To court packing supporters on atlas.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Let's pay homage to FDR with 15 justices. As others have said, it's time to go nuclear.

Then if Republicans get the trifecta they should increase it to 49. Two can play it this game

And then we'll increase it to 420. Because why not.

You guys started this arms race by stealing Scalia's seat then (presumably) stealing RBG's seat in the most hypocritical manner possible. We CANNOT take this lying down.

The constitution makes it clear the senate as the ability to reject any judicial nominees they want. Its not stealing at all unless Bork was stolen or Nixon's 2 rejected judges were stolen too.

And anyway even if two justices were stolen in your mind and you respond by adding 6 then yes we should increase it to 49.


Also if thats the position your making it clear you dont want votes from people like me either

[OBD]

Let's pay homage to FDR with 15 justices. As others have said, it's time to go nuclear.

Then if Republicans get the trifecta they should increase it to 49. Two can play it this game

And then we'll increase it to 420. Because why not.

You guys started this arms race by stealing Scalia's seat then (presumably) stealing RBG's seat in the most hypocritical manner possible. We CANNOT take this lying down.

The constitution makes it clear the senate as the ability to reject any judicial nominees they want. Its not stealing at all unless Bork was stolen or Nixon's 2 rejected judges were stolen too.

And anyway even if two justices were stolen in your mind and you respond by adding 6 then yes we should increase it to 49.


Also if thats the position your making it clear you dont want votes from people like me either

So this incredible hypocrisy from your party is okay? Yes, it's legal. So is court packing.

Trump and McConnell have made it clear that they give no fecks about morality. So why should we?

[pppolitics]

Let's pay homage to FDR with 15 justices. As others have said, it's time to go nuclear.

Then if Republicans get the trifecta they should increase it to 49. Two can play it this game

And then we'll increase it to 420. Because why not.

You guys started this arms race by stealing Scalia's seat then (presumably) stealing RBG's seat in the most hypocritical manner possible. We CANNOT take this lying down.

The constitution makes it clear the senate as the ability to reject any judicial nominees they want. Its not stealing at all unless Bork was stolen or Nixon's 2 rejected judges were stolen too.

And anyway even if two justices were stolen in your mind and you respond by adding 6 then yes we should increase it to 49.


Also if thats the position your making it clear you dont want votes from people like me either

Merrick Garland wasn't even considered

[OSR stands with Israel]

Let's pay homage to FDR with 15 justices. As others have said, it's time to go nuclear.

Then if Republicans get the trifecta they should increase it to 49. Two can play it this game

And then we'll increase it to 420. Because why not.

You guys started this arms race by stealing Scalia's seat then (presumably) stealing RBG's seat in the most hypocritical manner possible. We CANNOT take this lying down.

The constitution makes it clear the senate as the ability to reject any judicial nominees they want. Its not stealing at all unless Bork was stolen or Nixon's 2 rejected judges were stolen too.

And anyway even if two justices were stolen in your mind and you respond by adding 6 then yes we should increase it to 49.


Also if thats the position your making it clear you dont want votes from people like me either

So this incredible hypocrisy from your party is okay? Yes, it's legal. So is court packing.

Trump and McConnell have made it clear that they give no fecks about morality. So why should we?

Justices have been rejected in the past and here's the thing

packing the courts fars more destroys democracy than whatever McConnell did . The Senate has the ability to not approve any nominee. If Obama nominated say Mike Lee to the Supreme Court Im 100% sure he gets approved.

If you won control of the senate in 2018 you'd have full power to block the nominee


FYI my position is no they should not appoint someone now but court packing is far far more egregious and it is a total redline for it.

[John Dule]

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.

[pppolitics]

Let's pay homage to FDR with 15 justices. As others have said, it's time to go nuclear.

Then if Republicans get the trifecta they should increase it to 49. Two can play it this game

And then we'll increase it to 420. Because why not.

You guys started this arms race by stealing Scalia's seat then (presumably) stealing RBG's seat in the most hypocritical manner possible. We CANNOT take this lying down.

The constitution makes it clear the senate as the ability to reject any judicial nominees they want. Its not stealing at all unless Bork was stolen or Nixon's 2 rejected judges were stolen too.

And anyway even if two justices were stolen in your mind and you respond by adding 6 then yes we should increase it to 49.


Also if thats the position your making it clear you dont want votes from people like me either

So this incredible hypocrisy from your party is okay? Yes, it's legal. So is court packing.

Trump and McConnell have made it clear that they give no fecks about morality. So why should we?

Justices have been rejected in the past and here's the thing

packing the courts fars more destroys democracy than whatever McConnell did . The Senate has the ability to not approve any nominee. If Obama nominated say Mike Lee to the Supreme Court Im 100% sure he gets approved.

If you won control of the senate in 2018 you'd have full power to block the nominee


FYI my position is no they should not appoint someone now but court packing is far far more egregious and it is a total redline for it.

Merrick Garland wasn't rejected.

He was never allowed to even be considered.

