Would you take this SCOTUS deal?

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

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

She'll threaten it a bit more credibly, but it's still not going to happen. She might not ever have the Senate majority necessary.

[7,052,770]

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

She'll threaten it a bit more credibly, but it's still not going to happen. She might not ever have the Senate majority necessary.

Don't forget that in 6 months, there will be 2 more permanently safe D seats and 2 more likely D seats, as those Americans are finally granted equal rights with those living in the 50 current states.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

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

She'll threaten it a bit more credibly, but it's still not going to happen. She might not ever have the Senate majority necessary.

Don't forget that in 6 months, there will be 2 more permanently safe D seats and 2 more likely D seats, as those Americans are finally granted equal rights with those living in the 50 current states.

The filibuster is not going (which is the chief roadblock to court packing, incidentally) and PR would not be inherently safe D.

I highly suspect Senators would have to start losing primary challenges before it went in a Biden administration, but as long as the president had their back, unseating one would be a tall order. If the situation got that bad, however, Democrats wouldn't control the Senate in 2022 anyway.

[7,052,770]

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

She'll threaten it a bit more credibly, but it's still not going to happen. She might not ever have the Senate majority necessary.

Don't forget that in 6 months, there will be 2 more permanently safe D seats and 2 more likely D seats, as those Americans are finally granted equal rights with those living in the 50 current states.

The filibuster is not going (which is the chief roadblock to court packing, incidentally) and PR would not be inherently safe D.

I highly suspect Senators would have to start losing primary challenges before it went in a Biden administration, but as long as the president had their back, unseating one would be a tall order. If the situation got that bad, however, Democrats wouldn't control the Senate in 2022 anyway.

I know. Puerto Rico is the likely D state (and that may be optimistic, considering how their current non-voting delegate is a Republican), and the Douglass Commonwealth is the safe D state. No Democrat in the Senate is going to oppose DC's admission, nor PR's if the island votes for statehood in November.

I of course still support Puerto Rican statehood even if they vote Republican forever, as they're Americans and deserve representation just like Idahoans and Dakotans, etc.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

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

She'll threaten it a bit more credibly, but it's still not going to happen. She might not ever have the Senate majority necessary.

Don't forget that in 6 months, there will be 2 more permanently safe D seats and 2 more likely D seats, as those Americans are finally granted equal rights with those living in the 50 current states.

The filibuster is not going (which is the chief roadblock to court packing, incidentally) and PR would not be inherently safe D.

I highly suspect Senators would have to start losing primary challenges before it went in a Biden administration, but as long as the president had their back, unseating one would be a tall order. If the situation got that bad, however, Democrats wouldn't control the Senate in 2022 anyway.

I know. Puerto Rico is the likely D state (and that may be optimistic, considering how their current non-voting delegate is a Republican), and the Douglass Commonwealth is the safe D state. No Democrat in the Senate is going to oppose DC's admission, nor PR's if the island votes for statehood in November.

I of course still support Puerto Rican statehood even if they vote Republican forever, as they're Americans and deserve representation just like Idahoans and Dakotans, etc.

Their statehood would require the end of the filibuster. As long as individual Senators think they gain more power from its existence than its absence, and as long as it serves as a convenient excuse to avoid delivering on a host of policy promises, it will stand.

[7,052,770]

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

She'll threaten it a bit more credibly, but it's still not going to happen. She might not ever have the Senate majority necessary.

Don't forget that in 6 months, there will be 2 more permanently safe D seats and 2 more likely D seats, as those Americans are finally granted equal rights with those living in the 50 current states.

The filibuster is not going (which is the chief roadblock to court packing, incidentally) and PR would not be inherently safe D.

I highly suspect Senators would have to start losing primary challenges before it went in a Biden administration, but as long as the president had their back, unseating one would be a tall order. If the situation got that bad, however, Democrats wouldn't control the Senate in 2022 anyway.

I know. Puerto Rico is the likely D state (and that may be optimistic, considering how their current non-voting delegate is a Republican), and the Douglass Commonwealth is the safe D state. No Democrat in the Senate is going to oppose DC's admission, nor PR's if the island votes for statehood in November.

I of course still support Puerto Rican statehood even if they vote Republican forever, as they're Americans and deserve representation just like Idahoans and Dakotans, etc.

Their statehood would require the end of the filibuster. As long as individual Senators think they gain more power from its existence than its absence, and as long as it serves as a convenient excuse to avoid delivering on a host of policy promises, it will stand.

Not necessarily. In 2017, Republicans got rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court justices while maintaining it for everything else, and Democrats could pull that same move for the admission of new states. Even Democrats who want to keep the filibuster for everything else aren't going to buck that. The right of Americans to be represented in Congress overrides political games, at least to Democrats.

[pppolitics]

No.

Republicans would steal another seat later.

[Yoda]

No. This deal does not rectify the issue of Gorsuch's stolen seat. If Gorsuch gets removed from the court in the deal, then sure, I'm in.

[Orser67]

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

She'll threaten it a bit more credibly, but it's still not going to happen. She might not ever have the Senate majority necessary.

Don't forget that in 6 months, there will be 2 more permanently safe D seats and 2 more likely D seats, as those Americans are finally granted equal rights with those living in the 50 current states.

The filibuster is not going (which is the chief roadblock to court packing, incidentally) and PR would not be inherently safe D.

I highly suspect Senators would have to start losing primary challenges before it went in a Biden administration, but as long as the president had their back, unseating one would be a tall order. If the situation got that bad, however, Democrats wouldn't control the Senate in 2022 anyway.

I know. Puerto Rico is the likely D state (and that may be optimistic, considering how their current non-voting delegate is a Republican), and the Douglass Commonwealth is the safe D state. No Democrat in the Senate is going to oppose DC's admission, nor PR's if the island votes for statehood in November.

