To court packing supporters on atlas.

[John Dule]

This thread has been a microcosm of America, demonstrating why this country is so polarized.

Yes, it is... Republicans not getting what the big deal is about breaking our national institutions for short-term gain, Democrats getting furious, and Republicans not understanding why that is.

The vast majority of people in this thread who are taking issue with this idea are not Republicans.

After 25 years of arguing with libertarians who lined up behind the GOP and its talking points while boasting how they were independent thinkers, I am more than content to group small-c conservatives, libertarians, yellow avatars etc. with the Republicans they typically support and who are one of the two parties of government. I am not impressed by anyone's yellow avatar while arguing Mitch McConnell's case here.

No one here is arguing for McConnell. We are arguing against you.

[7,052,770]

This thread has been a microcosm of America, demonstrating why this country is so polarized.

Yes, it is... Republicans not getting what the big deal is about breaking our national institutions for short-term gain, Democrats getting furious, and Republicans not understanding why that is.

The vast majority of people in this thread who are taking issue with this idea are not Republicans.

It cuts both ways. I've also been arguing with conservative Republicans over at RRH Elections who believe that it is Democrats who are destroying America's institutions; that they have been unfair; and that Republicans are trying to right their wrongs, and correct the damage which they have inflicted. As an independent, I've found myself hitting a brick wall when talking with partisan Democrats here and partisan Republicans there. Each side is blaming the other, without acknowledging the role that both political parties have played in this process. Yes, I'm using the "both sideism" argument which is despised by the ideologues here and there, but there's no other way to describe the situation.

Objectively Republicans started this by announcing that Obama could not fill a seat in an election year period. Anyone saying otherwise has been brainwashed by FoxNews or other worse trash sources.

[Calthrina950]

This thread has been a microcosm of America, demonstrating why this country is so polarized.

Yes, it is... Republicans not getting what the big deal is about breaking our national institutions for short-term gain, Democrats getting furious, and Republicans not understanding why that is.

The vast majority of people in this thread who are taking issue with this idea are not Republicans.

It cuts both ways. I've also been arguing with conservative Republicans over at RRH Elections who believe that it is Democrats who are destroying America's institutions; that they have been unfair; and that Republicans are trying to right their wrongs, and correct the damage which they have inflicted. As an independent, I've found myself hitting a brick wall when talking with partisan Democrats here and partisan Republicans there. Each side is blaming the other, without acknowledging the role that both political parties have played in this process. Yes, I'm using the "both sideism" argument which is despised by the ideologues here and there, but there's no other way to describe the situation.

Objectively Republicans started this by announcing that Obama could not fill a seat in an election year period. Anyone saying otherwise has been brainwashed by FoxNews or other worse trash sources.

You tell that to the people here: https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2020/09/20/rbg-scotus-discussion-thread-2/. Like it or not, these people are the counterparts to yourself and the other Atlas Democrats are here. I'm not falling for the extremes that either the people here or there are pushing.

[7,052,770]

This thread has been a microcosm of America, demonstrating why this country is so polarized.

Yes, it is... Republicans not getting what the big deal is about breaking our national institutions for short-term gain, Democrats getting furious, and Republicans not understanding why that is.

The vast majority of people in this thread who are taking issue with this idea are not Republicans.

It cuts both ways. I've also been arguing with conservative Republicans over at RRH Elections who believe that it is Democrats who are destroying America's institutions; that they have been unfair; and that Republicans are trying to right their wrongs, and correct the damage which they have inflicted. As an independent, I've found myself hitting a brick wall when talking with partisan Democrats here and partisan Republicans there. Each side is blaming the other, without acknowledging the role that both political parties have played in this process. Yes, I'm using the "both sideism" argument which is despised by the ideologues here and there, but there's no other way to describe the situation.

Objectively Republicans started this by announcing that Obama could not fill a seat in an election year period. Anyone saying otherwise has been brainwashed by FoxNews or other worse trash sources.

You tell that to the people here: https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2020/09/20/rbg-scotus-discussion-thread-2/. Like it or not, these people are the counterparts to yourself and the other Atlas Democrats are here. I'm not falling for the extremes that either the people here or there are pushing.

I mean, just because they're insisting one thing and we're insisting another doesn't mean that we're both partially right or that the truth lies in the middle. It is an objective, undeniable fact that McConnell would not let Obama have a justice no matter what in an election year, citing a fake, made-up "rule" and is now canceling the rule when it will help his party.

