Would you take this SCOTUS deal?

[Abolish ICE]

You know the drill

[Orser67]

Not only would I take it, it's my ideal scenario.

[Not Me, Us]

No. We need to pack the courts ASAP.

[The Free North]

No. We need to pack the courts ASAP.

You sir, would do well in slave societies.

[Sir Mohamed]

Yup.

Courtpacking is risky in the long run. It may serve Dems' immediate interests, but it's silly to assume the GOP will never be in power again. If SCOTUS gets packed each time one party holds a trifecta but not the court, it risks the legitimacy of the court long term. Each institution is only as strong as public confidence is. As a result of a 30+ year right wing agenda to weaponize the judiciary in political battles, the courts as a whole are already too much politicized.

[Ferguson97]

Assuming that they'll be held to keep their word in case of a Biden victory (ie, no lameduck confirmation) then yes, absolutely.

[lfromnj]

Yup.

Courtpacking is risky in the long run. It may serve Dems' immediate interests, but it's silly to assume the GOP will never be in power again. If SCOTUS gets packed each time one party holds a trifecta but not the court, it risks the legitimacy of the court long term. Each institution is only as strong as public confidence is. As a result of a 30+ year right wing agenda to weaponize the judiciary in political battles, the courts as a whole are already too much politicized.

What was Robert Bork's nomination then?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No, because the idea that we could permanently take court packing off the table is an absolute fantasy with no relationship to reality, so the deal is total nonsense.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Essentially this is what most Democrats want.  The only difference is I wouldn't take court-packing off the table "permanently" because that leaves a loophole where Republicans can just do the exact same thing for future nominees, making up the rules as they go along to ensure that only Republican presidents get to fill the Supreme Court.

I would take court-packing off the table permanently if Republicans agree to enshrine into law that Supreme Court nominees will not receive a hearing within 180 days of an election or whatever, and that otherwise the Senate must do its constitutional duty and vote on a nominee, thus making that norm similarly permanent.

And by the way, I think that's a s--tty norm, but it's what Republicans wanted.  If you want to undo that, you have to take Gorsuch off the court and replace him with Garland (or take Kavanaugh off, if you want to say Gorsuch would have replaced Kennedy).

[Del Tachi]

Yes, but it's somewhat a moot point because I doubt there's 50 Republican votes to confirm a Trump nominee before ED.

[Bismarck]

Don’t appoint a judge like you have a right to and in return we won’t destroy democracy? The gall of you people. Try and pack the courts. That kind of stunt would absolve Mitch McConnel of any hypocracy over judicial hearings

[SWE]

I think that this would be a good deal so long as Democrats don't hold up their end of the bargain and do pack the court the moment that they gain the White House and Senate.

[DrScholl]

Don’t appoint a judge like you have a right to and in return we won’t destroy democracy? The gall of you people. Try and pack the courts. That kind of stunt would absolve Mitch McConnel of any hypocracy over judicial hearings

It's spelled hypocrisy. And his name is McConnell. If you are going to nag and scold people at least spell correctly.

[American2020]

This is what Glenn Greenwald's saying about Biden.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1307332164716036098

[7,052,770]

Yes, if it were enshrined in the Constitution that there must 9 justices, along with some kind of remedy if the Senate flat out refuses to confirm any nominee (such as the president can elevate a circuit court judge without Senate approval or something).

I would strongly prefer to have regular appointments than just waiting for a death or retirement, but something is better than nothing.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Don’t appoint a judge like you have a right to and in return we won’t destroy democracy? The gall of you people. Try and pack the courts. That kind of stunt would absolve Mitch McConnel of any hypocracy over judicial hearings

You already destroyed democracy by violating the constitution so that only a Republican president is allowed to pick Supreme Court nominees, and erasing the filibuster for those nominees so they don't even have to be good nominees, and before that by politicizing the court in the first place by following the Federalist Society strategy of trying to pack the court with right-wing activists so you can legislate from the bench instead of having to win the approval of a majority of voters.

Don't talk to us about destroying democracy.  Your party wouldn't even allow witnesses for an impeachment trial for the president of the United States and bragged about how they were going to "get it done as fast as possible."  You guys are packing every institution that was meant to be non-partisan with partisan hacks to try to turn every single lever of the United States into a tool for unlimited minority rule.  Your party is literally trying to stop people from voting.  Your party lost the 2016 election by 2% and the 2018 election by 9% and you rule like you're a supermajority.  Don't talk to me about who's destroying democracy. 

[Bismarck]

Don’t appoint a judge like you have a right to and in return we won’t destroy democracy? The gall of you people. Try and pack the courts. That kind of stunt would absolve Mitch McConnel of any hypocracy over judicial hearings

It's spelled hypocrisy. And his name is McConnell. If you are going to nag and scold people at least spell correctly.

It’s always clear that  someone has no argument when they go for nitpicky things like typos. Not to mention, anybody that takes time to make a post just to try to feel superior about spelling has some deep insecurities they need to work out. No matter though, I’ve had you on ignore for awhile now.

[GeneralMacArthur]

This is what Glenn Greenwald's saying about Biden.

Wait until I tell you what Mitch McConnell said four years ago.  And every other Republican alongside him.

