If RBG’s seat is filled, Dems should go nuclear across the board

[Sir Mohamed]

Now I have said court packing is risky for valid reasons, but considering how this is shaping up and how much is at stake on countless issues, I think Dems should go full nuclear if they win a trifecta this November in case the GOP seats an RBG replacement. Maybe they should do so even if Trump's nominee is defeated (which I'm not optimistic about).

• Dems should nuke the filibuster entirely. It's a relic of the past, which wasn't even useful then. Merely an attempt to appease Southern segregationists to veto any legislation in the name of racism under the mantle of "states rights". The filibuster even then prevented civil rights laws for decades since Southern segregationists stood in the way. Not even weak bills could be passed for years because of the filibuster. After the threshold was already nuked from 67 to 60 after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it should be removed entirely now. Biden has put forward an ambitious agenda, that even if half is enacted in 4 years, it would be bigger than Obama's agenda in 2009/10. I'm sick and tired of a GOP minority standing in the way of needed reforms. And I'm saying this as a standard Dem, not a Sanders hack, even though I agree with Sanders on some issues in general.
• Of course it may come back to haunt Dems, but the GOP's policy is unpopular with a majority of the American public. And as long as they don't move back to the middle, it won't change since their old white base is slowly dying off. Not even during the Trump Admin, they were unable to pass much other than a tax cut, that majority of the public didn't support at the time. If Biden and Harris are prevented from enacting the reforms they got a mandate for, it will lead to more frustration with the system, especially among Dems. As a result, they won't turn out in the next election and everybody will wake up with the GOP retaking congress, ending any hopes for reforms, while SCOTUS nullifies one Biden Executive Order after another.
• Dems should absolutely pack SCOTUS. McConnell has stolen a seat from Obama and is on track to do pull a trick again. Even putting the blatant hypocrisy from the GOP aside, a rightwing court not just threatens Obamacare, voting rights and so much more. Trump has been granted 3 nominations on the basis of a mandate from 46.0% of voters, or an NPV deficit of nearly 3 million. That + the stolen seat from Obama, who won his election fair and square, is the mandate to shape policy agenda for decades? I don't think so, tbh. Dems should add 4 justices rather than 2, expanding the number to 13. Biden would be able to fill all the seats and we have a liberal majority.
• Admit DC as a state and grant PR statehood, too, if they want it.

Now some, especially conservatives, may argue this is liberal bitterness/tears, but I'm done with running away from fights such as Dems have done for too long. For sure I wish there was more bipartisanship, but let's face it: It's almost entirely on the GOP that broke the political system. It started in the 1990s with Gingrich and the extreme partisanship as well as Fox "News" as some sort of alternate reality. They rigged the 2000 election through legal tricks and completely obstructed Obama for basically everything he has done after their dude, W, screwed everything up. Obama reached out so many times for compromises, they have rejected him time and time again. Needless to name all the examples. Then they started to weaponize the judiciary to impose their extreme policies (Citizens United, Shelby County v. Holder, ongoing attempts to sabotage the ACA and the never ending crusade against Roe v. Wade, which supported by 70% of the public). I could name more evidence, but most of you probably know all the examples from voter disenfranchisement to gerrymandering all too well. It's not even just federal offices, just look at the NC GOP that weakened gubernatorial powers in a last minute stunt during a lame duck session because the other dude was elected.

If Dems wins control in November, they should seize the moment, finally stop apologizing and play the same ruthless power game than the GOP has been doing, and, I have to admit, with great success. If just one side is willing to fight as hell, while the other is playing nice, it won't end well. As much as I regret it, the GOP should finally pay a heavy price for 25+ years of madness that goes beyond losing a presidential election.  

All the mentioned most likely won't happen in 2021 anyway, even if 2020 is a Biden landslide, but that's how I see after some thourough thinking. I don't expect this to happen and would already be satisfied with nuking the filibuster and potentially adding 2 SCOTUS seats.

Thoughts and opinions?

[NewYorkExpress]

Democrats should go a step further and, in addition to packing the court impeach the (now) five Republican Supreme Court justices.

[Sir Mohamed]

Democrats should go a step further and, in addition to packing the court impeach the (now) five Republican Supreme Court justices.

On what grounds? For Kavanaugh there may be a case, but the others? It would just be a PR stunt, nothing that accomplished anything.

[NewYorkExpress]

Democrats should go a step further and, in addition to packing the court impeach the (now) five Republican Supreme Court justices.

On what grounds? For Kavanaugh there may be a case, but the others? It would just be a PR stunt, nothing that accomplished anything.

What you proposed isn't "going nuclear". What I suggested is.

[7,052,770]

Adding DC and PR shouldn't be considered part of "going nuclear." All Americans should be represented in Congress, period, unless they explicitly don't want to be. This should happen in January unrelated to any bargains, deals, or nukes.

