Are Democrats justified in packing the Supreme Court if Republicans push through a new justice?

[7,052,770]

I've been a little wary of Court packing schemes, but if Republicans are so brazenly partisan and hypocritical, then yes, expand to 11 or 15 to punch back.

[WD]

Absolutely

[Badger]

Hell yes. Create two new seats for Garland Merrick and a Justice of Biden's Choice. F*** the Trump party!

[GeneralMacArthur]

Absolutely.  If the Republicans steal this seat I am fully on board with any and all cheating.  TBH I would even be on board with things that I can't mention because of this forum's code of conduct.  Our democracy is being stolen right in front of our eyes and it couldn't be any more blatantly obvious than what Mitch McConnell is about to do.

Is it even cheating if there are no rules?  Republicans have essentially declared that the rules don't apply to them.  What is the point in playing a game where only one side follows the rules.  The stakes are too high.  Democrats should fight fire with nuclear weapons and do whatever is necessary to block this absolute obscenity.

[Suburbia]

Probably.

But it shows that politics is broken

[TDAS04]

Yes.

[You are responsible]

Probably.

But it shows that politics is broken

Perhaps the first bronz post I fully agreed with? And for that the only thing that had to happen was RBG dying.

[SteveRogers]

Yeah, absolutely. I still think it’s a pretty bad plan, but it seems that we’ll be backed into a corner with little other choice.

[Abolish ICE]

We were already justified in packing SCOTUS since the Republicans stole Garland's seat.

[Badger]

Probably.

But it shows that politics is broken

Perhaps the first bronz post I fully agreed with? And for that the only thing that had to happen was RBG dying.

[Frodo]

Why stop there?  We have thirteen Appeals Courts across the country that Trump and McConnell have been filling up.  We should go after those too. 

[OSR stands with Israel]

We were already justified in packing SCOTUS since the Republicans stole Garland's seat.

They didnt steal anything, the senate has the power to reject any judges they want.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Absolutely.  If the Republicans steal this seat I am fully on board with any and all cheating.  TBH I would even be on board with things that I can't mention because of this forum's code of conduct.  Our democracy is being stolen right in front of our eyes and it couldn't be any more blatantly obvious than what Mitch McConnell is about to do.

Is it even cheating if there are no rules?  Republicans have essentially declared that the rules don't apply to them.  What is the point in playing a game where only one side follows the rules.  The stakes are too high.  Democrats should fight fire with nuclear weapons and do whatever is necessary to block this absolute obscenity.

I'm skeptical this sentiment runs deep. The 2020 nomination was always going to be won by whoever could appeal best to what Republican anger provoked in the Democratic electorate and, ultimately, the most powerful force in there was fear (Biden won with a fear-based campaign, after all: "Settle for Joe" because you have to lower your ambitions to win anything). The vast majority of Democrats are probably still more open to fear-based campaigning than the hope which died with Obama or the anger that Sanders/Warren failed to rouse (even they had to rely on electability-based fear to an extent!). If court packing is ever seriously considered, the opposition (and by that I do not just mean Republicans) will run a successful public awareness campaign to crush support for such a proposition.

There's got to a breaking point somewhere, but I really doubt this is it. Prouder populations have quietly endured worse.

[GeneralMacArthur]

We were already justified in packing SCOTUS since the Republicans stole Garland's seat.

They didnt steal anything, the senate has the power to reject any judges they want.

Obama could literally have nominated Neil Gorsuch and the Senate wouldn't have held hearings on him.  It's unconstitutional to abstain from doing your job as specified in the constitution.  And doing so for political purposes goes against everything the founding fathers intended.

Imagine if John Roberts simply refused to call the Supreme Court into session, or refused to administer any oaths of office.  Or imagine if Democrats controlled the Senate and refused to hold hearings on any of Trump's cabinet nominees.  That's the equivalent.

[OSR stands with Israel]

We were already justified in packing SCOTUS since the Republicans stole Garland's seat.

They didnt steal anything, the senate has the power to reject any judges they want.

Obama could literally have nominated Neil Gorsuch and the Senate wouldn't have held hearings on him.  It's unconstitutional to abstain from doing your job as specified in the constitution.  And doing so for political purposes goes against everything the founding fathers intended.

Imagine if John Roberts simply refused to call the Supreme Court into session, or refused to administer any oaths of office.  Or imagine if Democrats controlled the Senate and refused to hold hearings on any of Trump's cabinet nominees.  That's the equivalent.

They should have held hearing but would have had every right to reject him, just like Democratic senate could do same thing to any Trump justice

[Badger]

We were already justified in packing SCOTUS since the Republicans stole Garland's seat.

They didnt steal anything, the senate has the power to reject any judges they want.

"Power justifies everything".

[GeneralMacArthur]

We were already justified in packing SCOTUS since the Republicans stole Garland's seat.

They didnt steal anything, the senate has the power to reject any judges they want.

Obama could literally have nominated Neil Gorsuch and the Senate wouldn't have held hearings on him.  It's unconstitutional to abstain from doing your job as specified in the constitution.  And doing so for political purposes goes against everything the founding fathers intended.

Imagine if John Roberts simply refused to call the Supreme Court into session, or refused to administer any oaths of office.  Or imagine if Democrats controlled the Senate and refused to hold hearings on any of Trump's cabinet nominees.  That's the equivalent.

