To court packing supporters on atlas.

[GeneralMacArthur]

you should be violently opposed to the Republican Party, period.

I am, you dingus. When have I ever said anything even remotely nice about the GOP on this site? Not everybody is on one of the two artificial sides you and your partisan hack friends have imposed upon this country.

Either we roll over and let Republicans do whatever they want without fighting back, or we fight back. We didn't ask for this situation, but we're in it.

Great. So when you start doing stuff like this, you'll stop getting mad when people say "Both sides do it," right?

Why do you keep returning to this bad argument when people have addressed it time and time again?

[R.P. McM]

I don't want to pack the court as a policy move.  I want packing the court to be the nuclear button that Democrats press to force Republicans to answer for their declaration of war on democracy over the last ten years.

I don't even want to see the court packed.  I want Democrats to use this weapon to force Republicans to agree to a series of reforms that will make things fair for both sides.  Right now Republicans claim to have a set of principles, but they only apply those principles to Democrats, and allow Republicans to do whatever they want.  If you want those principles, fine.  We'll let you have them!  But if the Republicans want to live in a country with those principles, they must be enshrined into law, ideally in the constitution, so that they can be applied regardless of political party.  And the hyper-politicization of every single sector of government must end.  We can not live in a country where even the USPS becomes a political tool for the president to enforce tyranny of the minority!

Basically, the message is this.  You've made things extremely unfair, and our democracy is currently broken.  We want to fix it.  Here is our proposal for how to fix it, which you must agree to negotiate in good faith.  If you choose instead to laugh in our face and continue perpetuating this broken democracy and broken country, fine, we will make sure you get what you paid for.

If it helps to make it obvious to the American people what's going on and counter some Fox News talking points, I'd actually support the Democrats threatening to pack the court with some laughably high number of justices.  Like say they're going to add 1,000 new justices or something.  Just to make it clear that the point of packing the court isn't to achieve any policy aim, it's a temporary thing to force Republicans to partake in healing the massive wounds they've inflicted on our government.

The Republicans have no interest stopping, much less in reversing, the abuse they perpetuate on our nation. They will never negotiate in good faith. They will take your deal and then laugh in your face when they use it against their opponents, while breaking it themselves.

That's why we have to use the threat of court packing to force them to the negotiating table.

We both know that's not going to happen. The contemporary GOP is an angry, unhinged, racist, authoritarian cult. They won't take the threat of Court-packing as an opportunity to reach a just and equitable compromise, because they don't believe in such airy concepts. Instead, Republicans will descend into even more deranged, conspiratorial depths. The current generation is absolutely irredeemable, so the aim should be to deprive them of the ability to exercise undemocratic power on a semi-permanent basis. Everyone on this side of the aisle favors reform over a unilateral exercise of power. Unfortunately, at the moment, the possibility of that gambit succeeding is extremely remote.

[Stuart98]

4 for now, one for each circuit court of appeals, and I wouldn't be against adding more circuit courts and more SC justices to match either.

[7,052,770]

you should be violently opposed to the Republican Party, period.

I am, you dingus. When have I ever said anything even remotely nice about the GOP on this site? Not everybody is on one of the two artificial sides you and your partisan hack friends have imposed upon this country.

Either we roll over and let Republicans do whatever they want without fighting back, or we fight back. We didn't ask for this situation, but we're in it.

Great. So when you start doing stuff like this, you'll stop getting mad when people say "Both sides do it," right?

There's a pretty big difference in initiating it, and having no choice but to follow along.

[T'Chenka]

Imagine defending McConnell and Graham as principled on this and blaming Democrats.

[John Dule]

you should be violently opposed to the Republican Party, period.

I am, you dingus. When have I ever said anything even remotely nice about the GOP on this site? Not everybody is on one of the two artificial sides you and your partisan hack friends have imposed upon this country.

All I ever see you doing is taking shots at the Democratic Party from the peanut gallery.  That's how you treat the Republican Party, who have thrown away every last vestige of institutionalism or democracy during their time in power.  But as soon as the Democrats try to play the same game, not because we want to but because we're forced to, you're all over us with the hellfire and damnation.

