Scenario / Packing / Amendment

[MillennialModerate]

Let’s say Biden wins and the Dems control the Senate.

Democrats extend the court to 11 seats. Seating a moderate like Garland and a fierce liberal. Leaving a 1 seat conservative majority with Roberts as the swing vote. The Republicans are powerless to stop it.

It puts the court makeup back where it was before McConell pulled his BS.

The Democrats then put forth a constitutional amendment: All SCOTUS nominations before July 1st of Presidential election year MUST receive a vote prior to the Presidential election. All nominations afterward must remain vacant until the following inaugural day. And it holds the court seats at 11.

What is Republican response and what are chances anyone would consider it to put this issue to bed?

[brucejoel99]

Laughing out loud & literally less than 0, respectively.

[MillennialModerate]

I figured as such. But wondered if I was being overly pessimistic

[StateBoiler]

If FDR could not pack the court in the 1930s for political reasons, then Joe Biden in the 2020s won't either.

A more reasonable constitutional amendment is something along the lines of setting a retirement age or years of service limit for Supreme Court Justices, which stops their deaths from becoming a political football.

Another common sense (meaning neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will ever take it up) constitutional amendment is that the Senate must rule on presidential appointees inside a certain timeframe, otherwise the person is automatically seated (would carry a status similar to recess appointment). Would resolve the Merrick Garland issue.

[Skill and Chance]

Their response will be that court packing will become the new normal whenever one party has a federal trifecta.  In the long run this is pretty dangerous as you end up in a place where SCOTUS is afraid to ever overrule the incumbent president.

[brucejoel99]

If FDR could not pack the court in the 1930s for political reasons, then Joe Biden in the 2020s won't either.

The main difference between each other, of course, being that one didn't have the political capital to do so while the other very well may, so we can't yet say for certain whether Biden will go the way of FDR. (Not sure how any of this is relevant, though, since neither FDR nor Biden would do so via an amendment anyway).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It's gonna be a  center right Crt, Trump will win the election if it's close based on the 6-3 Conservative bent, but he is likely to lose in a landslide.

The Crt will eliminate the penalty tax on Obamacare and send Roe back to the states. The reason why Unions are up and arms against a Conservative Crt is that gun rights and Citizens United are gonna be forever enshrined in the constitution. McCain Feingold was passed and it had loopholes in it, that's why we got Citizens United. I am fine with that. Unions were the ones that bought and donated to Ed Markey  instead of Joe Kennedy

The Rs will not join D's in altering the SCOTUS, they now have a center right Crt

[MillennialModerate]

The Rs will not join D's in altering the SCOTUS, they now have a center FAR right Crt

*Fixed

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Rs will not join D's in altering the SCOTUS, they now have a center FAR right Crt

*Fixed

I suppose we have different definitions of far right.  For example, with the possible exception of Thomas, I don't think any of the justices on the court by the end of the month would seek to reverse Brown or Heart of Atlanta Motel.

[lfromnj]

The Republican response is wait 2-6 years for the next GOP trifecta and add 6 justices, Rinse and repeat.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

The Republican response is wait 2-6 years for the next GOP trifecta and add 6 justices, Rinse and repeat.

Destroying the legitimacy of the court by turning it into a partisan carousel would be a huge win for progressive politics, because it would defang another undemocratic veto point in the constitution that's controlled by conservatives. So I don't think that's quite the threat it appears to be.

[Sestak]

The Rs will not join D's in altering the SCOTUS, they now have a center FAR right Crt

*Fixed

I suppose we have different definitions of far right.  For example, with the possible exception of Thomas, I don't think any of the justices on the court by the end of the month would seek to reverse Brown or Heart of Atlanta Motel.

I think a Court that appears likely to bring back a strong form of the nondelegation doctrine can very easily be characterized as far-right.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Rs will not join D's in altering the SCOTUS, they now have a center FAR right Crt

*Fixed

I suppose we have different definitions of far right.  For example, with the possible exception of Thomas, I don't think any of the justices on the court by the end of the month would seek to reverse Brown or Heart of Atlanta Motel.

I think a Court that appears likely to bring back a strong form of the nondelegation doctrine can very easily be characterized as far-right.

I think Trump has more than adequately proven the dangers inherent in free-ranging delegation these past four years. Moreover, I don't see J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States being in any danger.

[politicallefty]

I feel it's worth noting that the Court has had a conservative lean for decades now, but there have been enough liberal victories to keep the peace and maintain legitimacy. Indeed, there have been just enough liberal victories that have kept the Supreme Court from being a focal point like it's been with the right in this country. We had nearly 40 years with either or both of Justices O'Connor and Kennedy on the Court. In many of the most prominent cases, one of those two would have been the deciding Justice in any 5-4 decision dividing the left and right. However, it's very important to realize that both gave victories to both sides. While Citizens United is reviled amongst the left, Obergefell is celebrated as a monumental victory. Both decisions were written by Justice Kennedy.

Even with Kennedy now retire, although prior to Justice Ginsburg's passing, Chief Justice Roberts appears to have realized his importance in leading the Court through opinions as well as striving to maintain the legitimacy of the Court in the eyes of the American people. A Court that is reflexively ruling one way and for one side will not maintain the peace or legitimacy in the eyes of the American people.

I was watching Bill Maher last night and he brought up some good points about the Court. He said that Democrats should add 3 Justices to even out the Court and that among those 12, they should choose 3 more for a Supreme Court of 15. That could conceivably be accomplished through current means (i.e. a President and Senate willing to rubberstamp the other 3), although it would likely require a constitutional amendment to ensure compliance. It's an interesting proposal though. I think all sides need to believe we have an independent and fair judiciary. If the courts start becoming so out of touch with the people and precedent, it'll be inviting an undermining of judicial review itself and perhaps something not dissimilar to how Andrew Jackson treated the Supreme Court.