If Democrats gain a trifecta, will they actually abolish the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court?

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Discuss.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

The need for a response to the COVID-19 crisis which can alter quickly will make filibuster reform very difficult to ignore, but I think it will end in a massive expansion of budget reconciliation rather than the complete destruction of the legislative filibuster.

That will mean new states can (and therefore) will be filibustered, so the easiest way to add seats to the Supreme Court without triggering a judicial arms race (new states -> new circuits) will be shut off. Without the filibuster gone, the court will not be packed.

[Orser67]

Voted no for both. I'd say:

Abolish filibuster: 40% chance
Pack Supreme Court: 20% chance

[freepcrusher]

Why would they not get rid of the filibuster. How do they plan to pass hr 1?

[ShadowRocket]

I think the filibuster is almost guaranteed to be done away with fairly quickly. Despite any concerns expressed by institutionalists like Feinstein, I don't think there is any desire by Democrats to try and preserve it at this point. I think most Senate Dems realize that the only way they'll be able to do anything substantial is to get rid of it.

I don't expect packing the Supreme Court will receive any serious consideration when it comes down to it.

[freepcrusher]

I still think something has to be done with the SC. This can't go unanswered. I'm also worried they might strike down term limits as unconstitutional. RBG needs to be seen as a Steve Biko or King Hamlet.

[Vosem]

It seems like concern about abolishing the filibuster is fairly widespread among the Democratic Senate caucus; the current leader was on record opposing filibuster reform during their previous majority period and you have plenty of old institutionalists and swing-state Senators (using an expansive definition of swing-state -- extending to people in obviously Leans-D states) who oppose it.

Current polling suggests a 51-49 Democratic majority (with a loss in AL and gains, in order of likelihood, in CO/AZ/ME/NC/IA), which I think is very unlikely to result in filibuster abolition, except for maybe extremely specialized votes which don't recur often (like admitting new states). Something in the mid-50s might be likelier to abolish the filibuster.

I think Democrats will find actually passing HR 1 in any recognizable form rather harder than the GOP found abolishing Obamacare to be.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I have one thing to say: let's see which Democratic senator decides his/her legacy will be that he/she stood in the way of enacting the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.

[HisGrace]

Getting rid of the filibuster is an extremely bad idea outside of a few narrow areas like certain appointments.

Couldn't really blame the Dems for packing the court since the Reps have made it clear at this point they view it as nothing more than a political instrument.

[Roronoa D. Law]

Getting rid of the filibuster is an extremely bad idea outside of a few narrow areas like certain appointments.

Couldn't really blame the Dems for packing the court since the Reps have made it clear at this point they view it as nothing more than a political instrument.

There aren't many negatives for Democrats to end the filibuster. Republican's only legislative initiative is tax cuts which can be done via reconciliation. Every other issue Republicans care about is so unpopular by the broader public that they have to rely on the court to decide cases. That's why Mcconnell wants to pack the courts with conservative judges.

[President Johnson]

The filibuster will probably be ended for heavily limited, but I don't see enough support for court packing. There may be some attempts, but such legislation will fail in the senate. It could pass the House, though.

[GP270watch]

 If they win they'll probably chicken out on everything, only for the next Republican Senate majority leader under a Republican President to end the filibuster and ram through 9 Supreme Court justices with law degrees form Liberty University.

[freepcrusher]

The question is, if not now when? It's been 50 years. Alito and thomas are early 70s. Are they going to hitch themselves to winning 3 or 4 elections in a row?

[Benjamin Frank]

I think Democrats will do what FDR DeFacto did, threaten to pack the Supreme Court if it rules against Democratic legislation or if it overturns previously settled law.  FDR was successful in using it as a threat as one Justice switched to supporting New Deal legislation.  

From what I've read, FDR was genuinely incensed that the Supreme Court struck down a President's legislation and didn't care that the Supreme Court was now voting in his favor, he still wanted to effectively neuter it.  So, while he didn't get what he wanted, he got what he needed.

Obviously if the 6-3 Republican Supreme Court strikes down the ACA or overturns Roe V Wade, the public favorability of packing the Supreme Court will likely increase significantly and make it much easier for the Democrats to pack the courts.

So, I expect the Democrats will take a 'wait and see' approach on that, much as Joe Biden de facto did in the debate.

Of course, the other part of the courts, expanding the number of lower federal courts, I think the Democrats are somewhat more likely to do.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I think Democrats will do what FDR DeFacto did, threaten to pack the Supreme Court if it rules against Democratic legislation or if it strikes down previously settled law.

Obviously if the 6-3 Republican Supreme Court strikes down the ACA or overturns Roe V Wade, the public favorability of packing the Supreme Court will likely increase significantly.

So, I expect the Democrats will take a 'wait and see' approach on that, much as Joe Biden de facto did in the debate.

