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

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I can understand why Democrats would want to add 2 seats to the Court and feel justified in doing so. Those calling for adding 4 seats have lost the plot.  Either way though, I'm not sure how once you've decided it's okay to add seats to the Court for ideological reasons you ever manage to stop.

[Brittain33]

I can understand why Democrats would want to add 2 seats to the Court and feel justified in doing so. Those calling for adding 4 seats have lost the plot.  Either way though, I'm not sure how once you've decided it's okay to add seats to the Court for ideological reasons you ever manage to stop.

4 seats matches the total number of circuits, I believe.

The answer is that you don’t stop, and the Supreme Court becomes weaker in its abilities. But given that the minority Republicans have seized a durable and undemocratic hold over the courts and can use them as a veto point on the occasional windows (2 years every 12 years) where Dems have the ability to pass laws, weakening them is the only recourse to undo the damage.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

This would be a laudable goal,* except for the fact that it is completely impossible. To do that you would need an entirely new constitution. The central problem, and it has been an issue for about a century and a half now, is that the US Constitution was written before the emergence of the modern civil service and the modern state apparatus generally. Such things are dependent on hierarchy and strict chains of command, but this is anathema to the working of the Constitution which not only assumes but mandates competition between different branches of government. In order for the state to yet function, order must be imposed: someone must, therefore, arbitrate. The only body that can actually do this constitutionally is the Court: indeed the Court would find itself bound (by the Constitution) to rule as unconstitutional any attempt by any other arm of the state to take on this role for itself. Its importance would not decline even if you appointed a thousand Justices to it: all that would decline would be the power of each individual Justice.

_{*Though 'the High Court' is not a constitutional court. You're thinking of our own Supreme Court (formerly the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, not that that matters).}

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I can understand why Democrats would want to add 2 seats to the Court and feel justified in doing so. Those calling for adding 4 seats have lost the plot.  Either way though, I'm not sure how once you've decided it's okay to add seats to the Court for ideological reasons you ever manage to stop.

4 seats matches the total number of circuits, I believe.

The answer is that you don’t stop, and the Supreme Court becomes weaker in its abilities. But given that the minority Republicans have seized a durable and undemocratic hold over the courts and can use them as a veto point on the occasional windows (2 years every 12 years) where Dems have the ability to pass laws, weakening them is the only recourse to undo the damage.

Stacking the Crts isn't necessary, Planned Parenthood was affirmed 6-3 and Medicare replaces ACA for people under 20K income bracket, it's called Medicaid.  The tax liability isn't even paid if you show a hardship and I never paid that tax liability. Meanwhile tax refunds and stimulus checks are going unaccounted for. We must solve Covid before adding judges and laws haven't been passed for the Crt to overturn

Kavanaugh and Roberts are Hardiman judges and they will forge an alignment like Ginsburg and Roberts did on Crt modification

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

A 233-year-old written constitution is going to have bugs. We're a couple of decades away from requiring a new one.

[R.P. McM]

I can understand why Democrats would want to add 2 seats to the Court and feel justified in doing so. Those calling for adding 4 seats have lost the plot.  Either way though, I'm not sure how once you've decided it's okay to add seats to the Court for ideological reasons you ever manage to stop.

You don't. It's unfortunate that Republicans have brought us to this point, but that's something that Trump voters should've considered in 2016. Regrettably, they didn't give a s***, so here we are. They can't be trusted — obviously, they're perfectly willing to betray us to foreign adversaries — so whatever Democrats need to do to stamp the boot on these proto-fascists, it's perfectly justified. Which includes securing a SC majority for the party that's won the popular vote in every presidential election save one over the past 30 years.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I can understand why Democrats would want to add 2 seats to the Court and feel justified in doing so. Those calling for adding 4 seats have lost the plot.  Either way though, I'm not sure how once you've decided it's okay to add seats to the Court for ideological reasons you ever manage to stop.

You don't. It's unfortunate that Republicans have brought us to this point, but that's something that Trump voters should've considered in 2016. Regrettably, they didn't give a s***, so here we are. They can't be trusted — obviously, they're perfectly willing to betray us to foreign adversaries — so whatever Democrats need to do to stamp the boot on these proto-fascists, it's perfectly justified. Which includes securing a SC majority for the party that's won the popular vote in every presidential election save one over the past 30 years.

Of course the Democrats wouldn't be talking about packing the Court if Hillary had won, since she would have appointed the replacements to both Scalia and Ginsburg.  How is that relevant in the IRL timeline?

[SteveRogers]

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.