[jamestroll]

IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION. IT IS AN OUTDATED DOCUMENT.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Yes, they should do all the things mentioned in the OP.

However, if the Dems really want to go nuclear, they should pass a new Voting Rights Act that includes a provision for “political reparations”.  This would amount to something like a 10-year moratorium on white people voting. 

You’d need to make sure you packed the Court with people radical enough to uphold this under Congress’s enforcement powers of the Reconstruction amendments.

But once you’ve done this, Democrats (and especially previously unrepresented minorities) should be able to win supermajorities in every state and amend the constitution however they with.

[Sir Mohamed]

Democrats should go a step further and, in addition to packing the court impeach the (now) five Republican Supreme Court justices.

On what grounds? For Kavanaugh there may be a case, but the others? It would just be a PR stunt, nothing that accomplished anything.

What you proposed isn't "going nuclear". What I suggested is.

All in all, it would be pretty bold from Dems, especially packing with 4 rather than 2 justices. Maybe nuclear is a bit too drastic in wording, though. DC statehood and court packing by 2 seats may actually happen though, and I'd already consider that a victory despite wanting to go further.

I'd also be open for Guam statehood, tbh.

[KaiserDave]

Yes, they should do all the things mentioned in the OP.

However, if the Dems really want to go nuclear, they should pass a new Voting Rights Act that includes a provision for “political reparations”.  This would amount to something like a 10-year moratorium on white people voting. 

You’d need to make sure you packed the Court with people radical enough to uphold this under Congress’s enforcement powers of the Reconstruction amendments.

But once you’ve done this, Democrats (and especially previously unrepresented minorities) should be able to win supermajorities in every state and amend the constitution however they with.

This is lunacy

[jimrtex]

Democrats should go a step further and, in addition to packing the court impeach the (now) five Republican Supreme Court justices.

They should expel all Republican senators and representatives and name Hunter Biden as heir apparent (and legitimize Joe Biden's Arkansas grandchild as a potential successor) and grant statehood to Burisma Ukraina.

[Mike Thick]

I agree with the proposals but don’t like the framing of “going nuclear.” All of these are either basic democratic reforms or needed counterweights to years of norm-shattering by the other guys. That’s how we have to sell it to keep winning

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No, they wont Ds are likely to win AZ, CO, GA, ME and NC for 51/49 Senate and a 278 to 291 EC map, and Feinstein and Manchin and Sinema already said they are against nuke option

[Beet]

No, the Democrats should go more moderate. They should:

Offer to vote for Trump's pick for RBG's seat.
Agree to lower prescription drug prices and send seniors a check.
Agree to fund the Wall.
Agree to the skinny Covid package McConnell wants.
Agree to legislatively repeal DACA.
Withdraw lawsuits against Trump and promise not to go after him or his associates legally for corruption.
Agree to end the rioting and looting of Portland.

In exchange, Trump, McConnell and Pelosi would get together and find a consensus judge that all three can agree on.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

No, the Democrats should go more moderate. They should:

Offer to vote for Trump's pick for RBG's seat.
Agree to lower prescription drug prices and send seniors a check.
Agree to fund the Wall.
Agree to the skinny Covid package McConnell wants.
Agree to legislatively repeal DACA.
Withdraw lawsuits against Trump and promise not to go after him or his associates legally for corruption.

In exchange, Trump, McConnell and Pelosi would get together and find a consensus judge that all three can agree on.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

No, the Democrats should go more moderate. They should:

Offer to vote for Trump's pick for RBG's seat.
Agree to lower prescription drug prices and send seniors a check.
Agree to fund the Wall.
Agree to the skinny Covid package McConnell wants.
Agree to legislatively repeal DACA.
Withdraw lawsuits against Trump and promise not to go after him or his associates legally for corruption.
Agree to end the rioting and looting of Portland.

In exchange, Trump, McConnell and Pelosi would get together and find a consensus judge that all three can agree on.

[KaiserDave]

No, the Democrats should go more moderate. They should:

Offer to vote for Trump's pick for RBG's seat.
Agree to lower prescription drug prices and send seniors a check.
Agree to fund the Wall.
Agree to the skinny Covid package McConnell wants.
Agree to legislatively repeal DACA.
Withdraw lawsuits against Trump and promise not to go after him or his associates legally for corruption.
Agree to end the rioting and looting of Portland.

In exchange, Trump, McConnell and Pelosi would get together and find a consensus judge that all three can agree on.

So. Purposely...lose...harder.

Okay.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

No, the Democrats should go more moderate. They should:

Offer to vote for Trump's pick for RBG's seat.
Agree to lower prescription drug prices and send seniors a check.
Agree to fund the Wall.
Agree to the skinny Covid package McConnell wants.
Agree to legislatively repeal DACA.
Withdraw lawsuits against Trump and promise not to go after him or his associates legally for corruption.
Agree to end the rioting and looting of Portland.

