To court packing supporters on atlas.

[R.P. McM]

One short post is better than half a dozen sloppy ones full of personal attacks and incorrect assumptions.

You say one thing, the number of recommendations says quite another.

Lowest common denominator.

I initially attached a meme, but honestly - do better.

Oh, I certainly don't believe the conventional wisdom is always correct. But it is mostly correct. Ironically, this is a thread about whether or not Democrats should enforce the popular will. Аverroës made a pejorative, subjective assessment of my comments, something that can't be objectively adjudicated. So I simply pointed out that most of my purportedly spammed, "sloppy" comments have one or more recommendations, whereas his/her have none. Аverroës could have a point, unfortunately, no one seems to agree with him/her. If everyone in the room thinks you're an *******, it's certainly possible that they're all mistaken. It's far more likely, however, that you are.

[John Dule]

One short post is better than half a dozen sloppy ones full of personal attacks and incorrect assumptions.

You say one thing, the number of recommendations says quite another.

Lowest common denominator.

I initially attached a meme, but honestly - do better.

Oh, I certainly don't believe the conventional wisdom is always correct. But it is mostly correct. Ironically, this is a thread about whether or not Democrats should enforce the popular will. Аverroës made a pejorative, subjective assessment of my comments, something that can't be objectively adjudicated. So I simply pointed out that most of my purportedly spammed, "sloppy" comments have one or more recommendations, whereas his/her have none. Аverroës could have a point, unfortunately, no one seems to agree with him/her. If everyone in the room thinks you're an *******, it's certainly possible that they're all mistaken. It's far more likely, however, that you are.

You are embarrassing yourself.

[R.P. McM]

One short post is better than half a dozen sloppy ones full of personal attacks and incorrect assumptions.

You say one thing, the number of recommendations says quite another.

Lowest common denominator.

I initially attached a meme, but honestly - do better.

Oh, I certainly don't believe the conventional wisdom is always correct. But it is mostly correct. Ironically, this is a thread about whether or not Democrats should enforce the popular will. Аverroës made a pejorative, subjective assessment of my comments, something that can't be objectively adjudicated. So I simply pointed out that most of my purportedly spammed, "sloppy" comments have one or more recommendations, whereas his/her have none. Аverroës could have a point, unfortunately, no one seems to agree with him/her. If everyone in the room thinks you're an *******, it's certainly possible that they're all mistaken. It's far more likely, however, that you are.

You are embarrassing yourself.

Ditto:

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

Of course, embarrassment generally follows public censure, and in this case, the exact opposite has happened. But in the interest of not hijacking this thread, what do you say we put aside the meta commentary and focus on the substance of the arguments being advanced? Say, your plan for mitigating the encroaching authoritarianism and procedural extremism of the GOP?

[R.P. McM]

Believe it or not, it doesn't shock me that court-packing is overwhelming popular on this site.

However, I am surprised by how weak the justifications are. There is no pretense about this being anything other than a partisan power grab,

Exactly: if one party is unwilling to respect longstanding norms/traditions, the other party — the majority party — must shirk unilateral disarmament and respond in kind. It's the same story with gerrymandering. I don't like it, but Democrats would be fools not to counter the GOP's anti-majoritarian efforts.

nor is there any apparent forethought about how Republicans will respond when they retake power. Apparently Joe Biden's election will inaugurate uninterrupted decades of Democratic control over the entire federal government.

We're just cognizant of the fact that Democratic policies are popular, and very difficult to repeal. Which is the real motivation behind all of this concern-trolling. Republicans are rightly concerned that a Court reflecting the popular will would be a very bad thing for them politically.

The experience of discussing national politics with partisan Democrats increasingly reminds me of doing the same with Tea Partiers ten years ago. The country is fortunate that any Democratic Senate majority, even a substantial one, will depend on the votes of moderate Senators who can only win reelection be appealing to a broader electorate.

Your assumption is incorrect, because Democratic senators rely on contributions from Democratic voters/interest groups, who justifiably regard an ill-gotten 6-3 GOP Supreme Court majority as an existential threat to everything they hold dear. So Joe Manchin is free to side with Republicans in this particular instance, but he won't receive a dime from any pro-choice, feminist, or union group moving forward, effectively ending his political career. Likewise for Chris Coons, etc.

As for my personal popularity, I would criticize the idea even if every person here were taunting me in disagreement. If you allow jeers to deter you from speaking the truth, you have ceased to be free person.

Oh, I've rubbed plenty of people the wrong way on this forum. I just happen to be right in this particular instance.

[John Dule]

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I hate the idea of court packing. I really do. It sets a dangerous precedent and I don't want to frame it so that the GOP can come back in 8-12 years and add 5 SCOTUS judges, never mind what they'd do to the circuit courts. That said, I'm not just going to roll over and take the Republican abuse. It has to be framed a proportionate response to the norms violations the Republicans committed so they know if they try this sh!t again, this is how we respond (and vice-versa.) The Republicans stole two seats (Garland and RBG). Adding two seats is a reasonable response to get those two and no more back.

[7,052,770]

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.

[Badger]

Hot take of the week: This crisis is the DEMOCRATS fault.

It's sad when someone who was once capable of thinking for himself is reduced to a vector for partisan memes. What does this post even mean? It's not even a thought, it's just a Pavlovian mental pattern that you absorbed off of the internet and are now belching back at anyone unfortunate enough to trigger that urge.

