Alternatives to Court Packing

[7,052,770]

Perhaps this is the time to start something new. Maybe the president makes a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court every July 1 or something, maybe with the qualification that if the Senate has already approved the candidate's appointment to the circuit courts, an additional confirmation isn't necessary.

It would lead to having a much larger Supreme Court, making each individual seat much less important, and you would know on a schedule when the next one is coming and that every presidential election means 4 justices. We desperately need to depoliticize the Courts, and even if Democrats go to 11/13 and are justified, Republicans would just add seats next time they have a trifecta regardless of whether it's logically justified or not, leading to Democrats adding and so on.

A corollary to this idea, that would take a constitutional amendment I think, would be that if the judge is already on the circuit courts and has been approved by the Senate, he does not need to be approved again to get on the Supreme Court - the president could just elevate. That would prevent an opposite party senate from just shutting down an appointment, because surely somebody on the circuit courts could be an acceptable appointment.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm sure 67 Senators are going to vote to give up control there.

[Migrant Crime]

I made a thread about this last year, asking for alternatives.

The endless arms race between Republicans and Democrats is not the answer, it won't lead anywhere but total destruction.  Court packing is simply a short term solution and Republicans would eventually respond in kind.

What we need is a grand bargain between the parties, something like the Compromise of 1850.  My idea would be to have the current court appoint its replacement, and it has to be unanimous.  That removes the President and the Congress from the process.  It would take a Constitutional amendment, but either way, something needs to happen.  The current arms race will end in ruin.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I’ve supported the idea for a while that the President should just get to appoint a new justice every two years (probably during odd-numbered summers).  In order to avoid requiring a constitutional amendment, this would still need to be a lifetime appointment confirmed by the Senate.  But it wouldn’t expand the size of the Court that much, and it would make the political impact of each presidential election on the Court much more predictable and fair.

[GlobeSoc]

court packing is the only feasible means under our current system - the constitution is probably fundamentally broken at this point and any further amendments or "fixes" are impossible without one party dominance

[GeneralMacArthur]

The Democrats should use court packing as a blackmail weapon to force through a constitutional amendment fixing all the problems with the court.  "Either you agree to make things fair, or we go to this place where we just continue escalating the cheating until the country is destroyed."



There are 9 Supreme Court nominees.

Supreme Court nominees serve for a term of 18 years, at which point their term ends.

Terms are staggered so that a new nominee is selected every two years during an odd year (so not an election year).

If a justice dies in office, they are immediately replaced, and two years are added to every remaining justice's term (so that the replacement schedule is essentially shifted to be two years later).

The existing justices will be replaced in descending order of tenure.  In practice this would mean Biden replaces Breyer+Thomas in his first term, and Alito+Sotomayor in his second term.

Require 2/3 of the Senate to confirm Supreme Court justices, to avoid politicization.

[Migrant Crime]

The Democrats should use court packing as a blackmail weapon to force through a constitutional amendment fixing all the problems with the court.  "Either you agree to make things fair, or we go to this place where we just continue escalating the cheating until the country is destroyed."



There are 9 Supreme Court nominees.

Supreme Court nominees serve for a term of 18 years, at which point their term ends.

Terms are staggered so that a new nominee is selected every two years during an odd year (so not an election year).

If a justice dies in office, they are immediately replaced, and two years are added to every remaining justice's term (so that the replacement schedule is essentially shifted to be two years later).

The existing justices will be replaced in descending order of tenure.  In practice this would mean Biden replaces Breyer+Thomas in his first term, and Alito+Sotomayor in his second term.

Require 2/3 of the Senate to confirm Supreme Court justices, to avoid politicization.

"Do what we say or we will destroy the county".  Ummm... and you're supposed to be the reasonable Democrat??

Its not like Democrats are currently offering or even talking about court reform.  I would love to see it, in all seriousness.  Your approach is just flat out dangerous though.  I hope we can work to reform.  It sure as hell won't come under the threat of "we'll turn this country into a dictatorship" though.

[Where's the Epstein Client List?]

None of this fixes the underlying problem: in the mid 1970s, half the country got infected by brainworms that convinced them that embryos are people and that literally the only thing that matters in the world is saving the embryo-people.

I can't think of any other developed world country with this problem besides Ireland, maybe (and even they recently dealt with it).

[GeneralMacArthur]

The Democrats should use court packing as a blackmail weapon to force through a constitutional amendment fixing all the problems with the court.  "Either you agree to make things fair, or we go to this place where we just continue escalating the cheating until the country is destroyed."



There are 9 Supreme Court nominees.

Supreme Court nominees serve for a term of 18 years, at which point their term ends.

Terms are staggered so that a new nominee is selected every two years during an odd year (so not an election year).

