Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead

[Abolish ICE]

I've found it interesting that the primary example of court-packing-FDR's plan of 1937, and its derailment by Congress and by the Court itself-hasn't been noted on here. Instead, now we are going back to the nineteenth century, and the lessons from that time period as well are being misconstrued or misinterpreted, if not dismissed altogether. Going to the FDR example, he acted against the Court out of frustration on its rulings concerning many of his New Deal policies-a clearly partisan, or political consideration.

He tried to justify his packing by saying it would make the Court more "efficient" through promoting turnover among the older Justices. But these reasons were not bought by members of Congress, who recognized it as the effort it truly was-to mold the institution into his liking. And it was not sanctioned. Ultimately, Roosevelt was able to steer the Court his way through the normal confirmation process. If Democrats now try to revive the court-packing plan, they may find that success is transitory, and could very well set themselves down a path that will undermine their future policy goals.

Actually, what initially steered the Court Roosevelt’s way was the threat of court packing (hence, the switch in time that saved nine).  Regardless, Republicans are already packing the Court and as far as we’re concerned any hand-wringing about potential retaliation or damage to the institution is beside the point.  Republican Court-packing will have already irreparably destroyed the Court’s legitimacy and reduced it to little more than a blunt instrument of crude political subjugation.  As for policy or threats of retaliation, the consequences of not responding in kind to Republican court packing are worse than anything you guys can threaten us with.  

I believe you’re (unlike most conservatives arguing against court-packing) making your arguments in good-faith, but what you don’t seem to understand is that this isn’t really up for debate at this point.  Tbh, it’s really quite simple.  If Trump fills Ginsberg’s seat without winning re-election and the Senate flips then the Supreme Court will be (un)packed, the filibuster will be abolished outright or severely weakened at the very least (and certainly abolished for some things like admitting new states and adding SCOTUS seats), and D.C./Puerto Rico* will be added as new states.

*and hopefully they throw in American Samoa too

As far as most Democrats are concerned, this is the *minimum* acceptable proportional response to what Republicans have done and are preparing to do.  Frankly, there is nothing you or anyone else can say or do to change our minds on this.  I don’t mean that meanly or dismissively, it’s just a statement of fact.  

I'm very well aware of Justice Owen Roberts' shift, and I've mentioned that elsewhere. And at this point, I've discovered that your minds (and by "your", I'm meaning Atlas Democrats in general) are fixed on this, and that you're determined to pack the court if a Trump nominee gets confirmed (and even if such a nominee does not get confirmed). Republicans, on their part, have a long trail of grievances: not just the Kavanaugh hearing (which from their perspective was a "witch-hunt" against Kavanaugh), but also what happened to Robert Bork and Miguel Estrada. So they are fixed in their ways. It's impossible for the two sides to see reason on this.

We'd be unpacking the court.  In any case, I couldn't care less what imaginary grievances Republicans think they have at this point. 

[Badger]

OSR must be very happy that he found the reason he’s been looking for to vote for Trump

You're rendering him a great disservice. I don't think it's hypocritical for someone to dislike Trump, and yet to disapprove of court-packing schemes, or anything akin to it. And aside from that, Old School Republican isn't someone who likes to pick fights for their own sake. While I don't agree with much of what he says, and his arguments could certainly use further elaboration, he's far from the worst person here.

It is manifestly hypocritical for anyone to not consider the Republican Senate unprecedentedly freezing or immensely slow tracking Obama's judicial nominees for years, and then immediately railroading Trump's nominees through like an assembly line, plus the even more a historical bait and switch between refusing to give Merrick Garland a hearing, and now trying to cramp through Trump's nominee six weeks before an election, is anything short of "court packing".

Taken in those entirely reasonable definitions, the proposal to expand the Supreme Court to 11 seats is play arguably nothing more than UNDOING court packing. AT WORSE, it is nothing worse than Tit for Tat at best. Unless these Republicans at any point voiced disapproval over such tactics --and osr has made it as clear as any other Republican on this forum that his penultimate goal in the judiciary's to see it stacked with "strict constructionalists" (I.e. reliable votes for a 5-4 hard right majority)-- that even relatively principled conservatives like osr can be rightly accused of being willing to use the excuse of Democrat countermeasures being "Court-packing" as an excuse for their side to win. Which is exactly the opposite of what filling judicial vacancies should be about.