They should have held hearing but would have had every right to reject him, just like Democratic senate could do same thing to any Trump justice

That's completely different from what they did.

[SteveRogers]

We were already justified in packing SCOTUS since the Republicans stole Garland's seat.

They didnt steal anything, the senate has the power to reject any judges they want.

That doesn’t change the fact that what they did was downright immoral. If you don’t care if your party leaders have morals, that’s on you.

[OSR stands with Israel]

We were already justified in packing SCOTUS since the Republicans stole Garland's seat.

They didnt steal anything, the senate has the power to reject any judges they want.

Obama could literally have nominated Neil Gorsuch and the Senate wouldn't have held hearings on him.  It's unconstitutional to abstain from doing your job as specified in the constitution.  And doing so for political purposes goes against everything the founding fathers intended.

Imagine if John Roberts simply refused to call the Supreme Court into session, or refused to administer any oaths of office.  Or imagine if Democrats controlled the Senate and refused to hold hearings on any of Trump's cabinet nominees.  That's the equivalent.

They should have held hearing but would have had every right to reject him, just like Democratic senate could do same thing to any Trump justice

That's completely different from what they did.

Fully agree and they should have said to Obama we will only confirm Strict Constructionists to the court instead of making a bs rule

[Badger]

We were already justified in packing SCOTUS since the Republicans stole Garland's seat.

They didnt steal anything, the senate has the power to reject any judges they want.

Obama could literally have nominated Neil Gorsuch and the Senate wouldn't have held hearings on him.  It's unconstitutional to abstain from doing your job as specified in the constitution.  And doing so for political purposes goes against everything the founding fathers intended.

Imagine if John Roberts simply refused to call the Supreme Court into session, or refused to administer any oaths of office.  Or imagine if Democrats controlled the Senate and refused to hold hearings on any of Trump's cabinet nominees.  That's the equivalent.

They should have held hearing but would have had every right to reject him, just like Democratic senate could do same thing to any Trump justice

That's completely different from what they did.

Fully agree and they should have said to Obama we will only confirm Strict Constructionists to the court instead of making a bs rule

OR they shoukdve subje tex the nominee to an up or down vote.

[ProudModerate2]

We were already justified in packing SCOTUS since the Republicans stole Garland's seat.

They didnt steal anything, the senate has the power to reject any judges they want.

They didn't "reject" the nominee. McTurtle refused the process to start all-together.
Big difference.

[OSR stands with Israel]

We were already justified in packing SCOTUS since the Republicans stole Garland's seat.

They didnt steal anything, the senate has the power to reject any judges they want.

Obama could literally have nominated Neil Gorsuch and the Senate wouldn't have held hearings on him.  It's unconstitutional to abstain from doing your job as specified in the constitution.  And doing so for political purposes goes against everything the founding fathers intended.

Imagine if John Roberts simply refused to call the Supreme Court into session, or refused to administer any oaths of office.  Or imagine if Democrats controlled the Senate and refused to hold hearings on any of Trump's cabinet nominees.  That's the equivalent.

They should have held hearing but would have had every right to reject him, just like Democratic senate could do same thing to any Trump justice

That's completely different from what they did.

Fully agree and they should have said to Obama we will only confirm Strict Constructionists to the court instead of making a bs rule

OR they shoukdve subje tex the nominee to an up or down vote.

Yah and say reason we are rejecting is for that reason

[Badger]

We were already justified in packing SCOTUS since the Republicans stole Garland's seat.

They didnt steal anything, the senate has the power to reject any judges they want.

Obama could literally have nominated Neil Gorsuch and the Senate wouldn't have held hearings on him.  It's unconstitutional to abstain from doing your job as specified in the constitution.  And doing so for political purposes goes against everything the founding fathers intended.

Imagine if John Roberts simply refused to call the Supreme Court into session, or refused to administer any oaths of office.  Or imagine if Democrats controlled the Senate and refused to hold hearings on any of Trump's cabinet nominees.  That's the equivalent.

They should have held hearing but would have had every right to reject him, just like Democratic senate could do same thing to any Trump justice

That's completely different from what they did.

Fully agree and they should have said to Obama we will only confirm Strict Constructionists to the court instead of making a bs rule

OR they shoukdve subje tex the nominee to an up or down vote.

Yah and say reason we are rejecting is for that reason

Whatever. "Power justifies everything".

[GoTfan]

People have seen my comments about pacing the court before. Everyone on this forum knows i don't like the idea of doing it.

If Republicans want to bulldoze their way through, then bulldoze them right back.

[ProudModerate2]

We were already justified in packing SCOTUS since the Republicans stole Garland's seat.

They didnt steal anything, the senate has the power to reject any judges they want.

Obama could literally have nominated Neil Gorsuch and the Senate wouldn't have held hearings on him.  It's unconstitutional to abstain from doing your job as specified in the constitution.  And doing so for political purposes goes against everything the founding fathers intended.

Imagine if John Roberts simply refused to call the Supreme Court into session, or refused to administer any oaths of office.  Or imagine if Democrats controlled the Senate and refused to hold hearings on any of Trump's cabinet nominees.  That's the equivalent.

They should have held hearing but would have had every right to reject him, just like Democratic senate could do same thing to any Trump justice

"They should have" is not what they actually did.