[Antonio the Sixth]

3, one for each illegitimate appointment

[7,052,770]

Let's pay homage to FDR with 15 justices. As others have said, it's time to go nuclear.

Then if Republicans get the trifecta they should increase it to 49. Two can play it this game

And then we'll increase it to 420. Because why not.

You guys started this arms race by stealing Scalia's seat then (presumably) stealing RBG's seat in the most hypocritical manner possible. We CANNOT take this lying down.

The constitution makes it clear the senate as the ability to reject any judicial nominees they want. Its not stealing at all unless Bork was stolen or Nixon's 2 rejected judges were stolen too.

And anyway even if two justices were stolen in your mind and you respond by adding 6 then yes we should increase it to 49.


Also if thats the position your making it clear you dont want votes from people like me either

So this incredible hypocrisy from your party is okay? Yes, it's legal. So is court packing.

Trump and McConnell have made it clear that they give no fecks about morality. So why should we?

Justices have been rejected in the past and here's the thing

packing the courts fars more destroys democracy than whatever McConnell did . The Senate has the ability to not approve any nominee. If Obama nominated say Mike Lee to the Supreme Court Im 100% sure he gets approved.

If you won control of the senate in 2018 you'd have full power to block the nominee


FYI my position is no they should not appoint someone now but court packing is far far more egregious and it is a total redline for it.

Mitch McConnell refused to even consider any Obama nominee in 2016, using a fake phony excuse that it shouldn't be done in an election year, and 4 years later is throwing that out the window to confirm a nominee in an election year.

It's not that both the Scalia seat and the Ginsburg seat are stolen. Either Obama had the right to fill Scalia's seat and Trump has the right to fill Ginsburg's, or McConnell's fake new rule applies and Trump fills Scalia's and the 2020 winner fills Ginsburg's. The fact that McConnell is filling both is unquestionably 1 stolen seat. All Democrats want to do is correct that.

Granted, it would be better to make a permanent reform instead of just going back and forth, but McConnell put us down this path. Democrats can either roll over and die or fight fire with fire.

[GeneralMacArthur]

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.

[Badger]

First, the question is flawed because we've undergone court-packing the last 4 years absolutely unprecedented scale. Actually, arguably it started in beginning of 2015 when Mitch McConnell and his caucus power hungry jackals--or rather perhaps his cock is representing the American portion of power-hungry jackals - - put the brakes on most Obama nominees spouting off nonsense like a strict constructionist when all they wanted was someone who could back their political agenda in the courts because they can't when outside of gerrymander legislative maps and increasingly acre over voter dominated Senate. What we're really talking about here is undoing or balancing out the last 6 years of unapologetic latent amoral and a historical Court packing..

To answer question, I will reluctantly say limited to two. Maybe, just maybe the American people will say enough and not play the Mindless intellectually lazy both sides do it car that most conservatives on this forum and elsewhere too, though I'm not particularly optimistic.

I wouldn't feel at all uncomfortable with expanding the federal Judiciary at the district and circuit level, though. As previously pointed out the 9th circuit is way too small, and California should absolutely have its own circuit at this point..

[John Dule]

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.

[KaiserDave]

I don't support court packing, I want structural reform to SCOTUS. But it's probably better than nothing.

[GeneralMacArthur]

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.

That's like saying after Pearl Harbor that if the United States finally enters the war, you "won't absolve the United States of your participation in bloodshed."

The GOP is dedicated to destroying American democracy so they can entrench their own minority rule for the foreseeable future.  Democracy is broken no matter what.  The only way to end it is to engage, fight the fight, and get to a place where we can force them to turn things around.  But you'd rather just post smug, easy takes from the peanut gallery than actually try to reckon with the reality of what's going on.

[Badger]

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.

What a bad and utterly missing the point take.

[politicallefty]

The issue at hand is that Democrats would have nothing to lose if Republicans push forward with a new right-wing Justice. The Democratic Party is the only major party that actually wants to govern in a responsible fashion. That goes out the window with a 6-3 conservative majority. I don't know what legislation would be safe from such a Court. The Affordable Care Act would almost certainly not survive. It barely survived in 2012. What if the jurisprudence looks like what FDR faced pre-1937? Everyone keeps jumping the issue right to abortion. That doesn't even register in my top 20 concerns with what could be. There are other precedents that have been established over the past several decades that would be in serious jeopardy.

Even while this has been a conservative Supreme Court for decades now, it still does maintain the legitimacy of the people. That legitimacy has been maintained because neither side wins everything. Most years, conservatives win a substantial majority of the cases. In some rare years, the left has been more than pleased by the overall decisions. It's been a very delicate balance with Justices like O'Connor and Kennedy. The balance has been tipped heavily to one side, but it hasn't fallen over completely to one side. Chief Justice Roberts takes his role as leader of the judiciary very seriously and knows this just as well as anyone. He's not even close to a liberal, but he understands the Court needs to be legitimate in the eyes of the people. If every decision becomes a foregone conclusion to one side, that legitimacy is lost and the threat to the people and the republic is severe.