In exchange, Trump, McConnell and Pelosi would get together and find a consensus judge that all three can agree on.

This should have been clear after the Obama years and the time Democrats tried to pass the Republican bill only to find it filibustered (in addition to the Garland nomination), but regardless of any deals struck with Trump or individual "moderate" Republican Senators, McConnell is usually actively against compromising even where Republicans stand to benefit from this. Why? Because this strengthens the process of governance in a liberal democratic system, which he is opposed to. Polarisation, gridlock, and the diminishment of faith in responsive democracy and any potentially benevolent functions of the state are net positives.

In any case, Democrats can't actually agree to "end the rioting and looting" as many of the peaceful protesters - let alone the violent ones - have little respect for them.

[Beet]

No, the Democrats should go more moderate. They should:

Offer to vote for Trump's pick for RBG's seat.
Agree to lower prescription drug prices and send seniors a check.
Agree to fund the Wall.
Agree to the skinny Covid package McConnell wants.
Agree to legislatively repeal DACA.
Withdraw lawsuits against Trump and promise not to go after him or his associates legally for corruption.
Agree to end the rioting and looting of Portland.

In exchange, Trump, McConnell and Pelosi would get together and find a consensus judge that all three can agree on.

This should have been clear after the Obama years and the time Democrats tried to pass the Republican bill only to find it filibustered (in addition to the Garland nomination), but regardless of any deals struck with Trump or individual "moderate" Republican Senators, McConnell is usually actively against compromising even where Republicans stand to benefit from this. Why? Because this strengthens the process of governance in a liberal democratic system, which he is opposed to. Polarisation, gridlock, and the diminishment of faith in responsive democracy and any potentially benevolent functions of the state are net positives.

In any case, Democrats can't actually agree to "end the rioting and looting" as many of the peaceful protesters - let alone the violent ones - have little respect for them.

If that's the case, then let him twist the knife into it himself.

But the Democrats should make sure they're standing for a moderate, centrist approach and fight like hell for it.

[BobbieMac]

No, they wont Ds are likely to win AZ, CO, GA, ME and NC for 51/49 Senate and a 278 to 291 EC map, and Feinstein and Manchin and Sinema already said they are against nuke option

It's most likely a Biden landslide map.

[AndyHogan14]

Couldn't Congress (at least in theory) strip the court of a good chunk of its power? It may cause a constitutional crisis if Congress passed a law stripping the court of its power of unrestricted judicial review, but constitutionally speaking, Congress likely has that right. But then again, this entire administration has been four straight years of constitutional crisis.

[BlueSwan]

However, if the Dems really want to go nuclear, they should pass a new Voting Rights Act that includes a provision for “political reparations”.  This would amount to something like a 10-year moratorium on white people voting. 

Just white men. No need to punish white women.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Couldn't Congress (at least in theory) strip the court of a good chunk of its power? It may cause a constitutional crisis if Congress passed a law stripping the court of its power of unrestricted judicial review, but constitutionally speaking, Congress likely has that right. But then again, this entire administration has been four straight years of constitutional crisis.

That would arguably be more radical than court packing.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Couldn't Congress (at least in theory) strip the court of a good chunk of its power? It may cause a constitutional crisis if Congress passed a law stripping the court of its power of unrestricted judicial review, but constitutionally speaking, Congress likely has that right. But then again, this entire administration has been four straight years of constitutional crisis.

That would arguably be more radical than court packing.

But it's also, quite simply, a better idea than court-packing. The fundamental problem with the Supreme Court isn't how many "liberal" or "conservative" justices there are on it, it's that its powers enable it to function less like a normal appeals court and more like the pre-1911 House of Lords. If it is constitutional to pass a law saying that the Court must, for example, find a supermajority to annul an Act of Congress, or may only take up cases in which the district court and the appeals court have issued conflicting judgments, I'd wholeheartedly support it.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

However, if the Dems really want to go nuclear, they should pass a new Voting Rights Act that includes a provision for “political reparations”.  This would amount to something like a 10-year moratorium on white people voting.  

Just white men. No need to punish white women.

On the contrary, all white people must be disenfranchised for the sin of having a similar skin tone to a number of individuals who voted in a fashion that displeased us. There are aboslutely zero contradictions between shutting people out of democracy in such a manner and trying to ensure fair and humanitarian governance.

This and the KY thread have me increasingly convinced that the reactionaries have won long-term victories by bringing the opposition around to their points of view on racial divides, the basic functions of the welfare state, etc.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This and the KY thread have me increasingly convinced that the reactionaries have won long-term victories by bringing the opposition around to their points of view on racial divides, the basic functions of the welfare state, etc.

Yeah, I think that die was cast in much of Europe in the 80s with Thatcher and in the US in the 90s with Clinton (who--hot take alert--I believe makes more sense as an "American Thatcher" than Reagan does).