Packing the courts is better for the Dems, even if the Republicans pack back

[TopShelfGoal]

I keep seeing the argument "there is no point packing the courts, the republicans will just pack back when they have the power". This argument completely misses the point and the long term strategy, getting the republicans to pack the courts back is a feature not a bug and beneficial over the status quo for the Dems over the long run.

Democrats should pack the courts. Ofcourse Rs will pack the courts back when they have a trifecta. That's fine. Once that happens, it will become accepted that the party with a trifecta can and will pack the courts. That is way better from Dems than the status quo. Reducing the control of the Supreme court to the duration between trifectas would most likely result in the Dems controlling the courts more often than current status quo where Rs control the courts for the forseeable future and the future control of the courts is basically down to a random number generator combined with the exact right electoral circumstances.

It would be great for the Democrats to basically de-legitimize the Supreme Court and make it into a political football. That's what I would I was was Democratic party leader. Making the courts an extension of the political parties and changing the status quo so that in the eyes of the public, votes for congress and president also determine who control the courts is a way better scenario for the Democrats in the long run. They need to drag that institution down into the swamp. That way whenever SC does something unpopular that strikes against a popular policy (ACA, Roe vs Wade), the Republicans will have to pay the price for it and would have a hard time trying to legislate from the courts rather than being able hide behind the "neutrality of the courts".

In the long run under this scheme the SC's power is greatly gutted and it essentially becomes like the High Courts in UK and Canada that have checks on their power that prevent them from striking down legislative statutes and reshape the US into a country where like the rest of the world legislative supremacy reigns over an unelected body issuing edicts from the mountain top.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This ain't it chief.
If gutting checks and balances means more successful policymaking for 2 years I'd rather go without them.

[Landslide Lyndon]

A 50-member SCOTUS also means that the next time an elderly justice dies there won't be a political meltdown.

[TopShelfGoal]

This ain't it chief.
If gutting checks and balances means more successful policymaking for 2 years I'd rather go without them.

It is not just 2 years though. This kind of aggressive approach essentially ties the SC to the political parties which both increases the number of years the Ds control the courts than the status quo, also makes the party controlling the SC pay a political price when SC makes an unpopular decision. I know Republicans won't like it, this post is not for them. It provides a way for the Ds to enact and maintain policy and completely politicizing the courts and making them an extension of the political parties is key to that objective. Basically the court will be "elected by proxy" which is good over the long run.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This ain't it chief.
If gutting checks and balances means more successful policymaking for 2 years I'd rather go without them.

It is not just 2 years though. This kind of aggressive approach essentially ties the SC to the political parties which both increases the number of years the Ds control the courts than the status quo, also makes the party controlling the SC pay a political price when SC makes an unpopular decision. I know Republicans won't like it, this post is not for them. It provides a way for the Ds to enact and maintain policy and completely politicizing the courts and making them an extension of the political parties is key to that objective.

If to get to a good end point in regards to policy we destroyed the court system's independence from strict partisanship and destroyed its ability to act with any autonomy, we will have made the nation poorer. It'd be an act worse than the destructions of the library of Alexandria.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

You want politics that are even more personality-centric, even more unstable? Do this. I know for sure you have good intentions. But all this would do is help make us closer to Russia in terms of governance style. No thanks.
A RW president and right-leaning legislature would have a rubber-stamp in the courts, and we'd have no one to blame but ourselves.

[VBM]

This ain't it chief.
If gutting checks and balances means more successful policymaking for 2 years I'd rather go without them.

It is not just 2 years though. This kind of aggressive approach essentially ties the SC to the political parties which both increases the number of years the Ds control the courts than the status quo, also makes the party controlling the SC pay a political price when SC makes an unpopular decision. I know Republicans won't like it, this post is not for them. It provides a way for the Ds to enact and maintain policy and completely politicizing the courts and making them an extension of the political parties is key to that objective.

If to get to a good end point in regards to policy we destroyed the court system's independence from strict partisanship and destroyed its ability to act with any autonomy, we will have made the nation poorer. It'd be an act worse than the destructions of the library of Alexandria.