Republicans replacing Scalia and Ginsburg in a single term is packing, period.

No one is truly against packing if they don't consider that as at least equally bad as Biden adding 2 more justices, and they really should consider it worse, as Biden is only doing it in response.

This is rank inability to define "packing" properly. It is one of two things: expanding the size of the court and filling all or most of the new seats with people sympathetic to you, or impeaching some or all of the justices sympathetic to your opponents and filling the vacancies with a group that is mostly favorable to you instead, in an effort to change its alliegence.
Rs have done neither. They haven't packed the courts.

They refused to let Obama fill a seat with anyone, citing a phony precedent, then when they were in that situation, they did [or presumably will] fill the seat. That's a pack, and it takes a lot of spin and contriving to argue otherwise.

No, that is the Senate's constitutional role to advise and consent to the president's nominees.  Elections have consequences.  

And if those consequences include shrinking the court because you don’t like the President, they can include reforms that expand the size of the court.

It's dubious to compare leaving a seat vacant, and expanding the court's size.  The court's size was in fact still 9 throughout the entire time, it was just that one seat was unfilled.

Actually the size of the Court was 8. The Supreme Court had 8 justices for over a year and decided numerous high profile cases with 8 justices during that time, and the official position of the Republican Party was that that was totally fine. So for the GOP to now pretend as though the number 9 is somehow sacrosanct based on “muh 150 year tradition” is not particularly persuasive.

[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.

Republicans replacing Scalia and Ginsburg in a single term is packing, period.

No one is truly against packing if they don't consider that as at least equally bad as Biden adding 2 more justices, and they really should consider it worse, as Biden is only doing it in response.

This is rank inability to define "packing" properly. It is one of two things: expanding the size of the court and filling all or most of the new seats with people sympathetic to you, or impeaching some or all of the justices sympathetic to your opponents and filling the vacancies with a group that is mostly favorable to you instead, in an effort to change its alliegence.
Rs have done neither. They haven't packed the courts.

They refused to let Obama fill a seat with anyone, citing a phony precedent, then when they were in that situation, they did [or presumably will] fill the seat. That's a pack, and it takes a lot of spin and contriving to argue otherwise.

No, that is the Senate's constitutional role to advise and consent to the president's nominees.  Elections have consequences.  

And if those consequences include shrinking the court because you don’t like the President, they can include reforms that expand the size of the court.

It's dubious to compare leaving a seat vacant, and expanding the court's size.  The court's size was in fact still 9 throughout the entire time, it was just that one seat was unfilled.

Actually the size of the Court was 8. The Supreme Court had 8 justices for over a year and decided numerous high profile cases with 8 justices during that time, and the official position of the Republican Party was that that was totally fine. So for the GOP to now pretend as though the number 9 is somehow sacrosanct based on “muh 150 year tradition” is not particularly persuasive.

The legal size of the court was 9 seats, and in practice it was a split of 8 filled and 1 unfilled. It's obvious that is what I was referring to.

[SteveRogers]

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.

Republicans replacing Scalia and Ginsburg in a single term is packing, period.

No one is truly against packing if they don't consider that as at least equally bad as Biden adding 2 more justices, and they really should consider it worse, as Biden is only doing it in response.

This is rank inability to define "packing" properly. It is one of two things: expanding the size of the court and filling all or most of the new seats with people sympathetic to you, or impeaching some or all of the justices sympathetic to your opponents and filling the vacancies with a group that is mostly favorable to you instead, in an effort to change its alliegence.
Rs have done neither. They haven't packed the courts.

They refused to let Obama fill a seat with anyone, citing a phony precedent, then when they were in that situation, they did [or presumably will] fill the seat. That's a pack, and it takes a lot of spin and contriving to argue otherwise.

No, that is the Senate's constitutional role to advise and consent to the president's nominees.  Elections have consequences.  

And if those consequences include shrinking the court because you don’t like the President, they can include reforms that expand the size of the court.

It's dubious to compare leaving a seat vacant, and expanding the court's size.  The court's size was in fact still 9 throughout the entire time, it was just that one seat was unfilled.

Actually the size of the Court was 8. The Supreme Court had 8 justices for over a year and decided numerous high profile cases with 8 justices during that time, and the official position of the Republican Party was that that was totally fine. So for the GOP to now pretend as though the number 9 is somehow sacrosanct based on “muh 150 year tradition” is not particularly persuasive.

The legal size of the court was 9 seats, and in practice it was a split of 8 filled and 1 unfilled. It's obvious that is what I was referring to.

And my point is that the GOP collectively said, “Let’s just let it be 8 for a while.” So why is 9 now an immutable magic number?