I of course still support Puerto Rican statehood even if they vote Republican forever, as they're Americans and deserve representation just like Idahoans and Dakotans, etc.

Their statehood would require the end of the filibuster. As long as individual Senators think they gain more power from its existence than its absence, and as long as it serves as a convenient excuse to avoid delivering on a host of policy promises, it will stand.

Not necessarily. In 2017, Republicans got rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court justices while maintaining it for everything else, and Democrats could pull that same move for the admission of new states. Even Democrats who want to keep the filibuster for everything else aren't going to buck that. The right of Americans to be represented in Congress overrides political games, at least to Democrats.

This is an interesting idea that I don't think I've seen anyone express before. I like it. Admitting PR+DC is the one legislative act that really, really want to get done in the 117th Congress that absolutely cannot be done through reconciliation.

[SevenEleven]

I would never make a deal with Republicans.

[Brittain33]

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?

A case where the Democratic Senate rejected an unfit judge in favor of a more ethical Republican nominated by the Republican President for a seat on the court. This, despite there being a Democratic majority.

[Ferguson97]

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?

Why is Robert Bork the hill conservatives want to die on? He was not qualified.

[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?

Why is Robert Bork the hill conservatives want to die on? He was not qualified.

Weird, I thought Garland was qualified because he was already nominated to be a circuit judge? Bork had the same with unanimous consent in 1982. Why didn't Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden care back then?

[Ferguson97]

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?

Why is Robert Bork the hill conservatives want to die on? He was not qualified.

Weird, I thought Garland was qualified because he was already nominated to be a circuit judge? Bork had the same with unanimous consent in 1982. Why didn't Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden care back then?

Bork's involvement in the Saturday Night Massacre is what makes him unqualified

[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?

Why is Robert Bork the hill conservatives want to die on? He was not qualified.

Weird, I thought Garland was qualified because he was already nominated to be a circuit judge? Bork had the same with unanimous consent in 1982. Why didn't Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden care back then?

Bork's involvement in the Saturday Night Massacre is what makes him unqualified

Again as I said Democrats could have attempted to object in 1982 but 0 complaints. Pure politics in 1988 to get a more moderate justice.

[WD]

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?

Why is Robert Bork the hill conservatives want to die on? He was not qualified.

Weird, I thought Garland was qualified because he was already nominated to be a circuit judge? Bork had the same with unanimous consent in 1982. Why didn't Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden care back then?

Bork was unqualified because of his god-awful views, not because of any lack of experience on the court.

[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?

Why is Robert Bork the hill conservatives want to die on? He was not qualified.

Weird, I thought Garland was qualified because he was already nominated to be a circuit judge? Bork had the same with unanimous consent in 1982. Why didn't Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden care back then?

Bork was unqualified because of his god-awful views, not because of any lack of experience on the court.

Ah so now it gets subjective, Why can't Garland's views be godawful?

[Beet]

Glad to see Democrats would take this deal, but you're also assuming Biden will win the election, which is looking more unlikely by the day. Another set of battleground polls out with Trump gaining.

[7,052,770]

It didn't start with Bork. Nixon, LBJ, Eisenhower, Hoover, and Harding all had nominees rejected by the Senate for political reasons. However, none of those presidents were told they would not be allowed to have anyone on the bench, just that they needed someone else (or in Eisenhower's case, just to try the same nominee again).

[GeneralMacArthur]

Right, if the Republicans had held a hearing for Merrick Garland and found that he was too liberal or not enough of an originalist or too interpretive or whatever their excuse was, and told Obama to come back with someone else, he could have come back with someone slightly more conservative -- who knows, maybe even Neil Gorsuch -- and the seat would have been filled.  That would have been constitutional and I would have been fine with it.

The problem was that Republicans knew it was politically impossible to torpedo Merrick Garland because he was too obviously qualified.  In the same way that Democrats were unable to seriously contest the John Roberts nomination, and Republicans the Sonia Sotomayor nomination.  Furthermore, Garland was a well-known non-partisan figure and it would have been extremely difficult to paint him as a partisan hack.  They would have looked like fools voting against him for trivial or made-up reasons.

[Badger]

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?

Why is Robert Bork the hill conservatives want to die on? He was not qualified.

It wasn't so much he was unqualified oh, as a fact that he was a bona fide extremist.

Anyone who wishes to seriously dispute this and call it partisan need only view the Kennedy confirmation vote occurring a few weeks after bork was defeated-- with the opposition of multiple Republican Senators as well - -by a 97 - 0 vote

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

No. This deal does not rectify the issue of Gorsuch's stolen seat. If Gorsuch gets removed from the court in the deal, then sure, I'm in.

If you are still angry about Merrick Garland, you could just give him Ginsberg's seat.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

No. This deal does not rectify the issue of Gorsuch's stolen seat. If Gorsuch gets removed from the court in the deal, then sure, I'm in.

If you are still angry about Merrick Garland, you could just give him Ginsberg's seat.

Trump isn't going to do it, but that would be a smart way to make the court slightly more conservative while reducing the pro-court packing sentiment.

[Horsemask]

I want to take the deal....but then I remember Republicans holding up a qualified nominee for 7 months because muh seat. So screw em, pack the court.

[pbrower2a]

Republicans set the precedent in 2016, and because precedents determine judicial findings we can stick with it. They burned Democrats once and they can get burned this time.

The only way in which Trump should get someone through is if that nominee is a moderate of unblemished character. and a great legal mind.  Of course all three counts are impossible for a President who thinks that everything in the government is something in which he has the potential for meddling, who exudes extremism, whose character is horrid, and who would not recognize a great legal mind if he read an opinion.

I would not be surprised if Joe Biden sees some openings in the Supreme Court during his term even if he is a one-term President.