Would you accept this Supreme Court compromise?

[7,052,770]

• Republicans do not confirm Trump's nominee.
• Biden, if he wins, appoints Merrick Garland, who is much more centrist and older than a typical nominee, to the Supreme Court
• A constitutional amendment is passed limiting the size of the Supreme Court to 9, preventing packing forever (or another number, if both sides agree)
• The two parties enter good-faith negotiations to discuss making appointments regular occurrences somehow, rather than linking them to deaths and retirements. This could or could not be a part of the above compromise, but we don't have to wait for these negotiations to end to implement the first three things.
• Additionally, Biden tells Republicans if they don't take the compromise and confirm Trump's nominee, Biden will expand the Court to 11 with two young far-left nominees.
• Finally, if Trump wins reelection, the compromise is moot and he can just fill the seat.

I think this is pretty fair to both sides. The Republicans end up with a better Court than they'd have after Biden got it to 11, a packing crisis is averted, the Court is less politicized, and the structure is less dependent on random luck and hoping old people die at a convenient time.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

LOL at the idea that Biden would appoint far left nominees. Hint: Bernie isn't far left.

[Sbane]

How about term limits? That should lower the tensions a bit.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

No, an Amy Coney Barrett CRT wont take us back to Jim Crow, we don't need the penalty tax any longer on ACA and SSM and abortion and amnesty for illegals would be a state not Federal issue. We were all nervous that Kavanaugh would send us back to Jim Crow when he replaced Kennedy, it never happened

CRT packing is a Union overreach by Unions due to Citizens United being enshrined in the Constitution.  These are the same Unions that beg people for donations and Ds arent supposed to beg, they are supposed to ask, we are a blue collar party not a white collar party

[Former President tack50]

Yes, but with the minor added thing of requiring a 2/3 supermajority to confirm justices.

Honestly a 2/3 supermajority requirement would single handedly solve all the problems with courts being biased.

[Pericles]

The negotiations would probably fail because that's how things go in American politics these days. So the negotiations should actually have to succeed and result in a meaningful change before Democrats limit their future options. Also, this isn't really a factor here, but if court-packing is done it should aim to actually get a liberal majority on the Court. 13 justices makes sense except I'm a bit superstitious about 13 being an unlucky number so it might have to be 15 (even numbers are of course dumb for this).

Merrick Garland is better than the Trump nominee of course though. If somehow Republicans were willing to let him have this seat it would probably be better to just do that, rather than try court-packing which is not certain even with a trifecta (and it sucks out political capital in any case) and most likely have a hardcore right-wing 6-3 Court.

[Benjamin Frank]

Only if the Republicans agree to impeach and remove from the Supreme Court Brett Kavanaugh who repeatedly perjured himself in his testimony to the Senate and who has never explained how his debts were payed off, or what conflicts of interest he has as a result of his debts being paid off.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4840582-BRETT-KAVANAUGH-CRIMINAL-COMPLAINT-to-DEPARTMENT.html

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/11/17562736/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-nationals-tickets-debt

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I wouldn’t tale the deal, because if we were going to go through the trouble of passing a constitutional amendment, I’d like to see much more significant changes to the Court.

We could even make a signficant change that wouldn’t constitute partisan packing but also wouldn’t require and Amendment.  Just allow all Presidents to appoint exactly one Justice every two years regardless of the current size of the Court.

[Hammy]

Yes, but with the minor added thing of requiring a 2/3 supermajority to confirm justices.

Honestly a 2/3 supermajority requirement would single handedly solve all the problems with courts being biased.

We'd never get a justice confirmed again.

[25 Abril/Aprile Sempre!]

I wouldn’t tale the deal, because if we were going to go through the trouble of passing a constitutional amendment, I’d like to see much more significant changes to the Court.

We could even make a signficant change that wouldn’t constitute partisan packing but also wouldn’t require and Amendment.  Just allow all Presidents to appoint exactly one Justice every two years regardless of the current size of the Court.

The Court would get gigantic in this case.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I wouldn’t tale the deal, because if we were going to go through the trouble of passing a constitutional amendment, I’d like to see much more significant changes to the Court.

We could even make a signficant change that wouldn’t constitute partisan packing but also wouldn’t require and Amendment.  Just allow all Presidents to appoint exactly one Justice every two years regardless of the current size of the Court.

The Court would get gigantic in this case.

I’d expect it would average 12 or 13 justices.  The number of justices who actually serve 30 years us really quite small.

[25 Abril/Aprile Sempre!]

I wouldn’t tale the deal, because if we were going to go through the trouble of passing a constitutional amendment, I’d like to see much more significant changes to the Court.

We could even make a signficant change that wouldn’t constitute partisan packing but also wouldn’t require and Amendment.  Just allow all Presidents to appoint exactly one Justice every two years regardless of the current size of the Court.

The Court would get gigantic in this case.

I’d expect it would average 12 or 13 justices.  The number of justices who actually serve 30 years us really quite small.

Mmh you are right. Although I think more justices are having very long tenures in recent years.

[Stranger in a strange land]

LOL at the idea that Biden would appoint far left nominees. Hint: Bernie isn't far left.