There's no spin. I would respect Republicans a lot more if they just came right out and said, "Politics is a game and we're playing to win. We can do this, so we will." Basically, as repugnant of Del Tachi's rhetoric here often is, it's at least honest, unlike most Republicans who believe the same thing but try to wrap it up in fake moral high ground.

[Badger]

This thread has been a microcosm of America, demonstrating why this country is so polarized.

Yes, it is... Republicans not getting what the big deal is about breaking our national institutions for short-term gain, Democrats getting furious, and Republicans not understanding why that is.

The vast majority of people in this thread who are taking issue with this idea are not Republicans.

Um, you seriously need to recount this.

[Badger]

This thread has been a microcosm of America, demonstrating why this country is so polarized.

Yes, it is... Republicans not getting what the big deal is about breaking our national institutions for short-term gain, Democrats getting furious, and Republicans not understanding why that is.

The vast majority of people in this thread who are taking issue with this idea are not Republicans.

It cuts both ways. I've also been arguing with conservative Republicans over at RRH Elections who believe that it is Democrats who are destroying America's institutions; that they have been unfair; and that Republicans are trying to right their wrongs, and correct the damage which they have inflicted. As an independent, I've found myself hitting a brick wall when talking with partisan Democrats here and partisan Republicans there. Each side is blaming the other, without acknowledging the role that both political parties have played in this process. Yes, I'm using the "both sideism" argument which is despised by the ideologues here and there, but there's no other way to describe the situation.

Objectively Republicans started this by announcing that Obama could not fill a seat in an election year period. Anyone saying otherwise has been brainwashed by FoxNews or other worse trash sources.

You tell that to the people here: https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2020/09/20/rbg-scotus-discussion-thread-2/. Like it or not, these people are the counterparts to yourself and the other Atlas Democrats are here. I'm not falling for the extremes that either the people here or there are pushing.

There is nothing so called Extreme about undoing McConnell's court-packing.

[Hindsight was 2020]

People like Duke and Calthrina who aren’t rw hacks and agree with the awful way Mitch has acted but are still advocating that Democrats lie down and take what Mitch has done in the name of preserving this idea of institutions that have already been killed by what he has done/will do is why he even able to pull this off in the first place. If Mitch fast tracks someone in before November or even worse during the lame duck session, Biden wins, and we have a 6-3 court that s0ends the next 4 years legislating from the bench on ACA and Roe v Wade along with whatever legislation Biden/Dems want to do and the Dems do nothing then how the hell has the integrity of the court been upheld? You’re condemning this idea of court packing because it’d be taking the genie out of the bottle while refusing to acknowledge the genie is already out

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Court-packing only works if you assume that every future President will turn over the court as well. And that only holds until one President asks their hand-picked court to overturn the election results.

[Calthrina950]

This thread has been a microcosm of America, demonstrating why this country is so polarized.

Yes, it is... Republicans not getting what the big deal is about breaking our national institutions for short-term gain, Democrats getting furious, and Republicans not understanding why that is.

The vast majority of people in this thread who are taking issue with this idea are not Republicans.

It cuts both ways. I've also been arguing with conservative Republicans over at RRH Elections who believe that it is Democrats who are destroying America's institutions; that they have been unfair; and that Republicans are trying to right their wrongs, and correct the damage which they have inflicted. As an independent, I've found myself hitting a brick wall when talking with partisan Democrats here and partisan Republicans there. Each side is blaming the other, without acknowledging the role that both political parties have played in this process. Yes, I'm using the "both sideism" argument which is despised by the ideologues here and there, but there's no other way to describe the situation.

Objectively Republicans started this by announcing that Obama could not fill a seat in an election year period. Anyone saying otherwise has been brainwashed by FoxNews or other worse trash sources.

You tell that to the people here: https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2020/09/20/rbg-scotus-discussion-thread-2/. Like it or not, these people are the counterparts to yourself and the other Atlas Democrats are here. I'm not falling for the extremes that either the people here or there are pushing.

I mean, just because they're insisting one thing and we're insisting another doesn't mean that we're both partially right or that the truth lies in the middle. It is an objective, undeniable fact that McConnell would not let Obama have a justice no matter what in an election year, citing a fake, made-up "rule" and is now canceling the rule when it will help his party.