The Supreme Court, as it is right now, shouldn’t even exist dude

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

This ain't it chief.
If gutting checks and balances means more successful policymaking for 2 years I'd rather go without them.

It is not just 2 years though. This kind of aggressive approach essentially ties the SC to the political parties which both increases the number of years the Ds control the courts than the status quo, also makes the party controlling the SC pay a political price when SC makes an unpopular decision. I know Republicans won't like it, this post is not for them. It provides a way for the Ds to enact and maintain policy and completely politicizing the courts and making them an extension of the political parties is key to that objective.

If to get to a good end point in regards to policy we destroyed the court system's independence from strict partisanship and destroyed its ability to act with any autonomy, we will have made the nation poorer. It'd be an act worse than the destructions of the library of Alexandria.

Unfortunately, that has already happened.

All that's left is trying to find the best way to move forward from the smoking ruins.

[emailking]

If there's packing I hope it leads to a Constitutional Amendment for reform. I'd rather have a neutral rather than a neutered SC.

[Dereich]

If you promote the idea that judges are nothing but an extension of political parties, what stops that view from trickling down to other judges as well? I don't want to see people refuse to follow court orders because the judge was nominated by another party or sheriffs only enforce warrants and orders from friendly judges. The courts don't have any power to enforce their authority themselves; they have to depend on the executive branch to do so. Undermining the legitimacy of judicial institutions encourages those that enforce the law to ignore them. Andrew Jackson's quote where he said "Justice Marshall had made his decision, now let him enforce it" was a tragedy, not something to be encouraged.

[SWE]

It's indisputably in the Democrats interest to pack the Court and the argument that it isn't because Republicans will of the same is completely idiotic. The status quo is guaranteed Republican dominance for decades, packing is at worst a risk/reward. It'd be like being forced to pick from one or two bowls of candy where the first has 100% being poisoned and the second only 50% being poisoned and choosing the first to avoid taking a risk.

You want politics that are even more personality-centric, even more unstable? Do this. I know for sure you have good intentions. But all this would do is help make us closer to Russia in terms of governance style. No thanks.
A RW president and right-leaning legislature would have a rubber-stamp in the courts, and we'd have no one to blame but ourselves.

The Court's independence from partisanship ended with Marbury v Madison

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is exactly why the GOP needs to hold the Senate so we can stop you guys from doing this. You guys obviously just like Trump are against our institutions so yah if you wanna know why Im writing someone in , this is the reason because I will never vote for a candidate that will court pack 

[GALeftist]

I'm glad you guys are so convinced that the judiciary can be impartial. Maybe if you keep working at it you can convince the judiciary itself!

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

This is exactly why the GOP needs to hold the Senate so we can stop you guys from doing this. You guys obviously just like Trump are against our institutions so yah if you wanna know why Im writing someone in , this is the reason because I will never vote for a candidate that will court pack  

So you aren't a Biden supporter, but it really doesn't matter in OR anyways Biden will win it

[7,052,770]

This is exactly why the GOP needs to hold the Senate so we can stop you guys from doing this. You guys obviously just like Trump are against our institutions so yah if you wanna know why Im writing someone in , this is the reason because I will never vote for a candidate that will court pack 

You aren't writing anybody in. You've been desperate to for an excuse to vote for Trump all year, and now you've contrived one.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is exactly why the GOP needs to hold the Senate so we can stop you guys from doing this. You guys obviously just like Trump are against our institutions so yah if you wanna know why Im writing someone in , this is the reason because I will never vote for a candidate that will court pack  

You aren't writing anybody in. You've been desperate to for an excuse to vote for Trump all year, and now you've contrived one.

I am NOT gonna vote for Trump and that is final as he just like the Democrats have crossed a red line of mine so Im gonna vote for someone who doesnt cross either of those red lines and that is Im gonna write in Mitt Romney

[7,052,770]

This is exactly why the GOP needs to hold the Senate so we can stop you guys from doing this. You guys obviously just like Trump are against our institutions so yah if you wanna know why Im writing someone in , this is the reason because I will never vote for a candidate that will court pack 

You aren't writing anybody in. You've been desperate to for an excuse to vote for Trump all year, and now you've contrived one.