[John Dule]

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.

That's like saying after Pearl Harbor that if the United States finally enters the war, you "won't absolve the United States of your participation in bloodshed."

The GOP is dedicated to destroying American democracy so they can entrench their own minority rule for the foreseeable future.  Democracy is broken no matter what.  The only way to end it is to engage, fight the fight, and get to a place where we can force them to turn things around.  But you'd rather just post smug, easy takes from the peanut gallery than actually try to reckon with the reality of what's going on.

The only reason I have been supportive of the Democratic Party for the last ten years is the fact that they obviously cared more about democracy and its institutions than the Republicans did. They are now proving that this was a simple charade. How you choose to handle this is your responsibility and yours alone. No buts. No whatabouts.

[John Dule]

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.

What a bad and utterly missing the point take.

I've always been sympathetic to the Democrats, but my sympathy ends where court-packing begins.

[Mike Thick]

Let's be real: we aren't getting more than two. Dem institutionalists are already going to be apprehensive about any expansion. Can't imagine they go for anything more than maintaining the (crappy) status quo.

In an ideal world, though? 13.

[KaiserDave]

Let's be real: we aren't getting more than two. Dem institutionalists are already going to be apprehensive about any expansion. Can't imagine they go for anything more than maintaining the (crappy) status quo.

In an ideal world, though? 13.

Thank God for those institutionalists then. Court packing is a dangerous business and it's a bad thing. I only have come around to it as a last ditch effort. What we need is structural reform.

[GeneralMacArthur]

[GeneralMacArthur]

The only reason I have been supportive of the Democratic Party for the last ten years is the fact that they obviously cared more about democracy and its institutions than the Republicans did. They are now proving that this was a simple charade. How you choose to handle this is your responsibility and yours alone. No buts. No whatabouts.

The main reason I want Democrats to pack the courts is to force a situation where Republicans agree to return to institutionalism and cool things down instead of letting it spiral into all-out war.

I'm literally trying to make an institutionalist argument and you're coming after me for not caring about democracy and institutions.  The entire point of this is that Republicans are actively destroying our democracy and institutions, and court packing is one of the few weapons we can use to strike back and undo the damage they've already done.

The idea is, you add some new justices to revert the impact of the stolen seats, and then you go to the Republicans and say, "look we have the power now and we can keep abusing it all day just like you did when you were in power.  OR you can come to the table and we can make some new rules to ensure that neither of us is able to abuse power in this way any longer."

Your take is incredibly shallow and surface-level and I know you're smarter than that but it seems like you're refusing to understand the concept because the thrill of smugly putting people down from some imaginary moral high ground is just too tempting.

[Boobs]

11, with a reduction back to 9 after the next two vacancies.

[NewYorkExpress]

Not only should Democrats pack the court, but they should also impeach, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavaunaugh. That 15-0 Progressive Court needs to be a campaign platform promise.

[John Dule]

The only reason I have been supportive of the Democratic Party for the last ten years is the fact that they obviously cared more about democracy and its institutions than the Republicans did. They are now proving that this was a simple charade. How you choose to handle this is your responsibility and yours alone. No buts. No whatabouts.

The main reason I want Democrats to pack the courts is to force a situation where Republicans agree to return to institutionalism and cool things down instead of letting it spiral into all-out war.

I'm literally trying to make an institutionalist argument and you're coming after me for not caring about democracy and institutions.  The entire point of this is that Republicans are actively destroying our democracy and institutions, and court packing is one of the few weapons we can use to strike back and undo the damage they've already done.

The idea is, you add some new justices to revert the impact of the stolen seats, and then you go to the Republicans and say, "look we have the power now and we can keep abusing it all day just like you did when you were in power.  OR you can come to the table and we can make some new rules to ensure that neither of us is able to abuse power in this way any longer."

Your take is incredibly shallow and surface-level and I know you're smarter than that but it seems like you're refusing to understand the concept because the thrill of smugly putting people down from some imaginary moral high ground is just too tempting.

If those are your goals in advocating this, then you are even more delusional than I first thought. Do you honestly think that the Democrats can chuck a few extra judges into the Supreme Court, then say to the Republicans "Hey, we know we just pulled a monumental and unprecedented power-grab, but it's payback, and if you want us to stop you have to make concessions"? Do you seriously believe that a group as stubborn as the GOP will suddenly come to their senses once you do that? Absolutely freaking absurd. They will double down in the worst possible way; they'll be able to credibly make the case that Democrats are undermining democracy, and swing voters will listen to them. Then once they are in power, they will set about expelling the added judges from the Supreme Court, or perhaps putting more conservatives on the bench to balance out the new liberals.

The outcome of this partisan brinksmanship is as dismal as it is predictable. I don't mind if you destroy this country-- it'll put us all out of our misery-- but please don't try to convince yourself that you're doing it for principled reasons.

[Fight for Trump]

Go to 100. Make SCOTUS irrelevant.