Lol, how many times do I have to post "If you vote for Trump, you are a bad person" on this site before you stop acting as though I'm a secret Republican operative? Your willingness to indiscriminately ascribe ill intent to other people the moment they disagree with you is perhaps the number one reason why I find you such a revolting poster.

[GeneralMacArthur]

you should be violently opposed to the Republican Party, period.

I am, you dingus. When have I ever said anything even remotely nice about the GOP on this site? Not everybody is on one of the two artificial sides you and your partisan hack friends have imposed upon this country.

All I ever see you doing is taking shots at the Democratic Party from the peanut gallery.  That's how you treat the Republican Party, who have thrown away every last vestige of institutionalism or democracy during their time in power.  But as soon as the Democrats try to play the same game, not because we want to but because we're forced to, you're all over us with the hellfire and damnation.

Lol, how many times do I have to post "If you vote for Trump, you are a bad person" on this site before you stop acting as though I'm a secret Republican operative? Your willingness to indiscriminately ascribe ill intent to other people the moment they disagree with you is perhaps the number one reason why I find you such a revolting poster.

Not Trump, the Republican Party.  There are plenty of people on this site who bash Trump but tacitly support the Republican Party.

Again, you continue to refuse to answer the question that everyone is asking of you.

Again, you continue to play the "both sides are the same" game and have no answer for the many posters who have pointed out that Republicans started this fight, Democrats initially tried "when they go low, we go high", Republicans laughed at that and cheated even harder, and now Democrats are forced to join the fight.

[Calthrina950]

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.

This is insanity! Do you not think Republicans would try to impeach Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor, if such a course of action as you propose were pursued? It would be an absolutely foolish move, and would truly demonstrate that there is no longer a balance of power between the branches. Many of the things I've read today on this forum from Atlas Democrats are deeply disturbing to me, and a reaction that is unwarranted, with proposals that will be consequential and will backfire on your cause.

[American2020]

I agree with your proposition for court packing.
I'm reflecting on a B-plan about the US SC.

As FDR’s scheme showed, court-packing doesn’t have to be as simple as just elevating additional justices to the Court. There are several alternatives that have been debated in legal and academic circles: They range from giving each political party five justices, who would then choose five more; to limiting the terms of judges so that every president gets two picks; to making all 180 federal appeals court judges members of the Court, with panels of nine chosen at random to rule on all matters, including which cases the Court would take up. (This change would require only legislation; proposals for limiting the terms of justices would require amending the Constitution.)

They all have the quality of careful thought and the nonexistent possibility that any of them becomes reality in the midst of a full-blown Constitutional brawl. And if Congress pushes through a restructuring of the Court on a strictly partisan vote, giving Americans a Supreme Court that looks unlike anything they grew up with, and unlike the institution we’ve had for more than 240 years, it’s hard to imagine the country as a whole would see its decisions as legitimate.

There’s a good reason that more than 80 years ago, in a time of turmoil, a Democratic president at the peak of his political power nonetheless found his plans thwarted by members of his own party, who found the cost of tinkering with Constitutional machinery too high a price to pay. If McConnell calls a lame-duck session in the face of an electoral loss to lock in a conservative court majority, however, it’s hard to imagine any such concerns staying the hands of Democrats.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/09/19/how-democrats-could-pack-the-supreme-court-in-2021-418453

[7,052,770]

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.

This is insanity! Do you not think Republicans would try to impeach Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor, if such a course of action as you propose were pursued? It would be an absolutely foolish move, and would truly demonstrate that there is no longer a balance of power between the branches. Many of the things I've read today on this forum from Atlas Democrats are deeply disturbing to me, and a reaction that is unwarranted, with proposals that will be consequential and will backfire on your cause.

Then what do you suggest we do? Just let Republicans have this one?

They could have let Obama fill Scalia's seat and we would not raise hell about Trump filling Ginsberg's. Or since they changed the rules and fill Scalia's seat, they should let whoever wins in November fill Ginsberg's. But if they want to play hardball and fill both, we shouldn't and can't feel bad about playing hardball back. We didn't want to go there, but what choice do we have now?

A grand compromise could still fix this. Allow the winner to appoint the next justice, respect the McConnell Rule, and we can all move on. In fact, pair it with a new compromise that puts appointments on a schedule. But if Republicans aren't willing to do that, our only choices are to meekly surrender or fight back.