There's no spin. I would respect Republicans a lot more if they just came right out and said, "Politics is a game and we're playing to win. We can do this, so we will." Basically, as repugnant of Del Tachi's rhetoric here often is, it's at least honest, unlike most Republicans who believe the same thing but try to wrap it up in fake moral high ground.

Again, if you look at my posts there and here, you'll see that I'm not defending what McConnell or Republicans did here. I have said before that I don't condone what was done to Merrick Garland, and I believe that he should have received a fair confirmation hearing, along with an up or down vote. For me, it doesn't matter what year it is or what time of year; all presidential nominees, for all vacancies, should receive a vote in the Senate, and should be confirmed or rejected by that body in due order. Adhering to that rule, that would mean that a Trump nominee at this juncture ought to be given the same procedures and the same kind of fairness. However, I don't think it's morally just for a nominee to be considered now, given what happened to Garland, and if I were a Senator, I would adopt the position of Murkowski and Collins: that a nominee should not be considered ahead of the election.

But unfortunately, our political system doesn't work so smoothly. Democrats such as yourself say that if there is any vote on a Ginsburg successor whatsoever before January 20, 2021 (or more appropriately, January 3, 2021), you shall pack the Courts, and let Republicans reap the consequences of their actions. Republicans, such as those at RRH Elections, say that unless if they move forward now to confirm a Trump nominee, they will lose whatever advantage they have, and it's worth pushing forward their ideology, even if it runs the risk of court-packing (an outcome which they deem inevitable, in any case). Both Democrats and Republicans see this as war, refuse to compromise, and will not desist until their objectives have been accomplished.

I speak as someone who opposes both court-packing and unfair nomination standards, whether you term it the "Biden Rule", or the "Garland Rule", or "McConnell's lies", or whatever you want to call it. My overriding preference is for there to be adherence to the Constitution, because that document is more important than all of this; it rises above political considerations, and ought to be deferred to.

[7,052,770]

I oppose all those rules too. But Republicans made up a rule and enforced it on us, so they must be held to the same rule, and if they don't hold themselves to us, we will restore the Supreme Court to the R+1 balance it would be had they held themselves to it. We have the moral high ground in this case, period.

If Scalia hadn't died until 2017, and Trump replaced him then, and now Trump was replacing Ginsburg, that would be really unlucky for us, but it would all be within established precedents. It was the changing of precedents, and then immediately switching back to the old precedent the very next election year, which has effectively packed the courts for Republicans.

I desperately want to compromise with Republicans, be totally fair, and let the chips fall where they may. Most people on the Left feel this say, but most people on the Right just want to win at all costs, so it leaves us with no choice but to join a fight we never wanted.

[Pericles]

Court-packing only works if you assume that every future President will turn over the court as well. And that only holds until one President asks their hand-picked court to overturn the election results.

Worst-case Trump has his Court do that, though 2020 probably won't be close enough. Just leaving a right-wing Court in place, in a misguided attempt to preserve the impartiality of what is actually a partisan super-legislature, is a big risk for Democrats. It could lead to the Supreme Court denying them a major election win in the future.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Court-packing only works if you assume that every future President will turn over the court as well. And that only holds until one President asks their hand-picked court to overturn the election results.

Worst-case Trump has his Court do that, though 2020 probably won't be close enough. Just leaving a right-wing Court in place, in a misguided attempt to preserve the impartiality of what is actually a partisan super-legislature, is a big risk for Democrats. It could lead to the Supreme Court denying them a major election win in the future.

Roberts wouldn't go along with that. Right now, the court still has a constitutional majority - a bipartisan one that, even if they often differ on interpretation, would hold back any major power grab. I don't think it would immediately happen, especially as Biden would likely appoint well-regarded judges rather than partisans - but it's a potential consequence of several rounds of court-packing.

[Pericles]

Court-packing only works if you assume that every future President will turn over the court as well. And that only holds until one President asks their hand-picked court to overturn the election results.

Worst-case Trump has his Court do that, though 2020 probably won't be close enough. Just leaving a right-wing Court in place, in a misguided attempt to preserve the impartiality of what is actually a partisan super-legislature, is a big risk for Democrats. It could lead to the Supreme Court denying them a major election win in the future.

Roberts wouldn't go along with that. Right now, the court still has a constitutional majority - a bipartisan one that, even if they often differ on interpretation, would hold back any major power grab. I don't think it would immediately happen, especially as Biden would likely appoint well-regarded judges rather than partisans - but it's a potential consequence of several rounds of court-packing.