[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.

Republicans replacing Scalia and Ginsburg in a single term is packing, period.

No one is truly against packing if they don't consider that as at least equally bad as Biden adding 2 more justices, and they really should consider it worse, as Biden is only doing it in response.

This is rank inability to define "packing" properly. It is one of two things: expanding the size of the court and filling all or most of the new seats with people sympathetic to you, or impeaching some or all of the justices sympathetic to your opponents and filling the vacancies with a group that is mostly favorable to you instead, in an effort to change its alliegence.
Rs have done neither. They haven't packed the courts.

They refused to let Obama fill a seat with anyone, citing a phony precedent, then when they were in that situation, they did [or presumably will] fill the seat. That's a pack, and it takes a lot of spin and contriving to argue otherwise.

No, that is the Senate's constitutional role to advise and consent to the president's nominees.  Elections have consequences.  

And if those consequences include shrinking the court because you don’t like the President, they can include reforms that expand the size of the court.

It's dubious to compare leaving a seat vacant, and expanding the court's size.  The court's size was in fact still 9 throughout the entire time, it was just that one seat was unfilled.

Actually the size of the Court was 8. The Supreme Court had 8 justices for over a year and decided numerous high profile cases with 8 justices during that time, and the official position of the Republican Party was that that was totally fine. So for the GOP to now pretend as though the number 9 is somehow sacrosanct based on “muh 150 year tradition” is not particularly persuasive.

The legal size of the court was 9 seats, and in practice it was a split of 8 filled and 1 unfilled. It's obvious that is what I was referring to.

And my point is that the GOP collectively said, “Let’s just let it be 8 for a while.” So why is 9 now an immutable magic number?

9 is only an immutable number because it's currently the number of seats, and adding more is a dicey proposition for reasons I've already outlined, as well as being plainly unnecessary (see my post about what we should do instead of court-packing). Democrats in good standing want to suddenly help GOP messaging become more credible - I am at loss for words.
Should there be substantial bipartisan agreement in increasing the court's size, the absolute necessity of 9 is thrown out the window.

[R.P. McM]

I can understand why Democrats would want to add 2 seats to the Court and feel justified in doing so. Those calling for adding 4 seats have lost the plot.  Either way though, I'm not sure how once you've decided it's okay to add seats to the Court for ideological reasons you ever manage to stop.

You don't. It's unfortunate that Republicans have brought us to this point, but that's something that Trump voters should've considered in 2016. Regrettably, they didn't give a s***, so here we are. They can't be trusted — obviously, they're perfectly willing to betray us to foreign adversaries — so whatever Democrats need to do to stamp the boot on these proto-fascists, it's perfectly justified. Which includes securing a SC majority for the party that's won the popular vote in every presidential election save one over the past 30 years.

Of course the Democrats wouldn't be talking about packing the Court if Hillary had won, since she would have appointed the replacements to both Scalia and Ginsburg.  How is that relevant in the IRL timeline?

Well, I'm not convinced that Hillary would've appointed any justices, since GOP senators made clear their intention to blockade any nomination. But what this boils down to is that y'all are asking Democrats to refrain from utilizing a power potentially at their disposal. When the opposition party evinces neither a shred of democratic legitimacy nor a modicum of respectability, that becomes a difficult notion to entertain. Essentially, the question becomes, why shouldn't we destroy an illegitimate Republican SC majority? I see no compelling reason, because most conservative judicial victories run contrary to the popular will. So I don't fear reprisals, because I'm confident they'll quickly be undone.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Packing Crts will have a compromise, add two liberal Justices not 4 and move the Crt to the center not the left with DC statehood

1 AA and 1 Latino for Biden to chose from, that way Citizens United can still be ruled partly unconstitutional

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I can understand why Democrats would want to add 2 seats to the Court and feel justified in doing so. Those calling for adding 4 seats have lost the plot.  Either way though, I'm not sure how once you've decided it's okay to add seats to the Court for ideological reasons you ever manage to stop.

If Republicans hadn't stolen two seats, there would be a 5-4 Democratic majority assuming Biden beats Trump.  As a result, any fair unpacking the Court would leave Democrats with at least a one seat majority.  Thus, we need to add four seats to create a 7-6 Democratic majority and neutralize the Republican Party's court-packing schemes.  

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I can understand why Democrats would want to add 2 seats to the Court and feel justified in doing so. Those calling for adding 4 seats have lost the plot.  Either way though, I'm not sure how once you've decided it's okay to add seats to the Court for ideological reasons you ever manage to stop.