[Figueira]

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

Honestly if the Supreme Court flips back and forth every time there's a new President, that's better than the system we seem to be heading towards.

[Calthrina950]

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.

This is insanity! Do you not think Republicans would try to impeach Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor, if such a course of action as you propose were pursued? It would be an absolutely foolish move, and would truly demonstrate that there is no longer a balance of power between the branches. Many of the things I've read today on this forum from Atlas Democrats are deeply disturbing to me, and a reaction that is unwarranted, with proposals that will be consequential and will backfire on your cause.

Then what do you suggest we do? Just let Republicans have this one?

They could have let Obama fill Scalia's seat and we would not raise hell about Trump filling Ginsberg's. Or since they changed the rules and fill Scalia's seat, they should let whoever wins in November fill Ginsberg's. But if they want to play hardball and fill both, we shouldn't and can't feel bad about playing hardball back. We didn't want to go there, but what choice do we have now?

A grand compromise could still fix this. Allow the winner to appoint the next justice, respect the McConnell Rule, and we can all move on. In fact, pair it with a new compromise that puts appointments on a schedule. But if Republicans aren't willing to do that, our only choices are to meekly surrender or fight back.

I'm going to repost what I posted earlier on RRH Elections, and you'll see where I stand on this issue:

I’m for Supreme Court nominations being considered, regardless of which year it is or what time of year. Every President-whether it’s Obama, or Trump, or Bill Clinton, or (potentially) Joe Biden, should be accorded the opportunity to nominate whichever candidates they deem fit for a vacancy, and to have such nomination to be at least considered by the Senate. However, that does not mean-and let me make this clear-does not mean that such nomination needs to be approved. The Senate has the power to confirm or reject nominees as it pleases. I don’t think Mitch McConnell should have denied Merrick Garland the dignity of a hearing. It was completely within McConnell’s rights, to object to his confirmation, but he should have allowed such rejection to come in the form of an up or down vote.

Consequently, I think that Democratic calls for not giving a Trump nominee a hearing now, while they do have some moral legitimacy, rest on shaky ground, and a Trump nominee should be given a hearing and an up or down vote, before or after the election, whenever the Senate places it on the agenda. In light of what Republicans did to Garland, I would prefer that they not make such a move, though it would be within their rights, as members of a co-equal branch of government, to do so. And I am absolutely and utterly opposed to Democratic court-packing schemes, which observers-such as Chief Justice Roberts himself-have recognized would be an even greater threat to the independence and stability of the federal judiciary, to the principles underlying separation of powers, and the principles underlying federalism, then what Mitch McConnell did to Merrick Garland.

[John Dule]

Not Trump, the Republican Party.  There are plenty of people on this site who bash Trump but tacitly support the Republican Party.

Again, you continue to refuse to answer the question that everyone is asking of you.

Again, you continue to play the "both sides are the same" game and have no answer for the many posters who have pointed out that Republicans started this fight, Democrats initially tried "when they go low, we go high", Republicans laughed at that and cheated even harder, and now Democrats are forced to join the fight.

Was Nixon justified in the Watergate break-ins because Kennedy stole the 1960 election?

[JohnCA246]

What about 10....are court ties ok in that they just revert to the original decision?

I can't really say two seats were stolen. Trump is trying to do now what Obama tried to do. The problem  is that the GOP created a rule saying you can't doing that, then got rid of the rule to help Trump get a nominee through after speaking of that rule in very moralistic terms. It seems justified, then for Dems to change the rules to give them a seat.

Good point, one extra judge would just make it 6-4....GOP would not be the least worried about that as a retaliation.
Ties are really bad and often create the situation of lack of precedent. FWIW if you see one of the 2 seats as stolen then it was -1 D+ 1 R which means 2 seats would be the "fair" move from your position and what I think you should support at least from a mathematical perspective. I didn't really see the point of putting any other options as 11 is the decision that would return the court to what Democrats see as the pre 2016 balance while 13+ is the full on nuclear option.

[KaiserDave]

I deeply distrust court packing

But then we desperately need structural reform

[WD]

Not Trump, the Republican Party.  There are plenty of people on this site who bash Trump but tacitly support the Republican Party.

Again, you continue to refuse to answer the question that everyone is asking of you.

