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

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Adding a tenth to make is 6-4 is not unreasonable and would position them for the longer term. Manufacturing a majority for some cases (even if it depends on Roberts) would look like a power grab

[GeneralMacArthur]

Adding a tenth to make is 6-4 is not unreasonable and would position them for the longer term. Manufacturing a majority for some cases (even if it depends on Roberts) would look like a power grab

I don't care.  The Republicans already made up their own rules.  This is the world you created.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Adding a tenth to make is 6-4 is not unreasonable and would position them for the longer term. Manufacturing a majority for some cases (even if it depends on Roberts) would look like a power grab

An even number would be dumb.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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

They didn't steal anything, the senate has the power to reject any judges they want.

I did not agree with what the Senate did with Garland, but OSR is entirely right.

I didn't vote in the poll because either party has the right to introduce legislation in the Senate to increase the size of the SCOTUS.  Either party that does so does so at their own peril.  Such attempts have never been received well by either party.

[GoTfan]

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

They didn't steal anything, the senate has the power to reject any judges they want.

I did not agree with what the Senate did with Garland, but OSR is entirely right.

I didn't vote in the poll because either party has the right to introduce legislation in the Senate to increase the size of the SCOTUS.  Either party that does so does so at their own peril.  Such attempts have never been received well by either party.

They refused to even hold a hearing for him mate.

[GeneralMacArthur]

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

They didn't steal anything, the senate has the power to reject any judges they want.

I did not agree with what the Senate did with Garland, but OSR is entirely right.

I didn't vote in the poll because either party has the right to introduce legislation in the Senate to increase the size of the SCOTUS.  Either party that does so does so at their own peril.  Such attempts have never been received well by either party.

Things are different now.  The Republicans have shattered all semblance of decorum and adherence to fairness and historical values.  They've burned all possible bridges to pursue power in the short-term.  Now they get to suffer the consequences.

They created a world where there are no rules, and they profited from it for the last decade.  We're not going back until we undo all the damage they've done.

[Migrant Crime]

The President is constitutionally required to submit his nominee to the Senate for approval.  The Senate, in turn, has discretion to vote yes or no.  Obama did not submit a nominee suitable to the Senate in 2016, simple as that.  He should have worked with McConnell to find someone that Republicans would support.

[7,052,770]

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.

But that's not how McConnell and Republicans framed it, and that matters.

If they'd just been upfront about how Supreme Court nominations are just a game and they want as many Republicans as possible, then sure, confirming one now would be consistent. But when they swore up and down that it shouldn't happen in an election year (even knowing that Democrats confirmed a Reagan pick in 1988), if they adopt the exact opposite mindset 4 years later, it shows they're hypocrites who are totally full of sh**t and lied to the American people.

[7,052,770]

The President is constitutionally required to submit his nominee to the Senate for approval.  The Senate, in turn, has discretion to vote yes or no.  Obama did not submit a nominee suitable to the Senate in 2016, simple as that.  He should have worked with McConnell to find someone that Republicans would support.

McConnell framed it as a "rule" that it shouldn't happen in an election year, period. He can't (shouldn't) go back on that a mere 4 years later when his party can benefit.

If he'd just unmasked himself 4 years ago as "screw tradition, I'm just out for power" he could get away with it now, but he didn't.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The President is constitutionally required to submit his nominee to the Senate for approval.  The Senate, in turn, has discretion to vote yes or no.  Obama did not submit a nominee suitable to the Senate in 2016, simple as that.  He should have worked with McConnell to find someone that Republicans would support.

To be fair McConnell shouldnt have given the election year rule and said since we control the senate you have to appoint a strict constructionist to the court

[Fuzzy Bear]

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

They didn't steal anything, the senate has the power to reject any judges they want.

I did not agree with what the Senate did with Garland, but OSR is entirely right.

I didn't vote in the poll because either party has the right to introduce legislation in the Senate to increase the size of the SCOTUS.  Either party that does so does so at their own peril.  Such attempts have never been received well by either party.

Things are different now.  The Republicans have shattered all semblance of decorum and adherence to fairness and historical values.  They've burned all possible bridges to pursue power in the short-term.  Now they get to suffer the consequences.

They created a world where there are no rules, and they profited from it for the last decade.  We're not going back until we undo all the damage they've done.

Republicans could say the same about FDR and the New Deal years.  Indeed, they did (the few that were left).

Republicans vote Republican in no small measure because of the abortion issue.  Collins, Murkowski, and that worthless Romney abstaining would be as unacceptable to Republicans for whom the abortion issue sincerely matters as Democrats helping sink the nominations of Fortas and Thornberry in 1968 (although in Fortas's case, it may have been for the best).  If the actions of GOP Senators cause a SCOTUS seat to go to Democrats, I would certainly support the most stringent sort of party discipline be applied.

[Badger]

The President is constitutionally required to submit his nominee to the Senate for approval.  The Senate, in turn, has discretion to vote yes or no.  Obama did not submit a nominee suitable to the Senate in 2016, simple as that.  He should have worked with McConnell to find someone that Republicans would support.

They didnt vote, sport.. For several months. Because politics and power, not the Founders' design.

