Democrats, what do you think of packing the court?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:57:47 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Democrats, what do you think of packing the court?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Democrats, what do you think of packing the court?  (Read 1074 times)
AGA
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,267
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -5.39

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 19, 2020, 02:10:48 AM »

I've thought about the implications and it just seems stupid. First, if Biden wins and Democrats take the Senate, they still probably wouldn't be able to get enough senators on board. Even if they could, what's the end goal? For each party to add a bunch of justices when they get in power? As much as it sucks that Trump gets another appointment so close to the end of his term, he technically still has has the right to nominate, and the Senate can confirm.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2020, 09:42:02 AM »

While ideally the courts should be apolitical, they aren't. Until both parties are willing to resume thinking of the courts as being something that should be above politics, it makes no sense for either party to not respond to the political efforts of the the other party. The current desire on the part of the Democrats to pack the courts by adding seats is a direct result of the Republicans packing the courts by refusing to allow Democratic nominees to be approved. The only real difference is the method, not the result.
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,808
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2020, 10:30:59 AM »

I support it now. No more "Mr. Nice Guy" from the Democrats.
Logged
Hope For A New Era
EastOfEden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,729


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2020, 10:46:59 AM »

We are justified in adding two seats, and no more. One for the seat Republicans stole in 2016, and one for the seat they're about to hypocritically fill now.

If we add circuits because of the new states (DC and possibly PR), I think that could sound reasonable enough to avoid repeated packing after every election.

Also, now that it's been talked about, if we don't do it, Republicans probably will after the next time they win.

And now that they have the court, they can't use it as an issue to help them win. So it actually weakens them.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2020, 02:12:16 PM »

Even if they could, what's the end goal? For each party to add a bunch of justices when they get in power?
"Win an election and you get to nominate people" makes a lot more sense to me than "who gets to appoint who is decided completely at random"
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,220
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 20, 2020, 07:59:32 PM »

Against theoretically, but if Republicans pack the Court by filling Ginsberg's seat before January, we should counter-pack by adding 2 seats.
Logged
Storr
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,094
Moldova, Republic of


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 21, 2020, 09:53:21 PM »

If Republicans fill the seat before the election or following a Trump loss and/or Democrats winning the Senate majority, then it is a necessity. Democrats cannot continue to let Republicans step all over them.
Logged
TML
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,402


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 21, 2020, 11:25:30 PM »

It is absolutely necessary at this point. Democrats need to take a page from FDR's book and play hardball in order to get substantive concessions from the right. Remember that even though FDR's court-packing plan did not succeed in expanding the size of the SC, it did succeed in getting the court to respect New Deal laws.
Logged
America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS
Solid4096
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,730


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2020, 11:51:13 AM »

Needs to add 8 seats. 2/4 is weak.
Logged
KaiserDave
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,587
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -5.39

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2020, 02:12:17 PM »

Court packing, at least 2 packing with two judges is justified. Mitch McConnell and...really Bush vs Gore has permanently weaponized the court. It is legal, and it is necessary.

However.....it carries extreme risks and would ultimately be futile. It would lead to a ritual whenever every each party is in power to pack to match the packing of the previous party. This would be an endless and incredibly destructive cycle. It does not save the Supreme Court. If I could add two judges and then not add two when the next two judges retire, and people would respect that, I would. But that wouldn't happen, it wouldn't be respected.

We need to structurally change the court, not superficially.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 22, 2020, 06:53:19 PM »

Obviously, any court unpack needs to be part of a "package" that tries to solve the overpoliticization of the court.

I say "package" because it'll need to be two bills to have any chance of producing the desired outcome. Bill 1 would be the one that undoes the current Republican pack by adding additional seats to the courts, obviously no Republican is likely to vote for it, and if they did, they'd never get reelected. Bill 2 would be a reform such as one that would have a certain number of court seats be nominated by the President each Congress and get away from having a fixed number of judges on each court. (It might be better to have a term limit, but that would require a Constitutional amendment and I can't see one passing even through Congress right now, let alone, being ratified by the States, so we're stuck with life-terms regardless.)

The exact form of the reform isn't important, just that it be something that has a reasonable chance of calming things down and that both parties can live with so that it can get some degree of bipartisan support. (Obviously hyperpartisans who like the current system will oppose any effort at reform, so unanimity isn't important.) That's why the reform bill that tries to solve the problem in the long term needs to be split from the unpacking bill that in the short term undoes the damage that has been done by those who have placed the interests of the Republican Party above those of the republic. Bill 1 would need to be passed by a Democratic trifecta alone, while Bill 2 will probably need bipartisan support as there will be those who place the interests of the Democrat Party above those of our democracy. Hopefully, any long term solution proves more resilient than the Compromise of 1850, which similarly was passed in parts.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.044 seconds with 11 queries.