If Republicans hadn't stolen two seats, there would be a 5-4 Democratic majority assuming Biden beats Trump.  As a result, any fair unpacking the Court would leave Democrats with at least a one seat majority.  Thus, we need to add four seats to create a 7-6 Democratic majority and neutralize the Republican Party's court-packing schemes.  

There is no rule according to which Scalia's and Ginsburg's seats can both be considered stolen by Republicans.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Two seats should be enough. And if adding two measly seats to the Supreme Court, just to mitigate the irreversible damage caused by one power-hungry Senate Leader, leads to this country going the way of Ancient Rome, then that's just life. 244 years is a pretty good run for any country or kingdom.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I can understand why Democrats would want to add 2 seats to the Court and feel justified in doing so. Those calling for adding 4 seats have lost the plot.  Either way though, I'm not sure how once you've decided it's okay to add seats to the Court for ideological reasons you ever manage to stop.

If Republicans hadn't stolen two seats, there would be a 5-4 Democratic majority assuming Biden beats Trump.  As a result, any fair unpacking the Court would leave Democrats with at least a one seat majority.  Thus, we need to add four seats to create a 7-6 Democratic majority and neutralize the Republican Party's court-packing schemes.  

There is no rule according to which Scalia's and Ginsburg's seats can both be considered stolen by Republicans.

If you want to go that route, there is no rule according to which the Democrats can’t unpack the Court by adding four more justices.  How does it feel to be on the side getting screwed over?

[Virginiá]

If you want to go that route, there is no rule according to which the Democrats can’t unpack the Court by adding four more justices.  How does it feel to be on the side getting screwed over?

The rules we are operating on these days is that anything that is technically legal/constitutional is fair game. That is how Republicans want to play the game.

Ergo, Democrats should pack the court. Ideally, I'd like for them to use it as leverage to reform the appointment process and end the constant fighting over the judiciary (somehow), but if that doesn't happen, then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I will say though that it would be a waste to just add 2 justices as some sort of "fair balancing act." If you're going to go down that road, you might as well go all the way, because retaliation will likely be forthcoming, and if you're going to lose something, you might as well gain something meaningful in the process. Keeping in power a Roberts majority that is still 100% unified in crippling American democracy is not meaningful for Democrats or the left.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I can understand why Democrats would want to add 2 seats to the Court and feel justified in doing so. Those calling for adding 4 seats have lost the plot.  Either way though, I'm not sure how once you've decided it's okay to add seats to the Court for ideological reasons you ever manage to stop.

If Republicans hadn't stolen two seats, there would be a 5-4 Democratic majority assuming Biden beats Trump.  As a result, any fair unpacking the Court would leave Democrats with at least a one seat majority.  Thus, we need to add four seats to create a 7-6 Democratic majority and neutralize the Republican Party's court-packing schemes.  

There is no rule according to which Scalia's and Ginsburg's seats can both be considered stolen by Republicans.

If you want to go that route, there is no rule according to which the Democrats can’t unpack the Court by adding four more justices.  How does it feel to be on the side getting screwed over?

There is a very simple rule which might prevent that, namely that you can't unpack something by adding to it.

[R.P. McM]

I can understand why Democrats would want to add 2 seats to the Court and feel justified in doing so. Those calling for adding 4 seats have lost the plot.  Either way though, I'm not sure how once you've decided it's okay to add seats to the Court for ideological reasons you ever manage to stop.

If Republicans hadn't stolen two seats, there would be a 5-4 Democratic majority assuming Biden beats Trump.  As a result, any fair unpacking the Court would leave Democrats with at least a one seat majority.  Thus, we need to add four seats to create a 7-6 Democratic majority and neutralize the Republican Party's court-packing schemes.  

There is no rule according to which Scalia's and Ginsburg's seats can both be considered stolen by Republicans.

If you want to go that route, there is no rule according to which the Democrats can’t unpack the Court by adding four more justices.  How does it feel to be on the side getting screwed over?

There is a very simple rule which might prevent that, namely that you can't unpack something by adding to it.

No different than the "rule" that a Senate majority doesn't have to consider any nomination by the opposition party (not adhered to in the cases of Kennedy and Thomas, obviously). AKA, not a real "rule."

No, Democrats are perfectly within their rights to expand the Court, and attempts to suggest otherwise are just a desperate effort to preserve the current economic status quo. The last thing the plutocrats want is a SC accountable to public opinion.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I can understand why Democrats would want to add 2 seats to the Court and feel justified in doing so. Those calling for adding 4 seats have lost the plot.  Either way though, I'm not sure how once you've decided it's okay to add seats to the Court for ideological reasons you ever manage to stop.

