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

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

You know, in 2045 when the Democrats expand the court from 150 million to 300 million, I'll be happy to see all of in the giant Supreme Court Stadium. 

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Yes. This is a time where intellectual honesty must take precedence over partisan politics. Republicans would be violating their own precedent that they just set four years ago. I’m sure there are some blue avatars that can come up with some loophole for why it really isn’t defying the precedent they set with Gorsuch’s seat, but that’s just not true. Ramming a nominee through would be a short term and hollow victory for Republicans and would ultimately not benefit anybody.

[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.

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.

Sorry, but all your arguments don't wash away what McTurtle told the nation in 2016.
McConnell reasoning was "Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy" (by waiting until the new president took office).

[GeneralMacArthur]

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.

I've been opposed to packing because I hoped that when Joe Biden became president and Democrats re-took control of the Senate we could go back to some semblance of normal governance and restore rule of law and constitutional principles.  Court packing wasn't a part of that.

Unfortunately, conservatives have now succeeded in adding 3 conservative activist judges to the Thomas/Alito bloc, thus ensuring that no matter what, they can legislate from the bench for the next two decades and prevent us from ever returning to rule of law, from ever regaining constitutional principles.  This has been the plan all along.  It's not a secret.  Trump has bragged about it at his rallies.  Conservatives think tanks have nursed this dream for decades.  And it's not because they're oh-so-excited about "strict constitutionalism" which is just a motte-and-bailey facade the most Republicans have long since given up on even trying to maintain.

So really, court-packing is the only way to get back to constitutional normality.  Otherwise this 5-man ruling council conservatives have been gifted will be able to block any attempt to return to normal for decades to come.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

15 is a bit much, but 11 (or maybe 13) is reasonable. Back before the Radical Republicans downsized the Court to keep Andrew Johnson from appointing any Justices, the number of Justices equaled the number of Circuits. We currently have 11 numbered circuits plus the D.C. and the Federal circuits.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Is it really packing if it comes with new circuits for new states?

[Senator Sirius]

I used to be a hard no on this, but a 6-3 court, especially in this political era, would be so terrible that I've changed my mind. I'd still prefer to make it only a one member Democratic majority since my ideal court is as non-partisan as possible and that would probably be the closest we can get. I wouldn't want to see a 9-6 court though.

[ShadowRocket]

Yes. Besides, I've always like the idea of the number of seats corresponding to the number of circuit appeal courts. So I think the number should be expanded to 13 anyway.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Is it really packing if it comes with new circuits for new states?

D.C. Already has a circuit of its own and Puerto Rico is part of the First Circuit.  (Virgin Islands are part of the Third, Guam and NMI are part of the Ninth.)

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

100% JUSTIFIED.

[Darthpi - Crush the Oligarchy]

Absolutely

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Is it really packing if it comes with new circuits for new states?

D.C. Already has a circuit of its own and Puerto Rico is part of the First Circuit.  (Virgin Islands are part of the Third, Guam and NMI are part of the Ninth.)

The territory of D.C. does. D.C. statehood would happen by separating the vast majority of the new state from DC’s territory (as opposed to amending the constitution to turn the entire territory into a state).

Couldn’t one make the case that statehood might mean PR required a new circuit anyway?

[GeneralMacArthur]

Is it really packing if it comes with new circuits for new states?

D.C. Already has a circuit of its own and Puerto Rico is part of the First Circuit.  (Virgin Islands are part of the Third, Guam and NMI are part of the Ninth.)

The territory of D.C. does. D.C. statehood would happen by separating the vast majority of the new state from DC’s territory (as opposed to amending the constitution to turn the entire territory into a state).

Couldn’t one make the case that statehood might mean PR required a new circuit anyway?

I'm not clear on the technical details of DC statehood, but if you do that, wouldn't the rump DC still have 3 electoral votes, and the state of DC also 3, forcing fivethirtyeight.com to change its name to fivefortyone.com?

[ibagli]

Is it really packing if it comes with new circuits for new states?

D.C. Already has a circuit of its own and Puerto Rico is part of the First Circuit.  (Virgin Islands are part of the Third, Guam and NMI are part of the Ninth.)

The territory of D.C. does. D.C. statehood would happen by separating the vast majority of the new state from DC’s territory (as opposed to amending the constitution to turn the entire territory into a state).

Couldn’t one make the case that statehood might mean PR required a new circuit anyway?

I'm not clear on the technical details of DC statehood, but if you do that, wouldn't the rump DC still have 3 electoral votes, and the state of DC also 3, forcing fivethirtyeight.com to change its name to fivefortyone.com?

Yes, but Congress decides how the district's electors are appointed, and the current statehood bill would just block them from being appointed at all.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

I mean if you pack, Republicans will just pack more when they get power again, thus collapsing the SCOTUS.

[7,052,770]

Is it really packing if it comes with new circuits for new states?

D.C. Already has a circuit of its own and Puerto Rico is part of the First Circuit.  (Virgin Islands are part of the Third, Guam and NMI are part of the Ninth.)

The territory of D.C. does. D.C. statehood would happen by separating the vast majority of the new state from DC’s territory (as opposed to amending the constitution to turn the entire territory into a state).

Couldn’t one make the case that statehood might mean PR required a new circuit anyway?

I'm not clear on the technical details of DC statehood, but if you do that, wouldn't the rump DC still have 3 electoral votes, and the state of DC also 3, forcing fivethirtyeight.com to change its name to fivefortyone.com?

It would probably be pretty easy to repeal that amendment by 2024 once DC is already a state.

[Pericles]

I mean if you pack, Republicans will just pack more when they get power again, thus collapsing the SCOTUS.

Perhaps, but it's not like the Supreme Court is a non-partisan impartial judge of the law right now. Maybe court-packing in the long-term will encourage a consensus to emerge on reforming the Court. In the meantime, Democrats should do what they can to ensure favorable political outcomes in Supreme Court decisions-rather than unilaterally disarming.

[Coastal_Elite]

Yes, they are 100% justified. The Republicans have proved their hypocrisy and will reap what they have sown.

[Mister Mets]

This question would be settled by voters in the 2022 midterms.

[7,052,770]

This question would be settled by voters in the 2022 midterms.

Why? What about the Americans who live in a state without a Senate election in 2022?

[Sbane]

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

I think this is the only thing that might work, if presented in that same way. Expanding any more would be serious overreach.

[The Righteous Tip of the Abundance Spear]

They did this in India and they now have an extremely politicized court of over 30 people.

[Yoda]

Yes (normal - had to say it!)

At LEAST 4 new SCOTUS seats. How many seats to add to all of the Courts of Appeals is a question worth of its own seperate thread.

[Where's the Epstein Client List?]

Solution:

(1) SCOTUS with 18 justices, each serving for 18-year nonrenewable terms staggered such that one gets replaced every year. If a justice dies or resigns in the middle of a term, they are replaced by someone who will finish out that term (but cannot be appointed to a new term in their own right).

(2) When cases are brought before the court, nine of the justices' names are drawn from a hat and those nine will hear that case. Maybe you get your case heard by 5 GOP judges and 4 Dem judges; maybe you get 3 GOP judges and 6 Dem judges. It's just luck of the draw.

(3) Justices must be under the age of 65 at the time of their confirmation to the SCOTUS.

[Badger]

You know, in 2045 when the Democrats expand the court from 150 million to 300 million, I'll be happy to see all of in the giant Supreme Court Stadium. 

Silence hypocrite.