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

[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.

[GeneralMacArthur]

(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.

I've never heard this idea before but I actually really like it.

[Alben Barkley]

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.

[President Johnson]

Yes, but it won't happen even if Democrats win a trifecta. The House may pass such legislation, but I don't see it going through a 50 or 51 seat senate. Even if the filibuster is nuked.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

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.

Democrats play by liberal democratic rules, Republicans play by the rules of Russia, China and the Philippines. Sad!

[Former President tack50]

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.

If you want a deliberately non-partisan court why not make it tied on purpose? (this would theoretically imply a 6-6 court, for a total of 12 justices)

[หมูเด้ง]

Yup.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

[Virginiá]

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.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

[MABA 2020]

Absolutely pack the courts

[7,052,770]

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.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if they try that in the lame duck period if Biden wins and Dems take the Senate.

[Hindsight was 2020]

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

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

[Nyvin]

Markey is all for it.

https://twitter.com/EdMarkey/status/1307122232850870274

[Calthrina950]

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.

I think this is something which is critical to keep in mind. While I don't think Republicans ought to be moving forward with this nomination now, given the precedent which they established in 2016, I also think-like I said last night-that packing the Court would not be the correct course of action either. Court-packing would destroy any remaining semblance of legitimacy which our judiciary professes to possess, and would make it clear that we are not a nation of laws; that instead, we are a nation guided only by political considerations, and not ones of a deeper or more legalistic nature.

[SInNYC]

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.

[Abolish ICE]

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.

I think this is something which is critical to keep in mind. While I don't think Republicans ought to be moving forward with this nomination now, given the precedent which they established in 2016, I also think-like I said last night-that packing the Court would not be the correct course of action either. Court-packing would destroy any remaining semblance of legitimacy which our judiciary professes to possess, and would make it clear that we are not a nation of laws; that instead, we are a nation guided only by political considerations, and not ones of a deeper or more legalistic nature.

As far as most Democrats (myself included) are concerned, SCOTUS' legitimacy has been on life support ever since Senate Republicans stole Garland's seat and then voted to put an attempted rapist on The Court.  If Republicans - having already done all that - now turn around in a situation identical to the Garland one and disregard their own precedent by ramming through a Trump nominee before the election or in lame duck session after losing the 2020 Presidential election (assuming Biden wins) then they'll have already destroyed any remaining semblance of legitimacy SCOTUS may possess.  

In other words, there will no reason to worry about court-packing's effect on the legitimacy of The Court because Republicans will have already irreparably destroyed the Court's legitimacy.  It will already have been reduced to little more than a blunt instrument with which to force one's political views upon the public.  Put simply, there will be no credibility left to destroy, so we might as well pack SCOTUS whenever we have the chance.

If Republicans don't want SCOTUS to be turned into a blunt instrument of political subjugation then they should leave the seat vacant until the next President has been sworn in.  Otherwise, anything that happens as a result (including court-packing) is their fault and The Court will have no legitimacy left to lose.

[Calthrina950]

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.

I think this is something which is critical to keep in mind. While I don't think Republicans ought to be moving forward with this nomination now, given the precedent which they established in 2016, I also think-like I said last night-that packing the Court would not be the correct course of action either. Court-packing would destroy any remaining semblance of legitimacy which our judiciary professes to possess, and would make it clear that we are not a nation of laws; that instead, we are a nation guided only by political considerations, and not ones of a deeper or more legalistic nature.

As far as most Democrats (myself included) are concerned, SCOTUS' legitimacy has been on life support ever since Senate Republicans stole Garland's seat and then voted to put an attempted rapist on The Court.  If Republicans - having already done all that - now turn around in a situation identical to the Garland one and disregard their own precedent by ramming through a Trump nominee before the election or in lame duck session after losing the 2020 Presidential election (assuming Biden wins) then they'll have already destroyed any remaining semblance of legitimacy SCOTUS may possess.  

In other words, there will no reason to worry about court-packing's effect on the legitimacy of The Court because Republicans will have already irreparably destroyed the Court's legitimacy.  It will already have been reduced to little more than a blunt instrument with which to force one's political views upon the public.  Put simply, there will be no credibility left to destroy, so we might as well pack SCOTUS whenever we have the chance.