If Republicans hadn't stolen two seats, there would be a 5-4 Democratic majority assuming Biden beats Trump.  As a result, any fair unpacking the Court would leave Democrats with at least a one seat majority.  Thus, we need to add four seats to create a 7-6 Democratic majority and neutralize the Republican Party's court-packing schemes. 

There is no rule according to which Scalia's and Ginsburg's seats can both be considered stolen by Republicans.

If you want to go that route, there is no rule according to which the Democrats can’t unpack the Court by adding four more justices.  How does it feel to be on the side getting screwed over?

There is a very simple rule which might prevent that, namely that you can't unpack something by adding to it.

No different than the "rule" that a Senate majority doesn't have to consider any nomination by the opposition party (not adhered to in the cases of Kennedy and Thomas, obviously). AKA, not a real "rule."

No, Democrats are perfectly within their rights to expand the Court, and attempts to suggest otherwise are just a desperate effort to preserve the current economic status quo. The last thing the plutocrats want is a SC accountable to public opinion.

whatever dude, still no one has explained how it is coherent to believe the gop to have stolen both seats rather than at most just one or the other.

[R.P. McM]

I can understand why Democrats would want to add 2 seats to the Court and feel justified in doing so. Those calling for adding 4 seats have lost the plot.  Either way though, I'm not sure how once you've decided it's okay to add seats to the Court for ideological reasons you ever manage to stop.

If Republicans hadn't stolen two seats, there would be a 5-4 Democratic majority assuming Biden beats Trump.  As a result, any fair unpacking the Court would leave Democrats with at least a one seat majority.  Thus, we need to add four seats to create a 7-6 Democratic majority and neutralize the Republican Party's court-packing schemes.  

There is no rule according to which Scalia's and Ginsburg's seats can both be considered stolen by Republicans.

If you want to go that route, there is no rule according to which the Democrats can’t unpack the Court by adding four more justices.  How does it feel to be on the side getting screwed over?

There is a very simple rule which might prevent that, namely that you can't unpack something by adding to it.

No different than the "rule" that a Senate majority doesn't have to consider any nomination by the opposition party (not adhered to in the cases of Kennedy and Thomas, obviously). AKA, not a real "rule."

No, Democrats are perfectly within their rights to expand the Court, and attempts to suggest otherwise are just a desperate effort to preserve the current economic status quo. The last thing the plutocrats want is a SC accountable to public opinion.

whatever dude, still no one has explained how it is coherent to believe the gop to have stolen both seats rather than at most just one or the other.

Well, dude, I'm still waiting for your mea culpa in this thread: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=403806.msg7653741#msg7653741

But yeah, I don't think both seats are stolen. And assuming Republicans were willing to live with a 5-4 majority, the current system could persist. But, obviously, they are not, so Democrats are justified in doing whatever they want, including expanding the Court by four seats.

[Brittain33]

The arguments that the Amy Covid Barrett nomination is illegitimate relates to the undemocratic election of the Senate and President with a minority of votes and that they’re rushing it through so quickly there is no reasonable time for advice and consent or a fair hearing. That’s not the same as “stolen,” but illegitimacy is the slippery slope the Republicans have been dancing down for several years.

There's also the fact that ACB's appointment is illegitimate by the claims the Republicans themselves made in 2016 about appointing a justice in an election year, which Lindsay Graham went out on a limb in particular for as recently as 2018.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I can understand why Democrats would want to add 2 seats to the Court and feel justified in doing so. Those calling for adding 4 seats have lost the plot.  Either way though, I'm not sure how once you've decided it's okay to add seats to the Court for ideological reasons you ever manage to stop.

If Republicans hadn't stolen two seats, there would be a 5-4 Democratic majority assuming Biden beats Trump.  As a result, any fair unpacking the Court would leave Democrats with at least a one seat majority.  Thus, we need to add four seats to create a 7-6 Democratic majority and neutralize the Republican Party's court-packing schemes.  

There is no rule according to which Scalia's and Ginsburg's seats can both be considered stolen by Republicans.

If you want to go that route, there is no rule according to which the Democrats can’t unpack the Court by adding four more justices.  How does it feel to be on the side getting screwed over?

There is a very simple rule which might prevent that, namely that you can't unpack something by adding to it.

Pedantic semantics will not save your party's illegitimate SCOTUS majority

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The last thing the plutocrats want is a SC accountable to public opinion.

I'm not sure if anyone should really want that.