I am NOT gonna vote for Trump and that is final.

You've already said you will if Democrats "pack the Court" (which you've redefined to include merely reversing the Republican pack to get us back to R+1).

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is exactly why the GOP needs to hold the Senate so we can stop you guys from doing this. You guys obviously just like Trump are against our institutions so yah if you wanna know why Im writing someone in , this is the reason because I will never vote for a candidate that will court pack  

You aren't writing anybody in. You've been desperate to for an excuse to vote for Trump all year, and now you've contrived one.

I am NOT gonna vote for Trump and that is final.

You've already said you will if Democrats "pack the Court" (which you've redefined to include merely reversing the Republican pack to get us back to R+1).

That was before Trump pissed me off with his behavior again and I decided that I just couldn't vote for Trump so Im gonna write some one in

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Biden is ahead in OH by QU, Trump isn't beating anyone

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

This is exactly why the GOP needs to hold the Senate so we can stop you guys from doing this. You guys obviously just like Trump are against our institutions so yah if you wanna know why Im writing someone in , this is the reason because I will never vote for a candidate that will court pack 

You aren't writing anybody in. You've been desperate to for an excuse to vote for Trump all year, and now you've contrived one.

I am NOT gonna vote for Trump and that is final.

You've already said you will if Democrats "pack the Court" (which you've redefined to include merely reversing the Republican pack to get us back to R+1).

Harry he lives in OR, it doesn't matter the EC votes are going to Biden

[7,052,770]

This is exactly why the GOP needs to hold the Senate so we can stop you guys from doing this. You guys obviously just like Trump are against our institutions so yah if you wanna know why Im writing someone in , this is the reason because I will never vote for a candidate that will court pack 

You aren't writing anybody in. You've been desperate to for an excuse to vote for Trump all year, and now you've contrived one.

I am NOT gonna vote for Trump and that is final.

You've already said you will if Democrats "pack the Court" (which you've redefined to include merely reversing the Republican pack to get us back to R+1).

Harry he lives in OR, it doesn't matter the EC votes are going to Biden

Believe me, I understand better than most people here how the Electoral College silences the voices of millions of Americans who live in "safe" states.

[7,052,770]

This is exactly why the GOP needs to hold the Senate so we can stop you guys from doing this. You guys obviously just like Trump are against our institutions so yah if you wanna know why Im writing someone in , this is the reason because I will never vote for a candidate that will court pack  

You aren't writing anybody in. You've been desperate to for an excuse to vote for Trump all year, and now you've contrived one.

I am NOT gonna vote for Trump and that is final.

You've already said you will if Democrats "pack the Court" (which you've redefined to include merely reversing the Republican pack to get us back to R+1).

That was before Trump pissed me off with his behavior again and I decided that I just couldn't vote for Trump so Im gonna write some one in

Well, we shall see...

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This ain't it chief.
If gutting checks and balances means more successful policymaking for 2 years I'd rather go without them.

It is not just 2 years though. This kind of aggressive approach essentially ties the SC to the political parties which both increases the number of years the Ds control the courts than the status quo, also makes the party controlling the SC pay a political price when SC makes an unpopular decision. I know Republicans won't like it, this post is not for them. It provides a way for the Ds to enact and maintain policy and completely politicizing the courts and making them an extension of the political parties is key to that objective.

If to get to a good end point in regards to policy we destroyed the court system's independence from strict partisanship and destroyed its ability to act with any autonomy, we will have made the nation poorer. It'd be an act worse than the destructions of the library of Alexandria.

Unfortunately, that has already happened.

All that's left is trying to find the best way to move forward from the smoking ruins.

Wrong.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The courts are already packed. Trump and McConnell openly brag about it.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The courts are already packed. Trump and McConnell openly brag about it.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.