As I've said before, I didn't condone what was done to Garland, and I still don't believe that Kavanaugh should have been confirmed-another, equally qualified conservative nominee should have been put forth by Republicans in his place. But matching wrong with wrong isn't the correct course of action, and establishes a terrible precedent that will be utilized in the future. Nor do I think Supreme Court Justices, whether they are strict constructionists or adherents to the "living Constitution", ought to be cast from the bench for adhering to such judicial philosophies.

There are basic principles under which our country operates, but to say that one cannot apply different approaches for interpreting this principles is wrong, and it's equally wrong to say that one approach is completely correct, to the exclusion of all others. Kelo vs. New London is an example of how liberal philosophies towards constitutional protection can be wrought with flaws that undermine the integrity of our system.

2016 was an invented precedent. We either follow those rules, or other president doesn't matter when we're talking about the structure of the court for the next 30 to 40 years.

My friend, while I know it's tempting to both sides issues, the fact is that Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party have killed President, buried it, and salted the Earth over its grave site. Expanding the court by two members does nothing more than undo the thrashing of President, not re-establish terrible precedent.

And again, let's never forget for a second that if McConnell and Trump were to tomorrow say that they would adhere to what happened in 2016 and wait until after the election results to decide who nominates the next Justice, this discussion of expanding the court would disappear overnight. Precedent is being destroyed before our eyes, so we can't rely on other previously established precedent to realistically deal with the new situation handed to us by the horses destroying it.

I'm not trying to rely upon "both sidesism" to argue that Democratic anger at McConnell's actions is completely unjustified. What I'm trying to highlight is that there is an alarming lack of foresight by many posters on here, and their confidence that Democrats will be able, or willing, to take all of the steps which have been proposed. It's been emphasized numerous times that Republicans aren't going to take a Democratic court-packing scheme lying down and that they will retaliate when the opportunity arises.

They won't "retaliate"; they will take unilateral preemptive attempts to gain power whenever and however possible. Whatever you're thinking of in terms of "worstcase scenario" response, the Republicans need exactly zero encouragement or incentive to try anyway.

[Helsinkian]

https://twitter.com/sonuvafitch/status/1308089816181952512

[Calthrina950]

I've found it interesting that the primary example of court-packing-FDR's plan of 1937, and its derailment by Congress and by the Court itself-hasn't been noted on here. Instead, now we are going back to the nineteenth century, and the lessons from that time period as well are being misconstrued or misinterpreted, if not dismissed altogether. Going to the FDR example, he acted against the Court out of frustration on its rulings concerning many of his New Deal policies-a clearly partisan, or political consideration.

He tried to justify his packing by saying it would make the Court more "efficient" through promoting turnover among the older Justices. But these reasons were not bought by members of Congress, who recognized it as the effort it truly was-to mold the institution into his liking. And it was not sanctioned. Ultimately, Roosevelt was able to steer the Court his way through the normal confirmation process. If Democrats now try to revive the court-packing plan, they may find that success is transitory, and could very well set themselves down a path that will undermine their future policy goals.

Actually, what initially steered the Court Roosevelt’s way was the threat of court packing (hence, the switch in time that saved nine).  Regardless, Republicans are already packing the Court and as far as we’re concerned any hand-wringing about potential retaliation or damage to the institution is beside the point.  Republican Court-packing will have already irreparably destroyed the Court’s legitimacy and reduced it to little more than a blunt instrument of crude political subjugation.  As for policy or threats of retaliation, the consequences of not responding in kind to Republican court packing are worse than anything you guys can threaten us with.  

I believe you’re (unlike most conservatives arguing against court-packing) making your arguments in good-faith, but what you don’t seem to understand is that this isn’t really up for debate at this point.  Tbh, it’s really quite simple.  If Trump fills Ginsberg’s seat without winning re-election and the Senate flips then the Supreme Court will be (un)packed, the filibuster will be abolished outright or severely weakened at the very least (and certainly abolished for some things like admitting new states and adding SCOTUS seats), and D.C./Puerto Rico* will be added as new states.

*and hopefully they throw in American Samoa too

As far as most Democrats are concerned, this is the *minimum* acceptable proportional response to what Republicans have done and are preparing to do.  Frankly, there is nothing you or anyone else can say or do to change our minds on this.  I don’t mean that meanly or dismissively, it’s just a statement of fact.  