The fact that they're breaking their own rule just four years later changes the game.  They've decided there are no rules.  This is on the Republicans.  If they'd simply follow their own rules we wouldn't have a fight.  But we can't live in a world where only Democrats follow the rules and Republicans violate every rule they can find to maintain power.

Also, I hope every horrible thing imaginable happens to Glenn Greenwald.  What an absolute monster.

[Ferguson97]

This is what Glenn Greenwald's saying about Biden.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1307332164716036098

I don't think Biden will pack the court either, but I'm glad at least Glenn qualified the statement with him not being held to what he previously said.

I expect almost every Senate Democrat not named Manchin or Sinema to support packing the court, so Dems might not even have the opportunity to do it.

[GeneralMacArthur]

You know, back in the 2000s I remember when we would talk about partisanship getting out of control, and people would propose things like "non-partisan commissions" or "taking recommendations from a panel of experts" or "require a supermajority approval or unanimous approval" or things like that.

But nowadays we don't hear that talk anymore.  You know why?  It's because of the Republican Party.

If you create a "non-partisan commission", Republicans will turn it partisan by packing it with partisan hacks who will do whatever the party wants.  And it will just become another thing to fight over.  Nobody thinks the Democratic Party would do such a thing.  But everyone knows the Republican Party absolutely would.

If you create a "panel of experts", the Republican Party will turn it partisan by packing it with "experts" who have no real qualifications other than being far-right conservatives who will say whatever the party wants.

If you require some large number of votes on something to try to force the parties to agree, the Republicans will ignore the spirit of the law and look at it from a purely tactical perspective.  What happens if we don't agree?  What happens if we just hold the Supreme Court vacancy open forever?

The relentless Republican cheating has exposed all sorts of holes in American democracy that should never have needed to be filled in the first place.  Like how crazy is it that they're politicizing the USPS to try to stop people from being able to vote by mail?  And yet.  But we can't fix those holes through any of the traditionally-recommended mechanisms right now, because Republicans are so thoroughly dedicated to cheating on everything across the board.  Gerrymandering commission?  They'll just pack it with right-wing Republicans.  Require independent judicial panel to recommend new SC justices?  They'll just pack it with Federalist Society hacks.  Require 70 votes for new Supreme Court nominees?  They'll just refuse to vote for anyone who isn't their right-wing pick.  This is the world we live in now.  And it's the Republican Party that brought us here, every step of the way is paved with their decisions.

[politicallefty]

Yup.

Courtpacking is risky in the long run. It may serve Dems' immediate interests, but it's silly to assume the GOP will never be in power again. If SCOTUS gets packed each time one party holds a trifecta but not the court, it risks the legitimacy of the court long term. Each institution is only as strong as public confidence is. As a result of a 30+ year right wing agenda to weaponize the judiciary in political battles, the courts as a whole are already too much politicized.

What was Robert Bork's nomination then?

Abe Fortas?

[DrScholl]

Don’t appoint a judge like you have a right to and in return we won’t destroy democracy? The gall of you people. Try and pack the courts. That kind of stunt would absolve Mitch McConnel of any hypocracy over judicial hearings

It's spelled hypocrisy. And his name is McConnell. If you are going to nag and scold people at least spell correctly.

It’s always clear that  someone has no argument when they go for nitpicky things like typos. Not to mention, anybody that takes time to make a post just to try to feel superior about spelling has some deep insecurities they need to work out. No matter though, I’ve had you on ignore for awhile now.

I agree with adding seats to the court and think there is good reason, I just find it laughable when someone calls names but cannot spell. And obviously you are the one insecure if you felt the need to respond to a poster you have on ignore.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Yup.

Courtpacking is risky in the long run. It may serve Dems' immediate interests, but it's silly to assume the GOP will never be in power again. If SCOTUS gets packed each time one party holds a trifecta but not the court, it risks the legitimacy of the court long term. Each institution is only as strong as public confidence is. As a result of a 30+ year right wing agenda to weaponize the judiciary in political battles, the courts as a whole are already too much politicized.

What was Robert Bork's nomination then?

Bork was not qualified to be on the Supreme Court.  He openly stated that he wanted to be an activist judge who dismantled the precedents on civil rights set by his predecessors on the court.  His views on executive power were also completely unacceptable -- he essentially though Nixon should have gotten away with Watergate and actively worked to help him do so in 1972.

There's a big difference between striking down someone who's obviously unacceptable and striking down anyone who isn't an extreme right-winger, which is what the Republicans decided to do.  Nobody disputed that Merrick Garland was an eminently qualified Supreme Court justice.  The only reason to not put him on the court was naked partisanship.  The Republicans didn't want an excellent, well-qualified Supreme Court justice.  They wanted an extreme right-winger who would legislate from the bench.

By the way, if you look at other aborted Supreme Court picks, none of them were for these partisan reasons.  Nixon's two picks to replace Abe Fortas failed because he tried to reward the solid south by picking segregationists.  Harriet Miers failed because she was unqualified.  It wasn't until Merrick Garland that we had a nominee who was rejected not because of his qualifications or his judicial philosophy, but simply because he wasn't a right-wing Republican.

[Banana Republican]

Democrats are idiots who like to lose, which is why they would like this deal. It would be amusing when Republicans then preceded to violate the deal and then Democrats would act all shocked, and then agree to a new deal, and then act shocked again when the Republicans violate it.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

President Harris will be much more likely to pack the courts than President Biden.