Sorry to tell you, but in context of your (omitted) ridiculous post, my response makes perfect sense.

The calls for court-packing are coming from left-aligned media and keyboard warriors. Few Democratic Senators have expressed any interest. The attempt to cast opposition to the idea as "blaming Democrats" for something that their caucus is unlikely to do and does not even support is ridiculous.

You're not engaging with the merits of the idea, you're just policing the conversation and beating your chest at anyone with the wrong views.

Chuck Schumer has explicitly said that nothing, repeat nothing, is off the table if Trump does this. It doesn't take a genius to read between the lines here.

If you really believe that this is just the keyboard Warriors talking and not Democratic caucus itself, you are disengaged.

Regarding the merits, as I have said Many MANY times, if Republicans seek to blatently throw out "The Scalia rule" made up by Republicans only four years ago, than expanding the court is a reasonable measureto UNDO court-packi g and the wholescale politicization of filling judicial vacancies Republicans have unapologetically and unreservedly engaged in like trench warfare for a decade now.

[John Dule]

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.

[7,052,770]

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.

[SevenEleven]

I hate the idea of court packing. I really do. It sets a dangerous precedent and I don't want to frame it so that the GOP can come back in 8-12 years and add 5 SCOTUS judges, never mind what they'd do to the circuit courts. That said, I'm not just going to roll over and take the Republican abuse. It has to be framed a proportionate response to the norms violations the Republicans committed so they know if they try this sh!t again, this is how we respond (and vice-versa.) The Republicans stole two seats (Garland and RBG). Adding two seats is a reasonable response to get those two and no more back.

Republicans stole one seat (Scalia->Garland) and one Presidency. The aftermath resulting is three stolen seats when you consider Kennedy and Ginsburg with the presidency stolen utilizing the vacant Scalia seat.

[lfromnj]

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.

Would you be content if Roberts offered to retire in February to save the court? Just want to see your view.

[7,052,770]

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.

Would you be content if Roberts offered to retire in February to save the court?

Is that on the table? I mean, I'd probably be open to it being a piece of a grand compromise, but why does it have to be him?

[lfromnj]

I hate the idea of court packing. I really do. It sets a dangerous precedent and I don't want to frame it so that the GOP can come back in 8-12 years and add 5 SCOTUS judges, never mind what they'd do to the circuit courts. That said, I'm not just going to roll over and take the Republican abuse. It has to be framed a proportionate response to the norms violations the Republicans committed so they know if they try this sh!t again, this is how we respond (and vice-versa.) The Republicans stole two seats (Garland and RBG). Adding two seats is a reasonable response to get those two and no more back.

The GOP didn't "steal" both seats, you can't claim both were stolen. However if you do believe one of those seats was "stolen" adding 2 seats is still the "fair" response as the court would be +1 L and -1 C if the seat wasn't "stolen". If you somehow actually believe both seats were stolen then you add 4 seats FWIW.

[John Dule]

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.

[7,052,770]

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.

You're probably right, but can we repair their Court pack back to R+1 instead of just letting them have R+3.

I'm not advocating to go to D+1 or D+100 or whatever like some are. I still respect norms and will even try to restore the ones that Republicans canceled.

[Calthrina950]

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

[Brittain33]

Would you be content if Roberts offered to retire in February to save the court? Just want to see your view.

Roberts is the one Republican appointee on the court mindful of the lack of legitimacy of a conservative majority and who behaved in response to that some time (not all of the time) this year. So it's not a surprise that Republicans consider him a judas and want another justice to disempower him. It's not a compromise at all to have a 5-4 Republican majority with the non-Roberts 4 + a new nutjob.

[Ferguson97]

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 why should we let them?

Seriously, why the heck should we just let them win?

[ShadowRocket]

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.

[Brittain33]

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.

[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.

[Brittain33]

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.

[Mike Thick]

Relevant article

https://crookedtimber.org/2020/09/19/the-supreme-court-and-normcore/

What this means, pretty straightforwardly, is that norms don’t just rely on the willingness of the relevant actors to adhere to them. They also rely on the willingness of actors to violate them under the right circumstances. If one side violates, then the other side has to be prepared to punish. If one side threatens a violation, then the other side has to threaten in turn, to make it clear that deviating from the norm will be costly. A norm governing relations between two opposing sides, where one side acts strategically (to exploit opportunities) and the other naively (always to support the norm) can’t be sustained.

The Levitsky and Ziblatt logic suggests that democratic breakdown is a process of unraveling, whereby tit for tat dynamics lead to accelerating norm breakdown and the breakdown of ordinary politics. That is indeed a plausible dynamic, and one can tell a story of judicial confirmations in which Republican move and Democratic countermove have led to increasingly brutal power politics.

But as the game theory suggests, tit for tat may play a crucial role in norm maintenance as well as norm breakdown. Without a willingness to punish, we end up in the McConnell equilibrium, where one side concocts ever more extravagantly contrived normative justifications for doing what it wants to do, while the other issues grave statements deploring the breakdown of civilty. That is not precisely a recipe for norm maintenance either, unless by “norm maintenance” you mean a mere preservation of outward forms and decorum – something far feebler than either Levitsky or Ziblatt advocate as I understand them.

[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.