If Republicans don't want SCOTUS to be turned into a blunt instrument of political subjugation then they should leave the seat vacant until the next President has been sworn in.  Otherwise, anything that happens as a result (including court-packing) is their fault and The Court will have no legitimacy left to lose.

Of course, you do realize that Republicans will retaliate if they get the chance? That is, if Democrats pack the Court with say, 5 additional Justices, Republicans will do the same when they obtain power again? The Court will expand and expand, until it has hundreds of members, rivaling Congress in scope, and becomes an ungovernable body. At that point, no one will give any heed to the Court's decisions, and you'll see states implementing blatantly unconstitutional laws, knowing that the Court won't have the means or the status necessary to enforce its mandates. I don't want to see such a situation, and I highly doubt that the Justices themselves want for the Court to be packed. They know that it would diminish their status and would upset the balance of power between the branches.

[Abolish ICE]

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.

I think this is something which is critical to keep in mind. While I don't think Republicans ought to be moving forward with this nomination now, given the precedent which they established in 2016, I also think-like I said last night-that packing the Court would not be the correct course of action either. Court-packing would destroy any remaining semblance of legitimacy which our judiciary professes to possess, and would make it clear that we are not a nation of laws; that instead, we are a nation guided only by political considerations, and not ones of a deeper or more legalistic nature.

As far as most Democrats (myself included) are concerned, SCOTUS' legitimacy has been on life support ever since Senate Republicans stole Garland's seat and then voted to put an attempted rapist on The Court.  If Republicans - having already done all that - now turn around in a situation identical to the Garland one and disregard their own precedent by ramming through a Trump nominee before the election or in lame duck session after losing the 2020 Presidential election (assuming Biden wins) then they'll have already destroyed any remaining semblance of legitimacy SCOTUS may possess.  

In other words, there will no reason to worry about court-packing's effect on the legitimacy of The Court because Republicans will have already irreparably destroyed the Court's legitimacy.  It will already have been reduced to little more than a blunt instrument with which to force one's political views upon the public.  Put simply, there will be no credibility left to destroy, so we might as well pack SCOTUS whenever we have the chance.

If Republicans don't want SCOTUS to be turned into a blunt instrument of political subjugation then they should leave the seat vacant until the next President has been sworn in.  Otherwise, anything that happens as a result (including court-packing) is their fault and The Court will have no legitimacy left to lose.

Of course, you do realize that Republicans will retaliate if they get the chance? That is, if Democrats pack the Court with say, 5 additional Justices, Republicans will do the same when they obtain power again? The Court will expand and expand, until it has hundreds of members, rivaling Congress in scope, and becomes an ungovernable body? At that point, no one will give any heed to the Court's decisions, and you'll see states implementing blatantly unconstitutional laws, knowing that the Court won't have the means or the status necessary to enforce its mandates. I don't want to see such a situation, and I highly doubt that the Justices themselves want for the Court to be packed. They know that it would diminish their status and would upset the balance of power between the branches.

The Court is already irreparably broken if Trump fills this seat.  Why waste time trying to salvage the unsalvageable?  And frankly, I don't care how the Justices feel about court-packing.  If Trump fills the seat, Democrats should pack SCOTUS first chance they get, period, end of story.

[Hindsight was 2020]

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.

I think this is something which is critical to keep in mind. While I don't think Republicans ought to be moving forward with this nomination now, given the precedent which they established in 2016, I also think-like I said last night-that packing the Court would not be the correct course of action either. Court-packing would destroy any remaining semblance of legitimacy which our judiciary professes to possess, and would make it clear that we are not a nation of laws; that instead, we are a nation guided only by political considerations, and not ones of a deeper or more legalistic nature.

As far as most Democrats (myself included) are concerned, SCOTUS' legitimacy has been on life support ever since Senate Republicans stole Garland's seat and then voted to put an attempted rapist on The Court.  If Republicans - having already done all that - now turn around in a situation identical to the Garland one and disregard their own precedent by ramming through a Trump nominee before the election or in lame duck session after losing the 2020 Presidential election (assuming Biden wins) then they'll have already destroyed any remaining semblance of legitimacy SCOTUS may possess.  

In other words, there will no reason to worry about court-packing's effect on the legitimacy of The Court because Republicans will have already irreparably destroyed the Court's legitimacy.  It will already have been reduced to little more than a blunt instrument with which to force one's political views upon the public.  Put simply, there will be no credibility left to destroy, so we might as well pack SCOTUS whenever we have the chance.