If a justice dies in office, they are immediately replaced, and two years are added to every remaining justice's term (so that the replacement schedule is essentially shifted to be two years later).

The existing justices will be replaced in descending order of tenure.  In practice this would mean Biden replaces Breyer+Thomas in his first term, and Alito+Sotomayor in his second term.

Require 2/3 of the Senate to confirm Supreme Court justices, to avoid politicization.

"Do what we say or we will destroy the county".  Ummm... and you're supposed to be the reasonable Democrat??

Its not like Democrats are currently offering or even talking about court reform.  I would love to see it, in all seriousness.  Your approach is just flat out dangerous though.  I hope we can work to reform.  It sure as hell won't come under the threat of "we'll turn this country into a dictatorship" though.

Republicans are destroying the country as we speak.  It's "put rules in place to end the destruction of the country, or this becomes a two-person fight."

[Migrant Crime]

The Democrats should use court packing as a blackmail weapon to force through a constitutional amendment fixing all the problems with the court.  "Either you agree to make things fair, or we go to this place where we just continue escalating the cheating until the country is destroyed."



There are 9 Supreme Court nominees.

Supreme Court nominees serve for a term of 18 years, at which point their term ends.

Terms are staggered so that a new nominee is selected every two years during an odd year (so not an election year).

If a justice dies in office, they are immediately replaced, and two years are added to every remaining justice's term (so that the replacement schedule is essentially shifted to be two years later).

The existing justices will be replaced in descending order of tenure.  In practice this would mean Biden replaces Breyer+Thomas in his first term, and Alito+Sotomayor in his second term.

Require 2/3 of the Senate to confirm Supreme Court justices, to avoid politicization.

"Do what we say or we will destroy the county".  Ummm... and you're supposed to be the reasonable Democrat??

Its not like Democrats are currently offering or even talking about court reform.  I would love to see it, in all seriousness.  Your approach is just flat out dangerous though.  I hope we can work to reform.  It sure as hell won't come under the threat of "we'll turn this country into a dictatorship" though.

Republicans are destroying the country as we speak.  It's "put rules in place to end the destruction of the country, or this becomes a two-person fight."

1/2 the country does not agree with you on that, so good luck selling it to GOP senators.  The solution is, ya know, OFFERING SOLUTIONS, not escalating an arms race you won't win.

[GeneralMacArthur]

The Democrats should use court packing as a blackmail weapon to force through a constitutional amendment fixing all the problems with the court.  "Either you agree to make things fair, or we go to this place where we just continue escalating the cheating until the country is destroyed."



There are 9 Supreme Court nominees.

Supreme Court nominees serve for a term of 18 years, at which point their term ends.

Terms are staggered so that a new nominee is selected every two years during an odd year (so not an election year).

If a justice dies in office, they are immediately replaced, and two years are added to every remaining justice's term (so that the replacement schedule is essentially shifted to be two years later).

The existing justices will be replaced in descending order of tenure.  In practice this would mean Biden replaces Breyer+Thomas in his first term, and Alito+Sotomayor in his second term.

Require 2/3 of the Senate to confirm Supreme Court justices, to avoid politicization.

"Do what we say or we will destroy the county".  Ummm... and you're supposed to be the reasonable Democrat??

Its not like Democrats are currently offering or even talking about court reform.  I would love to see it, in all seriousness.  Your approach is just flat out dangerous though.  I hope we can work to reform.  It sure as hell won't come under the threat of "we'll turn this country into a dictatorship" though.

Republicans are destroying the country as we speak.  It's "put rules in place to end the destruction of the country, or this becomes a two-person fight."

1/2 the country does not agree with you on that, so good luck selling it to GOP senators.  The solution is, ya know, OFFERING SOLUTIONS, not escalating an arms race you won't win.

The Republicans refusing to vote on Merrick Garland was cheating, whether the American public agrees or not.  But for the record, only 33% of Americans agreed with what Mitch did:  https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/politics/merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee/index.html

What I've proposed is a solution, but Republicans don't want that solution.  They don't want any solution because the current situation, where they can just cheat to win, works for them.  You have to force them to agree to fix the country.  Because right now it is broken because they broke it.

[Migrant Crime]

The Democrats should use court packing as a blackmail weapon to force through a constitutional amendment fixing all the problems with the court.  "Either you agree to make things fair, or we go to this place where we just continue escalating the cheating until the country is destroyed."



There are 9 Supreme Court nominees.

Supreme Court nominees serve for a term of 18 years, at which point their term ends.

Terms are staggered so that a new nominee is selected every two years during an odd year (so not an election year).

If a justice dies in office, they are immediately replaced, and two years are added to every remaining justice's term (so that the replacement schedule is essentially shifted to be two years later).

The existing justices will be replaced in descending order of tenure.  In practice this would mean Biden replaces Breyer+Thomas in his first term, and Alito+Sotomayor in his second term.