I'm very well aware of Justice Owen Roberts' shift, and I've mentioned that elsewhere. And at this point, I've discovered that your minds (and by "your", I'm meaning Atlas Democrats in general) are fixed on this, and that you're determined to pack the court if a Trump nominee gets confirmed (and even if such a nominee does not get confirmed). Republicans, on their part, have a long trail of grievances: not just the Kavanaugh hearing (which from their perspective was a "witch-hunt" against Kavanaugh), but also what happened to Robert Bork and Miguel Estrada. So they are fixed in their ways. It's impossible for the two sides to see reason on this.

We'd be unpacking the court.  In any case, I couldn't care less what imaginary grievances Republicans think they have at this point. 

By exchanging a conservative majority for a liberal one? I'm not sure how one can call that "unpacking", if by that term you mean making the Court a fairer and more impartial institution.

[Abolish ICE]

I've found it interesting that the primary example of court-packing-FDR's plan of 1937, and its derailment by Congress and by the Court itself-hasn't been noted on here. Instead, now we are going back to the nineteenth century, and the lessons from that time period as well are being misconstrued or misinterpreted, if not dismissed altogether. Going to the FDR example, he acted against the Court out of frustration on its rulings concerning many of his New Deal policies-a clearly partisan, or political consideration.

He tried to justify his packing by saying it would make the Court more "efficient" through promoting turnover among the older Justices. But these reasons were not bought by members of Congress, who recognized it as the effort it truly was-to mold the institution into his liking. And it was not sanctioned. Ultimately, Roosevelt was able to steer the Court his way through the normal confirmation process. If Democrats now try to revive the court-packing plan, they may find that success is transitory, and could very well set themselves down a path that will undermine their future policy goals.

Actually, what initially steered the Court Roosevelt’s way was the threat of court packing (hence, the switch in time that saved nine).  Regardless, Republicans are already packing the Court and as far as we’re concerned any hand-wringing about potential retaliation or damage to the institution is beside the point.  Republican Court-packing will have already irreparably destroyed the Court’s legitimacy and reduced it to little more than a blunt instrument of crude political subjugation.  As for policy or threats of retaliation, the consequences of not responding in kind to Republican court packing are worse than anything you guys can threaten us with.  

I believe you’re (unlike most conservatives arguing against court-packing) making your arguments in good-faith, but what you don’t seem to understand is that this isn’t really up for debate at this point.  Tbh, it’s really quite simple.  If Trump fills Ginsberg’s seat without winning re-election and the Senate flips then the Supreme Court will be (un)packed, the filibuster will be abolished outright or severely weakened at the very least (and certainly abolished for some things like admitting new states and adding SCOTUS seats), and D.C./Puerto Rico* will be added as new states.

*and hopefully they throw in American Samoa too

As far as most Democrats are concerned, this is the *minimum* acceptable proportional response to what Republicans have done and are preparing to do.  Frankly, there is nothing you or anyone else can say or do to change our minds on this.  I don’t mean that meanly or dismissively, it’s just a statement of fact.  

I'm very well aware of Justice Owen Roberts' shift, and I've mentioned that elsewhere. And at this point, I've discovered that your minds (and by "your", I'm meaning Atlas Democrats in general) are fixed on this, and that you're determined to pack the court if a Trump nominee gets confirmed (and even if such a nominee does not get confirmed). Republicans, on their part, have a long trail of grievances: not just the Kavanaugh hearing (which from their perspective was a "witch-hunt" against Kavanaugh), but also what happened to Robert Bork and Miguel Estrada. So they are fixed in their ways. It's impossible for the two sides to see reason on this.

We'd be unpacking the court.  In any case, I couldn't care less what imaginary grievances Republicans think they have at this point.  

By exchanging a conservative majority for a liberal one? I'm not sure how one can call that "unpacking", if by that term you mean making the Court a fairer and more impartial institution.

Both stealing Garland’s seat and the crap Republicans are trying to pull here are court packing. 

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

Why doesn't Trump nominee Bernie Sanders? That way Democrats will fight even harder to keep Trump's nominee from the bench.

(Joke I stole from Twitter. I couldn't help myself.)

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

Less humorous: Murkowski has backtracked on not supporting the nominee.