If Republicans don't want SCOTUS to be turned into a blunt instrument of political subjugation then they should leave the seat vacant until the next President has been sworn in.  Otherwise, anything that happens as a result (including court-packing) is their fault and The Court will have no legitimacy left to lose.

Of course, you do realize that Republicans will retaliate if they get the chance? That is, if Democrats pack the Court with say, 5 additional Justices, Republicans will do the same when they obtain power again? The Court will expand and expand, until it has hundreds of members, rivaling Congress in scope, and becomes an ungovernable body? At that point, no one will give any heed to the Court's decisions, and you'll see states implementing blatantly unconstitutional laws, knowing that the Court won't have the means or the status necessary to enforce its mandates. I don't want to see such a situation, and I highly doubt that the Justices themselves want for the Court to be packed. They know that it would diminish their status and would upset the balance of power between the branches.

The Court is already irreparably broken if Trump fills this seat.  Why waste time trying to salvage the unsalvageable?  And frankly, I don't care how the Justices feel about court-packing.  If Trump fills the seat, Democrats should pack SCOTUS first chance they get, period, end of story.

Amen. And if the courts do care about their image then they should man up right now and release a statement that not vote on the seat should be held until after the election

[ilikeverin]

To some extent, although I hope it's not the only thing we do; while we're at it, we need to make sure we make a better process.

[Calthrina950]

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.

I think this is something which is critical to keep in mind. While I don't think Republicans ought to be moving forward with this nomination now, given the precedent which they established in 2016, I also think-like I said last night-that packing the Court would not be the correct course of action either. Court-packing would destroy any remaining semblance of legitimacy which our judiciary professes to possess, and would make it clear that we are not a nation of laws; that instead, we are a nation guided only by political considerations, and not ones of a deeper or more legalistic nature.

As far as most Democrats (myself included) are concerned, SCOTUS' legitimacy has been on life support ever since Senate Republicans stole Garland's seat and then voted to put an attempted rapist on The Court.  If Republicans - having already done all that - now turn around in a situation identical to the Garland one and disregard their own precedent by ramming through a Trump nominee before the election or in lame duck session after losing the 2020 Presidential election (assuming Biden wins) then they'll have already destroyed any remaining semblance of legitimacy SCOTUS may possess.  

In other words, there will no reason to worry about court-packing's effect on the legitimacy of The Court because Republicans will have already irreparably destroyed the Court's legitimacy.  It will already have been reduced to little more than a blunt instrument with which to force one's political views upon the public.  Put simply, there will be no credibility left to destroy, so we might as well pack SCOTUS whenever we have the chance.

If Republicans don't want SCOTUS to be turned into a blunt instrument of political subjugation then they should leave the seat vacant until the next President has been sworn in.  Otherwise, anything that happens as a result (including court-packing) is their fault and The Court will have no legitimacy left to lose.

Of course, you do realize that Republicans will retaliate if they get the chance? That is, if Democrats pack the Court with say, 5 additional Justices, Republicans will do the same when they obtain power again? The Court will expand and expand, until it has hundreds of members, rivaling Congress in scope, and becomes an ungovernable body? At that point, no one will give any heed to the Court's decisions, and you'll see states implementing blatantly unconstitutional laws, knowing that the Court won't have the means or the status necessary to enforce its mandates. I don't want to see such a situation, and I highly doubt that the Justices themselves want for the Court to be packed. They know that it would diminish their status and would upset the balance of power between the branches.

The Court is already irreparably broken if Trump fills this seat.  Why waste time trying to salvage the unsalvageable?  And frankly, I don't care how the Justices feel about court-packing.  If Trump fills the seat, Democrats should pack SCOTUS first chance they get, period, end of story.

When Roosevelt tried to pack the Court in 1937, the Justices of that time were opposed to it-and Chief Justice Hughes worked behind the scenes to ensure that Roosevelt's court-packing scheme did not make it through Congress. Chief Justice Roberts has been doing the best he can to avert court-packing happening now, and he, along with the other Justices, recognize the threat it would pose to an institution already shackled by the constraints of our present political system. As I've said, court-packing is a mechanism that will backfire on Democrats.

[Ferguson97]

I'm all out of f-cks to give. Pack the courts.