With a 6-3 Court, Roberts isn't necessary for Republicans to win. He has been pretty anti-voting rights so on an elections case he could easily rule against Democrats anyway.

[Indy Texas]

I think the really foundational reason some people are uneasy about court packing is that it would be the first time our politicians finally admit that the Mid-20th Century "Consensus Politics" are over, were an aberration, and are never coming back.

From Pearl Harbor until some imprecise point in the late 20th century, American politics operated under a bipartisan consensus, first a center-left one and then after the 1970s a center-right one.

That period was the exception, not the rule. Politics prior to that point was full of brinksmanship and rancor. Senators challenged each other to duels and got assaulted on the floor of the Senate. One party would simply refuse to seat the other party's members for months at a time.

And even our brief truce was largely only possible because both parties agreed to ignore the unacceptable mistreatment of nonwhite people. That's the only reason things like the New Deal were even possible.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The motherf**ker is already burned to the ground. If Republicans confirm Trump's pick before the election or in a lame duck period, they've already packed.

What is so hard about this concept for you? If Republicans pack and the Democrats pack back just to even out the margin to where it would have been without the Republican pack, they're putting out the fire.

It it painfully obvious that this will not end there. You are not putting out the fire. You are throwing gasoline on it.

Hopefully we can agree on a new system to prevent this from happening again, but if the Court doesn't go back to R+1, that's very unlikely to happen.

That won't happen. Republicans are, as you may have noticed, a very stubborn group of people. They will not let you guys get the last word on this one. Not a chance.

So you suggest that the appropriate response is to let the Republicans get the last word?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The motherf**ker is already burned to the ground. If Republicans confirm Trump's pick before the election or in a lame duck period, they've already packed.

What is so hard about this concept for you? If Republicans pack and the Democrats pack back just to even out the margin to where it would have been without the Republican pack, they're putting out the fire.

It it painfully obvious that this will not end there. You are not putting out the fire. You are throwing gasoline on it.

There's already plenty of gasoline. The fire is not going to go out by having only Republicans pour gasoline on it. Indeed, to overburden your hot 🔥 take, the Republicans have been trying for years now to turn the justices of the Supreme Court into firemen of the sort found in Fahrenheit 451.

[Beet]

Everyone needs to calm down. Biden is handling this right by not going crazy. Nothing has happened yet. One old woman has died, and that is it.

The Democrats and Trump just need to make a deal.

If Trump can make a deal with Kim Jong Un, surely he can make a deal with Chuck Schumer.

The Democrats will pass Trump's preferred COVID-19 deal, lower prescription drug prices for seniors, fund the wall, and repeal DACA legislatively, meanwhile Trump will promise to nominate a judge that both sides can agree on for the SCOTUS seat. This will de-politicize everything, and save the impartial judiciary, and make John Roberts very happy, and be good for the republic, our institutions, our 150 year judicial history, and everything. They all just need the will to do it.

[Virginiá]

2 because it makes up for the two stolen seats and at least keeps the ideology balance in tact  with Roberts as the swing

This is pretty much where I am.  Ideally I'd go with four as symbolic of the number of circuit court of appeals, but am amenable to two for the reasons mentioned above.  Not to mention I don't think the optics of adding more seats would look as egregious.

For an action that is sure to light a fire under the GOP not just now but far into the future, priming them to fight back even dirtier than usual, it seems odd to just advocate packing the court back to the status quo. Especially when the status quo would have been 5 - 4 liberals if Obama's nomination was respected.

Honestly, this is really all or nothing. If Democrats are going to pack the court, they better be ready to go full steam on H.R. 1, DC/PR statehood, the works. Because if Republicans get full control back anytime soon, they'll build a wall around the Democratic Party that might take generations to get around. Try to grasp the stakes here.

This is a good counter-argument to court-packing, too. If you're dealing with an increasingly corrupt minority-rule party whose willingness to bend or break any rule in search of power, and that behavior has led you to this point, then if you're willing to pack the highest court in the land to fight back, you better be willing to try and fix everything else as best you can or else their retribution will be brutal and irreconcilable. It could be the death blow for our system as it currently exists.

[Virginiá]

Everyone needs to calm down. Biden is handling this right by not going crazy. Nothing has happened yet. One old woman has died, and that is it.

The Democrats and Trump just need to make a deal.