[Big Abraham]

Less humorous: Murkowski has backtracked on not supporting the nominee.

It doesn't matter whether she does or not anyway. The GOP would have to lose 4 votes, assuming all Democrats vote against, and we already know the position of Romney and Alexander (not like it was ever seriously in question anyway)

[Where's the Epstein Client List?]

Less humorous: Murkowski has backtracked on not supporting the nominee.

I find it odd that she refused to vote for Kavanaugh but is fine with rubber stamping Justice 'TBD.'

Maybe she's reacting to internal polls or Mitch is threatening her.

[7,052,770]

I've found it interesting that the primary example of court-packing-FDR's plan of 1937, and its derailment by Congress and by the Court itself-hasn't been noted on here. Instead, now we are going back to the nineteenth century, and the lessons from that time period as well are being misconstrued or misinterpreted, if not dismissed altogether. Going to the FDR example, he acted against the Court out of frustration on its rulings concerning many of his New Deal policies-a clearly partisan, or political consideration.

He tried to justify his packing by saying it would make the Court more "efficient" through promoting turnover among the older Justices. But these reasons were not bought by members of Congress, who recognized it as the effort it truly was-to mold the institution into his liking. And it was not sanctioned. Ultimately, Roosevelt was able to steer the Court his way through the normal confirmation process. If Democrats now try to revive the court-packing plan, they may find that success is transitory, and could very well set themselves down a path that will undermine their future policy goals.

Actually, what initially steered the Court Roosevelt’s way was the threat of court packing (hence, the switch in time that saved nine).  Regardless, Republicans are already packing the Court and as far as we’re concerned any hand-wringing about potential retaliation or damage to the institution is beside the point.  Republican Court-packing will have already irreparably destroyed the Court’s legitimacy and reduced it to little more than a blunt instrument of crude political subjugation.  As for policy or threats of retaliation, the consequences of not responding in kind to Republican court packing are worse than anything you guys can threaten us with.  

I believe you’re (unlike most conservatives arguing against court-packing) making your arguments in good-faith, but what you don’t seem to understand is that this isn’t really up for debate at this point.  Tbh, it’s really quite simple.  If Trump fills Ginsberg’s seat without winning re-election and the Senate flips then the Supreme Court will be (un)packed, the filibuster will be abolished outright or severely weakened at the very least (and certainly abolished for some things like admitting new states and adding SCOTUS seats), and D.C./Puerto Rico* will be added as new states.

*and hopefully they throw in American Samoa too

As far as most Democrats are concerned, this is the *minimum* acceptable proportional response to what Republicans have done and are preparing to do.  Frankly, there is nothing you or anyone else can say or do to change our minds on this.  I don’t mean that meanly or dismissively, it’s just a statement of fact.  

I'm very well aware of Justice Owen Roberts' shift, and I've mentioned that elsewhere. And at this point, I've discovered that your minds (and by "your", I'm meaning Atlas Democrats in general) are fixed on this, and that you're determined to pack the court if a Trump nominee gets confirmed (and even if such a nominee does not get confirmed). Republicans, on their part, have a long trail of grievances: not just the Kavanaugh hearing (which from their perspective was a "witch-hunt" against Kavanaugh), but also what happened to Robert Bork and Miguel Estrada. So they are fixed in their ways. It's impossible for the two sides to see reason on this.

We'd be unpacking the court.  In any case, I couldn't care less what imaginary grievances Republicans think they have at this point. 

By exchanging a conservative majority for a liberal one? I'm not sure how one can call that "unpacking", if by that term you mean making the Court a fairer and more impartial institution.

No, it would still be R+1 after the unpacking, which is where it should be given when the vacancies came open. Republicans have packed it to R+3 (assuming Trump's nominee is confirmed), and Biden should and hopefully will unpack it back to R+1.

[Calthrina950]

I've found it interesting that the primary example of court-packing-FDR's plan of 1937, and its derailment by Congress and by the Court itself-hasn't been noted on here. Instead, now we are going back to the nineteenth century, and the lessons from that time period as well are being misconstrued or misinterpreted, if not dismissed altogether. Going to the FDR example, he acted against the Court out of frustration on its rulings concerning many of his New Deal policies-a clearly partisan, or political consideration.