Having two Left-Wing mirror versions of Clarence Thomas who are constantly outvoted 9-2 by the other justices would hurt, rather than help the American Left.

[freepcrusher]

LOL at the idea that Biden would appoint far left nominees. Hint: Bernie isn't far left.

Having two Left-Wing mirror versions of Clarence Thomas who are constantly outvoted 9-2 by the other justices would hurt, rather than help the American Left.

that sounds like black and douglas in the vinson court era.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

LOL at the idea that Biden would appoint far left nominees. Hint: Bernie isn't far left.

Having two Left-Wing mirror versions of Clarence Thomas who are constantly outvoted 9-2 by the other justices would hurt, rather than help the American Left.

that sounds like black and douglas in the vinson court era.

Douglas frequently dissented from the left even during the Warren Court era.  Also like Thomas, he often filed separate concurrences to liberal majorities arguing some kooky and tangential legal theory.

[acbtrain]

Dems, you don't seem to understand one simple thing: There is no need for the GOP to compromise, as their victory in moving the court to the right is 99.99% assured.

[R.P. McM]

Dems, you don't seem to understand one simple thing: There is no need for the GOP to compromise, as their victory in moving the court to the right is 99.99% assured.

Agreed — this is all pie in the sky nonsense. You're not going to make friends with a traitorous, racist, authoritarian political party that hates you. Either we impose majority rule on them, or they impose minority rule on us. Those are the choices.

[acbtrain]

Dems, you don't seem to understand one simple thing: There is no need for the GOP to compromise, as their victory in moving the court to the right is 99.99% assured.

Agreed — this is all pie in the sky nonsense. You're not going to make friends with a traitorous, racist, authoritarian political party that hates you. Either we impose majority rule on them, or they impose minority rule on us. Those are the choices.

I know you Dems don't like the idea of a Republic or a Constitution, but Trump did win 30 states in 2016. And the GOP did win both houses of Congress in 2016 and still retains the Senate.

When you have the law on your side, you argue the law. When you don't, you rant and rave just as you're doing.

[SN2903]

No

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Yes, but with the minor added thing of requiring a 2/3 supermajority to confirm justices.

Honestly a 2/3 supermajority requirement would single handedly solve all the problems with courts being biased.

This. I don't get why people faff about with term limits when that's not the problem: the problem is ideological justices being confirmed on partisan votes. If you add a constitutional amendment de facto requiring all appointees to be bipartisan that solves the entire problem.

[Protect Trans Hoosiers]

• Republicans do not confirm Trump's nominee.

• Biden, if he wins, appoints Merrick Garland, who is much more centrist and older than a typical nominee, to the Supreme Court

• A constitutional amendment is passed limiting the size of the Supreme Court to 9, preventing packing forever (or another number, if both sides agree)
• The two parties enter good-faith negotiations to discuss making appointments regular occurrences somehow, rather than linking them to deaths and retirements. This could or could not be a part of the above compromise, but we don't have to wait for these negotiations to end to implement the first three things.
• Additionally, Biden tells Republicans if they don't take the compromise and confirm Trump's nominee, Biden will expand the Court to 11 with two young far-left nominees.
• Finally, if Trump wins reelection, the compromise is moot and he can just fill the seat.

I think this is pretty fair to both sides. The Republicans end up with a better Court than they'd have after Biden got it to 11, a packing crisis is averted, the Court is less politicized, and the structure is less dependent on random luck and hoping old people die at a convenient time.

To Republicans, there are two types of SCOTUS nominee: Those who are willing to strike down Roe, and crazy left-wing activists. Merrick Garland falls into the second category.

[tmthforu94]

This has actually been my ideal scenario all along, though I feel uncomfortable replacing RBG with a man considering all of the progress she has made for women's rights.

[Abolish ICE]

LOL no

[R.P. McM]

Dems, you don't seem to understand one simple thing: There is no need for the GOP to compromise, as their victory in moving the court to the right is 99.99% assured.

Agreed — this is all pie in the sky nonsense. You're not going to make friends with a traitorous, racist, authoritarian political party that hates you. Either we impose majority rule on them, or they impose minority rule on us. Those are the choices.

I know you Dems don't like the idea of a Republic or a Constitution, but Trump did win 30 states in 2016. And the GOP did win both houses of Congress in 2016 and still retains the Senate.

When you have the law on your side, you argue the law. When you don't, you rant and rave just as you're doing.

The GOP wields a lot of power despite winning less than a plurality of the votes. Something that needs to change. And the law says we can add states and Court seats, which is exactly what we propose to do.

[freepcrusher]

another thing I wanted to ask but didn't want to start a thread on. Which do you prefer:

1) Waiting however many years to finally take back USSC
2) going right ahead and try to force a "constitutional blue screen" moment.
3) pack the court at some future date

For those not in the know, a blue screen is where (early-to-mid 2000s) your computer screen would freeze and then turn blue. I feel like forcing a "blue screen" moment is better because it would create a year zero where things could get rewritten. So if New York disobeyed the court - well maybe so would Alabama and the problem of the court would be defused.