If Trump can make a deal with Kim Jong Un, surely he can make a deal with Chuck Schumer.

The Democrats will pass Trump's preferred COVID-19 deal, lower prescription drug prices for seniors, fund the wall, and repeal DACA legislatively, meanwhile Trump will promise to nominate a judge that both sides can agree on for the SCOTUS seat. This will de-politicize everything, and save the impartial judiciary, and make John Roberts very happy, and be good for the republic, our institutions, our 150 year judicial history, and everything. They all just need the will to do it.

Right, so it's not happening then.

I do agree, there should be a compromise of sorts here, but Republicans are not going to give it up. Not unless a tiny handful break from McConnell and say no.

[Splash]

Everyone needs to calm down. Biden is handling this right by not going crazy. Nothing has happened yet. One old woman has died, and that is it.

The Democrats and Trump just need to make a deal.

If Trump can make a deal with Kim Jong Un, surely he can make a deal with Chuck Schumer.

The Democrats will pass Trump's preferred COVID-19 deal, lower prescription drug prices for seniors, fund the wall, and repeal DACA legislatively, meanwhile Trump will promise to nominate a judge that both sides can agree on for the SCOTUS seat. This will de-politicize everything, and save the impartial judiciary, and make John Roberts very happy, and be good for the republic, our institutions, our 150 year judicial history, and everything. They all just need the will to do it.

Right, so it's not happening then.

I do agree, there should be a compromise of sorts here, but Republicans are not going to give it up. Not unless a tiny handful break from McConnell and say no.

I just hope the CR passes before both sides dig into their trenches. The last thing we need is a government shutdown with everything else going on.

[Mike Thick]

Why would Trump take a deal? What can Democrats realistically offer him that 6-3 SCOTUS won't implement in a few years anyway, or that outweighs what 6-3 has to offer? This is a chance to basically cement the judiciary as a second legislature which works to undermine progressives and gut the government no matter who wins national elections, probably for a generation or more. I can't imagine what Dems could give up that outweighs that.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Why would Trump take a deal? What can Democrats realistically offer him that 6-3 SCOTUS won't implement in a few years anyway, or that outweighs what 6-3 has to offer?

In theory, the promise of a federal pardon a la Nixon’s. I’m not sure that’d be a huge incentive, but there may be many ways like that in which Democrats could get between Trump (who isn’t all that invested in long-term Republican aims) and the Senate GOP.

[SWE]

For years Democrats have thrown temper tantrums whenever anyone said "both sides do it." Fitting that they would prove all those people right the moment that it became beneficial to them.

Dismal, deplorable take.  The Democrats don't want to do this.  They are being forced into it by non-stop Republican cheating.  The Republicans have made clear that cheating, rigging and abuse of power are the order of the day, and if the Democrats continue trying to keep their hands clean, the Republicans will create a situation where they can dominate the entire country from the position of a double-digit minority.

You guys can do whatever you want, but I will not absolve you of your participation in wrecking American democracy. This is entirely in your hands and you are fumbling it, as expected.

Yeah letting a guy who got 3 million less votes than his opponent appoint one third of the most powerful court in the country because he won a random dice roll is what democracy is all about

[Sumner 1868]

When exactly was it that candidates began promising began promising partisan justices anyway? Seems to have commonplace by the late 1980s.

[SevenEleven]

Everyone needs to calm down. Biden is handling this right by not going crazy. Nothing has happened yet. One old woman has died, and that is it.

The Democrats and Trump just need to make a deal.

If Trump can make a deal with Kim Jong Un, surely he can make a deal with Chuck Schumer.

The Democrats will pass Trump's preferred COVID-19 deal, lower prescription drug prices for seniors, fund the wall, and repeal DACA legislatively, meanwhile Trump will promise to nominate a judge that both sides can agree on for the SCOTUS seat. This will de-politicize everything, and save the impartial judiciary, and make John Roberts very happy, and be good for the republic, our institutions, our 150 year judicial history, and everything. They all just need the will to do it.

Right, so it's not happening then.

I do agree, there should be a compromise of sorts here, but Republicans are not going to give it up. Not unless a tiny handful break from McConnell and say no.

I just hope the CR passes before both sides dig into their trenches. The last thing we need is a government shutdown with everything else going on.

No one in DC ever wants a shutdown (I was there for the last one) but if any time was appropriate, it would certainly be now.