Again, you continue to play the "both sides are the same" game and have no answer for the many posters who have pointed out that Republicans started this fight, Democrats initially tried "when they go low, we go high", Republicans laughed at that and cheated even harder, and now Democrats are forced to join the fight.

Was Nixon justified in the Watergate break-ins because Kennedy stole the 1960 election?

This is an absurd comparison. The proper response to cheating isn’t criminal activity, and no one is claiming that it is.

[John Dule]

Not Trump, the Republican Party.  There are plenty of people on this site who bash Trump but tacitly support the Republican Party.

Again, you continue to refuse to answer the question that everyone is asking of you.

Again, you continue to play the "both sides are the same" game and have no answer for the many posters who have pointed out that Republicans started this fight, Democrats initially tried "when they go low, we go high", Republicans laughed at that and cheated even harder, and now Democrats are forced to join the fight.

Was Nixon justified in the Watergate break-ins because Kennedy stole the 1960 election?

This is an absurd comparison. The proper response to cheating isn’t criminal activity, and no one is claiming that it is.

Oh right, sorry, the proper response to cheating is more cheating.

[WD]

Not Trump, the Republican Party.  There are plenty of people on this site who bash Trump but tacitly support the Republican Party.

Again, you continue to refuse to answer the question that everyone is asking of you.

Again, you continue to play the "both sides are the same" game and have no answer for the many posters who have pointed out that Republicans started this fight, Democrats initially tried "when they go low, we go high", Republicans laughed at that and cheated even harder, and now Democrats are forced to join the fight.

Was Nixon justified in the Watergate break-ins because Kennedy stole the 1960 election?

This is an absurd comparison. The proper response to cheating isn’t criminal activity, and no one is claiming that it is.

Oh right, sorry, the proper response to cheating is more cheating.

You criticize the idea of court packing alot in this thread, but what solution do you have to address the issue at hand? Should Democrats just roll over, and let Republicans trample all over them? I’m actually curious as to what you would do instead.

[R.P. McM]

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.

^^^

Democrats were outmaneuvered on Senate procedure. They were outmaneuvered on media spin. They couldn't convince an octogenarian to vacate her seat rather than gambling their entire political project on her well-being. And now that these developments have come to a head, they're suddenly talking of blowing up an entire branch of government.  

Thank God their elected officials are generally more level-headed than the lifestyle partisans who drive online conversations.

Democrats are proposing to "outmaneuver" the GOP and expand the size of the Supreme Court using perfectly legal, constitutional means. The only consideration that prevented such a move in the past was the mutual respect both parties shared for existing norms and traditions. Obviously, Republicans no longer give a **** about such niceties. So y'all need to stop crying over a situation the shameless, disgraceful conduct of your party has created. I think most of us have a clear view of who you folks really are, so attempting to grandstand on "principle" at this point is just a joke. You have none.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

If the choice is between wrecking the American republic or allowing one side to do whatever it wants, then I say wreck the republic because it won't be worth saving because it won't be small-d democratic.  As Patrick Henry once said, "Give me liberty or give me death."  The Republican Party today is apparently standing for the proposition that only they can break or make the rules,  Yes, I'm being hyperbolic, maybe even excessively so, but the idea that it will be solely the fault of the Democrats if they refuse to go along with the repeated efforts of the Republicans to say "Heads we win, tails you lose." is completely absolutely idiotic, stupid, and/or disingenuous.  The only fault that can be reasonably be laid at the feet of the Democrats is that for too long they assumed there were enough reasonable Republicans who realized that retaining power at all costs would only lead to the destruction of the republic.  Sadly, the Republicans are apparently doing their best to prove the fears of the Founders that like all republics before them, the putting of party above country would prove its ruin.  We've had a good run as a country, and hopefully we'll be able to resolve this crisis without too much disturbance, but this is definitely not going to be an Era of Good Feelings.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Not Trump, the Republican Party.  There are plenty of people on this site who bash Trump but tacitly support the Republican Party.

Again, you continue to refuse to answer the question that everyone is asking of you.

Again, you continue to play the "both sides are the same" game and have no answer for the many posters who have pointed out that Republicans started this fight, Democrats initially tried "when they go low, we go high", Republicans laughed at that and cheated even harder, and now Democrats are forced to join the fight.

