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

[Del Tachi]

You don't need "justification" for a political decision.  This isn't some schoolyard back-and-forth between Schumer and McConnell.  If there's a majority in the Senate to seat a Trump justice/expand the court, then it will happen. 

[Nyvin]

You don't need "justification" for a political decision.  This isn't some schoolyard back-and-forth between Schumer and McConnell.  If there's a majority in the Senate to seat a Trump justice/expand the court, then it will happen. 

Back-and-forth is how the majority of decisions in DC are made behind the scenes.

You kinda do need justification for things in Congress, that's how you get majority support for items when your dealing with 100 or 435 people.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

They are justified in a 'temporary pack'. Something like adding 2 immediately while making it clear to the public that this is due purely to rectify McConnell's cheating in Garland/whoever, and legally preventing future appointments until it goes back down to 9. This is of course dependent on who wins the senate.

A "temporary" adding of seats with a suspension of appointments until it goes back to a certain size is actually a way of securing control longer unless a counter pack happens, not a way to make a pack temporary. There is nothing particularly sacred about there being nine justices on the Supreme Court.

The only way forward that I can see to make the court system less political is for a fixed number of seats to be appointed each presidential term/Congress. Say, for example, one new Supreme Court Justice every two years, with a failure by the Senate to vote on a timely basis resulting in automatic approval.

[GeneralMacArthur]

To all those saying "Democrats can't do this, because Republicans will retaliate with the same kind of cheating when they get into power":

Why does the same argument not apply to Republicans?

Why is there no "Republicans can't cheat, because Democrats will retaliate with similar cheating when they get into power"?

Republicans are cheating right now as we speak.  They cheated in 2016, by inventing a completely made-up rule to justify violating the constitution by refusing to let the president nominate a new justice.  They cheated by removing the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees so they could push through extreme right-wing hacks who would never receive the 60 votes other nominees received.  And they are cheating now by completely ignoring the exact same made-up rule they invented in 2016, in an even more extreme version of the identical situation.  It couldn't be more nakedly obvious.

This is cheating.  Why shouldn't Democrats respond with similar cheating when they take power?  Why is it only Republicans who get to retaliate?

[Del Tachi]

You don't need "justification" for a political decision.  This isn't some schoolyard back-and-forth between Schumer and McConnell.  If there's a majority in the Senate to seat a Trump justice/expand the court, then it will happen. 

Back-and-forth is how the majority of decisions in DC are made behind the scenes.

You kinda do need justification for things in Congress, that's how you get majority support for items when your dealing with 100 or 435 people.

Framing this question as whether or not Democrats are "justified" in packing the Court turns this into some weird moral argument about what has always been a political institution.  Either party could pack the courts when it has the votes to do so, and it will live with the political consequences.  That doesn't change whether there's "justification" or not.

[Tartarus Sauce]

From a game theory perspective, yes, they are justified.

Whether it would be healthy for our body politic to have two procedurally radicalized parties is another matter entirely.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

From a game theory perspective, yes, they are justified.

Whether it would be healthy for our body politic to have two procedurally radicalized parties is another matter entirely.

Given the clear proof from previous elections that the public isn't going to punish procedural radicalism for its own sake, that would be healthier than having one.

[Blair]

To all those saying "Democrats can't do this, because Republicans will retaliate with the same kind of cheating when they get into power"

Why does the same argument not apply to Republicans?

Why is there no "Republicans can't cheat, because Democrats will retaliate with similar cheating when they get into power"?

Republicans are cheating right now as we speak.  They cheated in 2016, by inventing a completely made-up rule to justify violating the constitution by refusing to let the president nominate a new justice.  They cheated by removing the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees so they could push through extreme right-wing hacks who would never receive the 60 votes other nominees received.  And they are cheating now by completely ignoring the exact same made-up rule they invented in 2016, in an even more extreme version of the identical situation.  It couldn't be more nakedly obvious.

This is cheating.  Why shouldn't Democrats respond with similar cheating when they take power?  Why is it only Republicans who get to retaliate?

Yeah I don't get why people say this; it's like the GOP have a 6-3 majority through stealing two seats.

This is everything they've dreamt of; the consequences of doing this are just as bad as the consequences of not doing it.

[TDAS04]

From a game theory perspective, yes, they are justified.

Whether it would be healthy for our body politic to have two procedurally radicalized parties is another matter entirely.

It would be better to have two competing parties like that than one, especially if that party is in control.

[here2view]

Before yesterday I would have said no. Now I say yes.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

Yup.

Burn it all down. I'm officially in IDGAF mode at this point.

Months ago I would've been firmly against court-packing or supportive of Buttigieg's court reform plan as a compromise, but these hypocritical power grabs need to be reined in.

There is nothing hypocritical about Trump appointing a candidate for RBG's vacancy.  There is McConnell's hypocrisy, but that should not stop anything.