They won't have to wait for long in the case for ACA. If SCOTUS strikes it down we may reach the point of no return for both the filibuster and court packing.

[Benjamin Frank]

I think Democrats will do what FDR DeFacto did, threaten to pack the Supreme Court if it rules against Democratic legislation or if it strikes down previously settled law.

Obviously if the 6-3 Republican Supreme Court strikes down the ACA or overturns Roe V Wade, the public favorability of packing the Supreme Court will likely increase significantly.

So, I expect the Democrats will take a 'wait and see' approach on that, much as Joe Biden de facto did in the debate.

They won't have to wait for long in the case for ACA. If SCOTUS strikes it down we may reach the point of no return for both the filibuster and court packing.

Yes, assuming Biden wins and the Democrats retake the Senate, it will be interesting to see where public opinion is on this issue at that point.  Obviously the public overall will be divided, but if 95% or so of Democrats are in favor and, say, half of independents are in favor, that would probably give the Democrats the go-ahead.

Why should any Democrat care what a Republican thinks?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yes, but even if they pack the Crts it will be 6/5 Conservative as Roberts as once again as swing vote.  SSM probably won't be Federalized. If Biden replacd Ginsburg it would have made  a better option of 6/5 Liberal to Crt. Minority have unanimous consent agreement rules, and they can object to any legislation that involves rules, not on nominations, believe me, when it comes to unemployment and Crt packing the Rs will use it. Senate is a Parliament not the House.

The Rs just blocked by unanimous consent the bill condemning white supremacists

[7,052,770]

No they will UNpack the Supreme Court by taking it to 11 justices.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

No they will UNpack the Supreme Court by taking it to 11 justices.

going to unpack my suitcase by adding things to it.

[Landslide Lyndon]

No they will UNpack the Supreme Court by taking it to 11 justices.

going to unpack my suitcase by adding things to it.

It's like empowering women by taking away their right to choose.
Got it?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

11 judges isn't gonna change balance of Crt, 6/5 Conservative instead of 6/3. There won't be any outlandish liberal policies like getting rid of Citizens United or SSM, Roberts was the 5th and deciding vote in favor of Citizens United. It's not gonna be much of difference now that Ginsburg is gone. So, Crt packing isnt that big of a deal anymore.

It's just a rallying cry by Unions to get donations

[Ferguson97]

It depends on two things.

If Barrett is confirmed before or after the election.

How big the Democrats' majority in the Senate is.

IF they have a big majority and Barrett is confirmed in a lameduck session, then yes I think they will pack the court.

I think the filibuster is probably gone regardless.

[Yoda]

I also think that it largely depends on how big of a majority the democrats have in the Senate. If they end up with, say, 53 seats, they could afford to lose a few votes on passing a bill to expand the courts. I do think that a big block of liberal senators/congresscritters would insist on doing this and pretty much force Biden to pack the court if he wants their votes to accomplish anything else.

[Pericles]

The filibuster is going to be killed. I think Democrats realise that they can't govern properly with the filibuster still in place. This article provides a good case against the filibuster. It is a ridiculous travesty that parties cannot implement the platforms they are elected on, when they win elections they should have the right to govern and the voters should have the right to decide whether they approve. In the long-term, the US is headed for a very dark place if the government keeps on failing to deliver.

I'm not sure about court-packing. It might be too radical of a measure. Maybe if the Supreme Court makes an incendiary judgment that gives Democrats the final push they need. This court might be wise to be on good behavior for 2 years so Democrats aren't quite ready to court-pack, and then go nuts from 2023 onwards (if Democrats do not have a trifecta then).

[Fuzzy Bear]

I believe that they will pack the Supreme Court and end the filibuster.  Then, if they are in danger of losing the Senate in 2022 they will cut back the size of the Court (if, say, Clarence Thomas should suddenly retire or pass away) and reinstate the filibuster if they can.

The Democrats will do this if they can, and if they believe they need to.  It will be pretty shameless.  To be fair, the GOP has demonstrated plenty of its own shamelessness in this regard on a number of state levels and in denying a vote on Garland, but this would take it to unprecedented levels.  As we have a nation that is more ignorant of our system of government and how it was designed to work, people will be OK with court packing and filibuster manipulating.  We have a nation of citizens that either (A) don't see the issue of Consensus vs Tyranny of the Majority or (B) are all for Majoritarian Tyranny because they believe they'll be in the majority.

Biden is, of course a complete coward.  He's a spineless sap who knows how he got nominated, and he knows that his nomination was not by popular demand.  The sad thing is that Biden doesn't need to be a coward on this issue.  A nation, uneducated in government and civics but well versed in identity politics, will have surprisingly few objections to this cockamamie plan.  This is the REAL blow to "democracy" as the goal here is for the SCOTUS to legislate from the bench those sorts of things that legislatures and referenda have failed to pass into law.