Was Nixon justified in the Watergate break-ins because Kennedy stole the 1960 election?

This is an absurd comparison. The proper response to cheating isn’t criminal activity, and no one is claiming that it is.

Oh right, sorry, the proper response to cheating is more cheating.

You criticize the idea of court packing alot in this thread, but what solution do you have to address the issue at hand? Should Democrats just roll over, and let Republicans trample all over them? I’m actually curious as to what you would do instead.

He doesn't have one.  You're like the 4th poster to ask him this question and he refuses to answer it.

[lfromnj]

By the way, if Roberts offered to give up the lucrative Chief Justice seat in exchange for a promise to not courtpack, would you guys take it(this is assuming the Ginsburg seat is replaced) and Biden is president in January.

[R.P. McM]

By the way, if Roberts offered to give up the lucrative Chief Justice seat in exchange for a promise to not courtpack, would you guys take it(this is assuming the Ginsburg seat is replaced) and Biden is president in January.

No. A 6-3 Republican Court achieved through these means is completely unacceptable. What this all boils down to is that Democrats are being begged not to use perfectly legal means (potentially) at their disposal at the behest of a political party completely devoid of shame or scruples. Democrats would be fools to trust in the decency, honesty, or restraint of the Trumpist GOP.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

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.

This is insanity! Do you not think Republicans would try to impeach Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor, if such a course of action as you propose were pursued? It would be an absolutely foolish move, and would truly demonstrate that there is no longer a balance of power between the branches. Many of the things I've read today on this forum from Atlas Democrats are deeply disturbing to me, and a reaction that is unwarranted, with proposals that will be consequential and will backfire on your cause.

Then what do you suggest we do? Just let Republicans have this one?

They could have let Obama fill Scalia's seat and we would not raise hell about Trump filling Ginsberg's. Or since they changed the rules and fill Scalia's seat, they should let whoever wins in November fill Ginsberg's. But if they want to play hardball and fill both, we shouldn't and can't feel bad about playing hardball back. We didn't want to go there, but what choice do we have now?

Once again, Merrick Garland would not have been approved by the Senate. Obama literally could not fill the seat. That is the ginormous difference that allows the Republicans to do this.

Mitch McConnell looks like a genius in hindsight for refusing to even allow it to move to debate because he kept his caucus in line and avoid several weeks of bad press. All of that is very reasonable behavior from a majority leader. Averroes is 100% right that this is a complete failure of the Democratic Party to be so out-maneuvered at every turn within reasonable rules. McConnell has done what any competent leader should be doing behind the scenes, and Democrats are upset that they can't keep up so they want to destroy the institution....just like they want to 'fix' the Senate in their favor.

It doesn't matter that the Republican Senators are hypocritical in their rationales. Schumer made the reverse arguments at each instance as well. That is part of the job of being a Seantor. It's all within the rules that we've been playing by. We have these nine seats, and we have had these nine seats for 150 years. The President and Senate must agree in order to fill any vacancies. The only change was the drop of the 60 votes requirement. ZERO seats have been stolen. Changing the Senate rules and inventing new seats is just a terrible power grab in response to losing.

I do support an expanded SCOTUS, but without extreme reforms, it would require a grand bargain, and our parties do not trust each other enough to get that done.

[SevenEleven]

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.

This is insanity! Do you not think Republicans would try to impeach Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor, if such a course of action as you propose were pursued? It would be an absolutely foolish move, and would truly demonstrate that there is no longer a balance of power between the branches. Many of the things I've read today on this forum from Atlas Democrats are deeply disturbing to me, and a reaction that is unwarranted, with proposals that will be consequential and will backfire on your cause.

Then what do you suggest we do? Just let Republicans have this one?

They could have let Obama fill Scalia's seat and we would not raise hell about Trump filling Ginsberg's. Or since they changed the rules and fill Scalia's seat, they should let whoever wins in November fill Ginsberg's. But if they want to play hardball and fill both, we shouldn't and can't feel bad about playing hardball back. We didn't want to go there, but what choice do we have now?

Once again, Merrick Garland would not have been approved by the Senate. Obama literally could not fill the seat. That is the ginormous difference that allows the Republicans to do this.

How can you say this with such certitude?