Require 2/3 of the Senate to confirm Supreme Court justices, to avoid politicization.

"Do what we say or we will destroy the county".  Ummm... and you're supposed to be the reasonable Democrat??

Its not like Democrats are currently offering or even talking about court reform.  I would love to see it, in all seriousness.  Your approach is just flat out dangerous though.  I hope we can work to reform.  It sure as hell won't come under the threat of "we'll turn this country into a dictatorship" though.

Republicans are destroying the country as we speak.  It's "put rules in place to end the destruction of the country, or this becomes a two-person fight."

1/2 the country does not agree with you on that, so good luck selling it to GOP senators.  The solution is, ya know, OFFERING SOLUTIONS, not escalating an arms race you won't win.

The Republicans refusing to vote on Merrick Garland was cheating, whether the American public agrees or not.  But for the record, only 33% of Americans agreed with what Mitch did:  https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/politics/merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee/index.html

What I've proposed is a solution, but Republicans don't want that solution.  They don't want any solution because the current situation, where they can just cheat to win, works for them.  You have to force them to agree to fix the country.  Because right now it is broken because they broke it.

And I'm sure packing the courts will garner a similar if not lower number.  Still failing to see your point beyond "eye for an eye".

[GeneralMacArthur]

And I'm sure packing the courts will garner a similar if not lower number.  Still failing to see your point beyond "eye for an eye".

That's because you're refusing to listen.  My point is, to use an analogy, the Republicans have begun a war.  The only way we can return to peace is by threatening to return fire.  If we don't return fire, they will just continue massacring civilians.

If you really care and aren't just trolling, you should be criticizing the Republicans for starting the war.

[Migrant Crime]

And I'm sure packing the courts will garner a similar if not lower number.  Still failing to see your point beyond "eye for an eye".

That's because you're refusing to listen.  My point is, to use an analogy, the Republicans have begun a war.  The only way we can return to peace is by threatening to return fire.  If we don't return fire, they will just continue massacring civilians.

If you really care and aren't just trolling, you should be criticizing the Republicans for starting the war.

What you see as a war is not a war to others, including me.  Republicans should have given a vote to Garland.  There's a good chance he wouldn't have been confirmed anyway.  Republicans have acted in bad faith.  What Democrats are proposing is not acting in bad faith.  Its shaking the foundations of this country to its core, from which there is probably no way to recover from.  If Republicans fill this seat, its within their right to do so, elections have consequences.  With that said, they shouldn't do it.  Democrats should come out with a compromise, or idea for reform right now.  They are proposing no alternative.

Accept that elections have consequences.  That's where this discussion has to start.  Otherwise, you're just throwing a tantrum.

[MarkD]

I made a thread about this last year, asking for alternatives.

The endless arms race between Republicans and Democrats is not the answer, it won't lead anywhere but total destruction.  Court packing is simply a short term solution and Republicans would eventually respond in kind.

What we need is a grand bargain between the parties, something like the Compromise of 1850.  My idea would be to have the current court appoint its replacement, and it has to be unanimous.  That removes the President and the Congress from the process.  It would take a Constitutional amendment, but either way, something needs to happen.  The current arms race will end in ruin.

That's an outstanding proposal, that the Justices have to unanimously agree on picking their own members. You are completely right that this partisan warfare is ruining the Supreme Court. If everyone "accepts" that all Justices are partisan hacks instead of objective interpreters of law, then we might as well be holding national elections for the seats on the Court.

Our Founding Fathers wanted the federal judiciary to be independent of political pressures because that was the only way to ensure that the judges could do their jobs objectively. And every year at the State of Union address, the Justices sit there quiet in their seats, never applauding or ovating anything the President says because they are trying to keep up the veneer that they ARE objective (which has become laughable in this day and age).

We need more voices like you, Green Line, to say this sort of thing. We need more people to campaign for your suggestion. However, I doubt very many members of either major party will agree to this. They are too cynical about the modern judicial philosophy that there is no such thing as objectivity. They just want the Supreme Court to reflect their own ideology.

[Migrant Crime]

I made a thread about this last year, asking for alternatives.

The endless arms race between Republicans and Democrats is not the answer, it won't lead anywhere but total destruction.  Court packing is simply a short term solution and Republicans would eventually respond in kind.

What we need is a grand bargain between the parties, something like the Compromise of 1850.  My idea would be to have the current court appoint its replacement, and it has to be unanimous.  That removes the President and the Congress from the process.  It would take a Constitutional amendment, but either way, something needs to happen.  The current arms race will end in ruin.

That's an outstanding proposal, that the Justices have to unanimously agree on picking their own members. You are completely right that this partisan warfare is ruining the Supreme Court. If everyone "accepts" that all Justices are partisan hacks instead of objective interpreters of law, then we might as well be holding national elections for the seats on the Court.

