the behavior of Roberts and Hughes is highly contested. And in the long term, the retirement of conservative leaning justices mattered more than the court-packing bill (which also, it should be noted, badly damaged FDR at the start of his second term):

Many popular histories today focus on the “switch in time that saved nine”—conservative Justice Owen Roberts’ public decision to start upholding New Deal measures barely two months after Roosevelt’s proposal. But, as some historians have noted, Roberts’ decision to “switch” had been made long before Roosevelt’s plan was unveiled and did little to persuade either the president or Democrats in Congress to back down from their court reform proposal. It was only after Congress passed a bill that restored justices’ full pensions, separate from Roosevelt’s overall package, and Van Devanter retired at his full salary in May 1937 that FDR’s allies gave up the fight for the larger court reform bill.