Republicans voted for other Republicans to make their mark on public policy, and this is how its done.  For Trump to NOT put a candidate forth and for Republicans to NOT confirm a qualified candidate would be a betrayal of those who voted Republican specifically for Originalist/Strict Constructionalist SCOTUS Justices and Federal Judges.

It's not written in any law book that a lame duck President or legislature has any less power by victue of their lame duck status.  Nowhere.  Their actions are as legitimate as anyone else's.  The argument against it is an emotional argument, but not a legal one. 

Do my elected legislators have a moral duty to consider the verdict of an election in what they will choose to advance and not advance during the lame duck period?  Somewhat, perhaps, but their supporters voted for them, arguably, because they share the same views on what is good and bad public policy.  Why should a legislative body not work to stop the implementation of public policy they believe on principle to be awful, or back off on supporting public policy they view as beneficial?  I fail to see the argument in favor of that.

And Democrats elected their congresspeople who pledged to block and obstruct anything that Trump or McConnell try to do. Schumer has already indicated that if a new majority is running the Senate next year, they will fulfill their promise of righting past wrongs.

Yes, McConnell's hypocrisy does matter. The "Biden Rule", as was cited in 2016, had absolutely no bearing on partisan control of the Senate. He is, as expected, moving the goal post so that he can rubberstamp Trump's nominees and fundamentally change the court system in favor of corporatists and religious fundamentalists.

But, as we both know, any "rules" are out the door, and even more so if Republicans dare to appoint a justice less than two months before an election - when Americans are already in the process of voting for who will be in the next government, or in the lame duck session if Trump is sent packing and McConnell's undeserved status as Majority Leader is revoked.

As to the court-packing fight, I say bring it on. We'll reverse your 10-3 conservative majority with a 23-10 liberal majority. We'll keep expanding the bench until the cows come home. Bring it on. The moment a new Trump nominee is confirmed is the moment when the Supreme Court begins to fail as an institution and loses its relevance.

Both our country and law and order will gradually diminish, and perhaps that is what the Good Lord intended for us. America's best days are behind us. The sooner people accept that, the better off we'll all be as we rebuild this nation from the ground-up. This will be the New America.

[ND, SD, MT, WY, and ID statehood was and is unconstitutional]

Absolutely

[Sbane]

Finish what FDR started.

In fact, do that in multiple respects: Pack the courts and get healthcare passed. Even if you have to kill the filibuster to do it.

Sure.  Go ahead and try.  FDR was crushed in 1938 when he tried this; it was one of his worst moves as President.

No one cares about that stuff anymore. Seriously. The economy basically imploded and we're up to almost 200,000 dead, and Trump's approval ratings barely took a hit. This is the kind of thing that would have killed an incumbent president back in those days, regardless if it was truly their fault or not.

The days where voters actually punish their party for failing or doing something bad in office are over (for now). Also, the Democratic base has already been moving towards favoring constitutional hardball anyway, so it's not like that would piss them off. At worst, it pisses indies off, but with the way things have gone for Obama and Trump, that was probably going to happen anyway.

Then go ahead and try.  In that case, I would recommend that the GOP move to pack the Court as well, so we can have a 10-3 conservative majority.

Two (2) can play at that game.

Dude last night you were saying the GOP should shove Barrett through a lame duck session if needed because muh abortion. Stop with this holier then thou/Dems are the ones politicalizing the court act when just embrace the hack you are. As annoying as “hahaha we hold all the power and can do whatever we want. Suck libs and cry lol” Woodbury and Sergi posting is at least they are actually being honest. It’s also clear from your posts last night as well that you feel the same way but are trying to act like your above it all

I'm fine with a nominee being approved, even as a lame duck.  I said that last night as well.

Democrats ARE politicizing the Court.  I've never said this was inherently wrong.  I'm saying that ramming through an appointment during the lame duck session may be unpopular with Democrats, but Democrats packing the Court is changing the rules, and that is something that, historically, gives people pause.

I've never said "playing politics" was this awful thing.  Politics is the process by which public policy gets hashed out.  The process works better at some points in time than in others, but "politics" is not a dirty word.

Republicans changed the rules when they denied a vote for Merrick Garland. You reap what you sow.

There is nothing legally that prevents any congress from expanding the court. Precedent dictates that it should not happen. Just like court nominees shouldn't be politicized and at the very least should be given an up or down vote. Though both sides have been playing with fire, the latest Republican move would be absolutely outrageous if they go through with it. So why shouldn't the Democrats do something just as outrageous? We can't just have one responsible party and the other that keeps on cheating and destroying the country.

[Sbane]

From a game theory perspective, yes, they are justified.

Whether it would be healthy for our body politic to have two procedurally radicalized parties is another matter entirely.

Unfortunately, the Democrats are going to be left with no choice but to retaliate. Republicans have shown they are completely irresponsible and will do whatever it takes to hang on to power. We are very quickly slipping away from being a Democracy. Anyone still voting for the Republicans is actively destroying this country.