Our Founding Fathers wanted the federal judiciary to be independent of political pressures because that was the only way to ensure that the judges could do their jobs objectively. And every year at the State of Union address, the Justices sit there quiet in their seats, never applauding or ovating anything the President says because they are trying to keep up the veneer that they ARE objective (which has become laughable in this day and age).

We need more voices like you, Green Line, to say this sort of thing. We need more people to campaign for your suggestion. However, I doubt very many members of either major party will agree to this. They are too cynical about the modern judicial philosophy that there is no such thing as objectivity. They just want the Supreme Court to reflect their own ideology.

Thank you, MarkD.  You are a gentleman and a scholar.

[GP270watch]

 Legislate. Legislation is so slow and clunky that it allows the opposing party to challenge anything they don't like in the courts. So instead legislate quickly and pass smaller bills with less mechanisms and moving parts. Obamacare had too many moving parts and relied too much on oversight and state systems. This allowed the courts to weaken it dramatically. Whenever the Democratic Party takes back full control of government they must legislate quickly, more efficiently, and be ready to respond with even more legislation to bad court decisions.

[7,052,770]

The Democrats should use court packing as a blackmail weapon to force through a constitutional amendment fixing all the problems with the court.  "Either you agree to make things fair, or we go to this place where we just continue escalating the cheating until the country is destroyed."



There are 9 Supreme Court nominees.

Supreme Court nominees serve for a term of 18 years, at which point their term ends.

Terms are staggered so that a new nominee is selected every two years during an odd year (so not an election year).

If a justice dies in office, they are immediately replaced, and two years are added to every remaining justice's term (so that the replacement schedule is essentially shifted to be two years later).

The existing justices will be replaced in descending order of tenure.  In practice this would mean Biden replaces Breyer+Thomas in his first term, and Alito+Sotomayor in his second term.

Require 2/3 of the Senate to confirm Supreme Court justices, to avoid politicization.

That sounds good to me, but we've also got to rein in the practice of denying a nomination just for partisan grounds. A 2/3 requirement makes it even easier to Garland a nominee.

I like the idea of saying that anyone who has already been confirmed by the Senate to the nation's 2nd highest Court can go move up to the Supreme Court without an additional vote. That way, each president would be able to get someone on the Supreme Court.

[DrScholl]

There are no alternatives. Conservative are trying to turn the court into a monarchy that overturns everything that they don't like. 6-3 conservative court could overturn elections without precedent and give Republicans permanent control of the government. There is no check on the Supreme Court, so all that can be done is an expansion to achieve a balance so that this nation doesn't become a fiefdom for the Trump Family. If Trump gets this appointment, The United States will end up being a bizarre monarchy for him and his family.

[Santander]

There are no alternatives. Conservative are trying to turn the court into a monarchy that overturns everything that they don't like. 6-3 conservative court could overturn elections without precedent and give Republicans permanent control of the government. There is no check on the Supreme Court, so all that can be done is an expansion to achieve a balance so that this nation doesn't become a fiefdom for the Trump Family. If Trump gets this appointment, The United States will end up being a bizarre monarchy for him and his family.

They can be impeached and removed from office.

[DrScholl]

There are no alternatives. Conservative are trying to turn the court into a monarchy that overturns everything that they don't like. 6-3 conservative court could overturn elections without precedent and give Republicans permanent control of the government. There is no check on the Supreme Court, so all that can be done is an expansion to achieve a balance so that this nation doesn't become a fiefdom for the Trump Family. If Trump gets this appointment, The United States will end up being a bizarre monarchy for him and his family.

They can be impeached and removed from office.

It takes 67 votes. Impeaching a justice is very unlikely.

[Jay 🏳️‍⚧️]

There are no alternatives. Conservative are trying to turn the court into a monarchy that overturns everything that they don't like. 6-3 conservative court could overturn elections without precedent and give Republicans permanent control of the government. There is no check on the Supreme Court, so all that can be done is an expansion to achieve a balance so that this nation doesn't become a fiefdom for the Trump Family. If Trump gets this appointment, The United States will end up being a bizarre monarchy for him and his family.

They can be impeached and removed from office.

So there's no check on the Supreme Court. Democrats wouldn't vote to remove a liberal justice, and Republicans wouldn't vote to remove a conservative justice

[Sbane]

Win elections.

[7,052,770]

Win elections.

Hopefully Justice Barrett doesn't side with a 5-4 majority to overturn the election and give it Trump.

[DrScholl]

Win elections.

Hopefully Justice Barrett doesn't side with a 5-4 majority to overturn the election and give it Trump.

Which is what makes this situation so disturbing. If the court wants to overturn an election there is no way to stop them.