He tried to justify his packing by saying it would make the Court more "efficient" through promoting turnover among the older Justices. But these reasons were not bought by members of Congress, who recognized it as the effort it truly was-to mold the institution into his liking. And it was not sanctioned. Ultimately, Roosevelt was able to steer the Court his way through the normal confirmation process. If Democrats now try to revive the court-packing plan, they may find that success is transitory, and could very well set themselves down a path that will undermine their future policy goals.

Actually, what initially steered the Court Roosevelt’s way was the threat of court packing (hence, the switch in time that saved nine).  Regardless, Republicans are already packing the Court and as far as we’re concerned any hand-wringing about potential retaliation or damage to the institution is beside the point.  Republican Court-packing will have already irreparably destroyed the Court’s legitimacy and reduced it to little more than a blunt instrument of crude political subjugation.  As for policy or threats of retaliation, the consequences of not responding in kind to Republican court packing are worse than anything you guys can threaten us with.  

I believe you’re (unlike most conservatives arguing against court-packing) making your arguments in good-faith, but what you don’t seem to understand is that this isn’t really up for debate at this point.  Tbh, it’s really quite simple.  If Trump fills Ginsberg’s seat without winning re-election and the Senate flips then the Supreme Court will be (un)packed, the filibuster will be abolished outright or severely weakened at the very least (and certainly abolished for some things like admitting new states and adding SCOTUS seats), and D.C./Puerto Rico* will be added as new states.

*and hopefully they throw in American Samoa too

As far as most Democrats are concerned, this is the *minimum* acceptable proportional response to what Republicans have done and are preparing to do.  Frankly, there is nothing you or anyone else can say or do to change our minds on this.  I don’t mean that meanly or dismissively, it’s just a statement of fact.  

I'm very well aware of Justice Owen Roberts' shift, and I've mentioned that elsewhere. And at this point, I've discovered that your minds (and by "your", I'm meaning Atlas Democrats in general) are fixed on this, and that you're determined to pack the court if a Trump nominee gets confirmed (and even if such a nominee does not get confirmed). Republicans, on their part, have a long trail of grievances: not just the Kavanaugh hearing (which from their perspective was a "witch-hunt" against Kavanaugh), but also what happened to Robert Bork and Miguel Estrada. So they are fixed in their ways. It's impossible for the two sides to see reason on this.

We'd be unpacking the court.  In any case, I couldn't care less what imaginary grievances Republicans think they have at this point. 

By exchanging a conservative majority for a liberal one? I'm not sure how one can call that "unpacking", if by that term you mean making the Court a fairer and more impartial institution.

No, it would still be R+1 after the unpacking, which is where it should be given when the vacancies came open. Republicans have packed it to R+3 (assuming Trump's nominee is confirmed), and Biden should and hopefully will unpack it back to R+1.

At this point, it's useless for me to debate this point. I know you that you and JDB are convinced that Republicans have "rigged" the Court in their favor by confirming Trump's nominees. If Democrats go ahead with their court-packing scheme, would their detractors not be justified in calling it "rigging"? Adopting your line of logic, they would not be.

[Tartarus Sauce]

No, it would still be R+1 after the unpacking, which is where it should be given when the vacancies came open. Republicans have packed it to R+3 (assuming Trump's nominee is confirmed), and Biden should and hopefully will unpack it back to R+1.

At this point, it's useless for me to debate this point. I know you that you and JDB are convinced that Republicans have "rigged" the Court in their favor by confirming Trump's nominees. If Democrats go ahead with their court-packing scheme, would their detractors not be justified in calling it "rigging"? Adopting your line of logic, they would not be.

Probably, but I don't think Democrats care at this point. RBG's death and the response of McConnell are very much a straw the broke the camel's back for Democrats. They recognize now they aren't going to get anywhere purposely tying one hand behind their back out of restraint while facing an opponent that constantly hits below the belt.

[Ferguson97]

Less humorous: Murkowski has backtracked on not supporting the nominee.

Why do this when they don't even need her vote? I don't understand.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Less humorous: Murkowski has backtracked on not supporting the nominee.

Why do this when they don't even need her vote? I don't understand.

She doesn't want the extra hassle of having to get re-elected as a write-in candidate again.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Less humorous: Murkowski has backtracked on not supporting the nominee.

What she said before was that she opposed the process going forward right now, not necessarily that she'd vote down the nominee if it came to it.  I think this is Collins position as well.