[Badger]

The President is constitutionally required to submit his nominee to the Senate for approval.  The Senate, in turn, has discretion to vote yes or no.  Obama did not submit a nominee suitable to the Senate in 2016, simple as that.  He should have worked with McConnell to find someone that Republicans would support.

To be fair McConnell shouldnt have given the election year rule and said since we control the senate you have to appoint a strict constructionist to the court

Thats not how it works, child.

[Democrats Hate Leftists More Than Predators]

They got their justification the moment Gorsuch was confirmed.

[ProudModerate2]

McConnell's words in 2016 were ...
"Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy" (by waiting until the new president took office).

[Migrant Crime]

The President is constitutionally required to submit his nominee to the Senate for approval.  The Senate, in turn, has discretion to vote yes or no.  Obama did not submit a nominee suitable to the Senate in 2016, simple as that.  He should have worked with McConnell to find someone that Republicans would support.

They didnt vote, sport.. For several months. Because politics and power, not the Founders' design.

They didn't vote but they should have.  He would have been voted down and we could have found a compromise.

[JGibson]

Yes, they are justified to pack the SCOTUS over what happened to Garland in 2016.

[Badger]

The President is constitutionally required to submit his nominee to the Senate for approval.  The Senate, in turn, has discretion to vote yes or no.  Obama did not submit a nominee suitable to the Senate in 2016, simple as that.  He should have worked with McConnell to find someone that Republicans would support.

They didnt vote, sport.. For several months. Because politics and power, not the Founders' design.

They didn't vote but they should have.  He would have been voted down and we could have found a compromise.

Liar. Values mean nothing to your ilk. Only power.

[Migrant Crime]

The President is constitutionally required to submit his nominee to the Senate for approval.  The Senate, in turn, has discretion to vote yes or no.  Obama did not submit a nominee suitable to the Senate in 2016, simple as that.  He should have worked with McConnell to find someone that Republicans would support.

They didnt vote, sport.. For several months. Because politics and power, not the Founders' design.

They didn't vote but they should have.  He would have been voted down and we could have found a compromise.

Liar. Values mean nothing to your ilk. Only power.

Oh well.  This seat will be filled anyway.

[Badger]

The President is constitutionally required to submit his nominee to the Senate for approval.  The Senate, in turn, has discretion to vote yes or no.  Obama did not submit a nominee suitable to the Senate in 2016, simple as that.  He should have worked with McConnell to find someone that Republicans would support.

They didnt vote, sport.. For several months. Because politics and power, not the Founders' design.

They didn't vote but they should have.  He would have been voted down and we could have found a compromise.

Liar. Values mean nothing to your ilk. Only power.

Oh well.  This seat will be filled anyway.

And we'll pack the court next year. Checkmate.

[Calthrina950]

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

They didn't steal anything, the senate has the power to reject any judges they want.

I did not agree with what the Senate did with Garland, but OSR is entirely right.

I didn't vote in the poll because either party has the right to introduce legislation in the Senate to increase the size of the SCOTUS.  Either party that does so does so at their own peril.  Such attempts have never been received well by either party.

My sentiments accord with this. While I don't think that the Supreme Court should be packed, I wouldn't be surprised if that is the course of action Democrats take, since I can guarantee that McConnell and Republicans are going to ram through a replacement for Ginsburg's seat, regardless of the consequences, and regardless of the political fallout. The cycle will repeat itself, and repeat itself, until the Supreme Court has a hundred members and is an ungovernable body. It's unfortunate, but it's the way things are headed.

[EastOfEden]

Was opposed to packing until today.

We’re justified in expanding to 11, and no further. Merrick Garland and whoever Biden intended to replace RBG with.

pardon the typo, I get my “people often known by their initials” confused lol

[ProudModerate2]

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

They didn't steal anything, the senate has the power to reject any judges they want.

I did not agree with what the Senate did with Garland, but OSR is entirely right.

I didn't vote in the poll because either party has the right to introduce legislation in the Senate to increase the size of the SCOTUS.  Either party that does so does so at their own peril.  Such attempts have never been received well by either party.

My sentiments accord with this. While I don't think that the Supreme Court should be packed, I wouldn't be surprised if that is the course of action Democrats take, since I can guarantee that McConnell and Republicans are going to ram through a replacement for Ginsburg's seat, regardless of the consequences, and regardless of the political fallout. The cycle will repeat itself, and repeat itself, until the Supreme Court has a hundred members and is an ungovernable body. It's unfortunate, but it's the way things are headed.

You are probably correct.
And it will be the Republicans who started this unfortunate game of un-ending expansion of the SC.

[ProudModerate2]

Was opposed to packing until today.
We’re justified in expanding to 11, and no further. Merrick Garland and whoever Biden intended to replace AOC with.

I was also.
In previous Atlas polls, I voted against doing this (though I was pissed-off in 2016).
But if McConnell goes through with this ... I say f them, and do it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Was opposed to packing until today.

We’re justified in expanding to 11, and no further. Merrick Garland and whoever Biden intended to replace AOC with.

You were opposed to packing until the question became 'for keeps".

I'm OK with people playing for keeps in politics.  Within the law, but for keeps.

McConnell isn't doing anything he doesn't have every right to do, and he had every right to use his position to block Garland's nomination, much as I disagreed with this at the time.