Mitch admits the truth. He wants ACB to sabotage Biden and the Democratic trifecta's agenda

[Cassandra]

Aaaand there's even more of an impetus for court-expansion.

No, it's not.  It's an impetus for people to give more thought to who they're voting for.

Packing the Court will delegitimize it; it will give people motivation to not obey Court Orders.  Think that won't happen?  Thomas Jefferson, himself, said of Marbury v. Madison:  "John Marshall has made his decision.  Now let him enforce it."  Americans have an interest in SCOTUS orders being followed.  That liberals can't see this is beyond me.

This is true, which is why it is good. As a socialist who hopes for the overthrow of America's institutions, I hope liberals go through with packing the court.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Every #NeverTrump Republican and Independent needs to see this post.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

We all know this, Mitch. That's why Democrats must add two seats to court, at least.

Idk, I really don't think that's the right solution; the courts shouldn't be a political body. My solution would be to make 3 of the justices elected by the people, and up every 6 years (staggered, so a justice per cycle), while 6 are appointed by the President and needs 60 votes to be confirmed.

They would remain just as political then. The only way to make the courts less political is to at least partially disempower the courts relative to other political bodies.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Pack the f#cking courts and damn the consequences. If the Supreme Court is going to be used as a reactionary weapon, we might as well come clean about the biases of the justices. Mitch McConnell did not deny Merrick Garland a hearing to 'legitimize' the court, and that will have lasting political ramifications going down the line - and those will certainly outlive him.

Get ready for a new judiciary, especially if Roe is overturned or Obamacare is repealed.

[Stuart98]

Aaaand there's even more of an impetus for court-expansion.

No, it's not.  It's an impetus for people to give more thought to who they're voting for.

Packing the Court will delegitimize it; it will give people motivation to not obey Court Orders.  Think that won't happen?  Thomas Jefferson, himself, said of Marbury v. Madison:  "John Marshall has made his decision.  Now let him enforce it."  Americans have an interest in SCOTUS orders being followed.  That liberals can't see this is beyond me.

One of this forum's biggest Trumpists botched middle school history knowledge? I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you!

[Fuzzy Bear]

Pack the f#cking courts and damn the consequences. If the Supreme Court is going to be used as a reactionary weapon, we might as well come clean about the biases of the justices. Mitch McConnell did not deny Merrick Garland a hearing to 'legitimize' the court, and that will have lasting political ramifications going down the line - and those will certainly outlive him.

Get ready for a new judiciary, especially if Roe is overturned or Obamacare is repealed.

This logic turns the Judiciary into a superlegislature with life tenure.  Something the Left wants because many of their key proposals are not popular and they want them enacted Judiclally.

If the GOP should magically get a trifecta why should they not pack the Court even further?  By your logic why not?

[compucomp]

Pack the f#cking courts and damn the consequences. If the Supreme Court is going to be used as a reactionary weapon, we might as well come clean about the biases of the justices. Mitch McConnell did not deny Merrick Garland a hearing to 'legitimize' the court, and that will have lasting political ramifications going down the line - and those will certainly outlive him.

Get ready for a new judiciary, especially if Roe is overturned or Obamacare is repealed.

This logic turns the Judiciary into a superlegislature with life tenure.  Something the Left wants because many of their key proposals are not popular and they want them enacted Judiclally.

If the GOP should magically get a trifecta why should they not pack the Court even further?  By your logic why not?

Courts in your country say exactly what Vladimir Vladimirovich wants them to say, so you have no authority on this matter, Mr. Cozy Bear/Fancy Bear.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Every #NeverTrump Republican and Independent needs to see this post.

Why would a Never Trumper care about this? They were fine with George W. Bush, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.

[7,052,770]

Pack the f#cking courts and damn the consequences. If the Supreme Court is going to be used as a reactionary weapon, we might as well come clean about the biases of the justices. Mitch McConnell did not deny Merrick Garland a hearing to 'legitimize' the court, and that will have lasting political ramifications going down the line - and those will certainly outlive him.

Get ready for a new judiciary, especially if Roe is overturned or Obamacare is repealed.

This logic turns the Judiciary into a superlegislature with life tenure.  Something the Left wants because many of their key proposals are not popular and they want them enacted Judiclally.

If the GOP should magically get a trifecta why should they not pack the Court even further?  By your logic why not?

The only political issue where the "liberal" position isn't more popular with the American public is capital punishment, and that is not really on the agenda right now.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Every #NeverTrump Republican and Independent needs to see this post.

Why would a Never Trumper care about this? They were fine with George W. Bush, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.

Perhaps some will come to their senses.

[Badger]

I’m surprised he is so open about the fact that he expects Trump (and seemingly the GOP Senate as well) to lose.

And worse yet, he's absolutely opposed to democracy challenging his own values

[GoTfan]

Pack the f#cking courts and damn the consequences. If the Supreme Court is going to be used as a reactionary weapon, we might as well come clean about the biases of the justices. Mitch McConnell did not deny Merrick Garland a hearing to 'legitimize' the court, and that will have lasting political ramifications going down the line - and those will certainly outlive him.

Get ready for a new judiciary, especially if Roe is overturned or Obamacare is repealed.

This logic turns the Judiciary into a superlegislature with life tenure.  Something the Left wants because many of their key proposals are not popular and they want them enacted Judiclally.

If the GOP should magically get a trifecta why should they not pack the Court even further?  By your logic why not?

Every conservative Justice with the exception of Roberts is a Republican partisan. Why shouldn't Democrats expand by four seats and nominate four 50 year old raging liberals?

[Pericles]

Pack the f#cking courts and damn the consequences. If the Supreme Court is going to be used as a reactionary weapon, we might as well come clean about the biases of the justices. Mitch McConnell did not deny Merrick Garland a hearing to 'legitimize' the court, and that will have lasting political ramifications going down the line - and those will certainly outlive him.

Get ready for a new judiciary, especially if Roe is overturned or Obamacare is repealed.

This logic turns the Judiciary into a superlegislature with life tenure.  Something the Left wants because many of their key proposals are not popular and they want them enacted Judiclally.

If the GOP should magically get a trifecta why should they not pack the Court even further?  By your logic why not?

In an ideal world the judiciary would show more restraint. But the Republican Party is seeking to accomplish policy goals in the courts, such as the repeal of the ACA, that they could not through the democratic political process. So frankly right-wing activist judges are a more scary prospect than left-wing activist judges.

[Figueira]

I’m surprised he is so open about the fact that he expects Trump (and seemingly the GOP Senate as well) to lose.

He wants people to think that Biden is guaranteed to win, so they'll vote for Republican Senators as a "check".

That's precisely what I think will happen. And even if the Democrats win big, I highly doubt the court gets expanded.

I doubt it. In 2016, people believed that Republicans weren't aligned with Trump and would stand up to him. Now, it's clear that that isn't the case. Also, despite what McConnell says, very few people think that Biden is guaranteed to win (and the ones who think that are mostly straight-ticket Democrats anyway).

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

Something the Left wants because many of their key proposals are not popular and they want them enacted Judiclally.

The idea that this is specific to "the Left" is absurd. Returning to a fully private health insurance system is also not popular and is about to be enacted judicially, just for starters. One would think that as someone who leans left on health policy you'd recognize the right-wing judicial activism in the push to repeal the ACA for what it is, even if you support a conservative judiciary generally due to prioritizing other issues.

[Pollster]

Honestly surprised that McConnell hasn't attempted to create East Wyoming and West Wyoming yet.

His knee-jerk impulse to pursue short-term power over long-term power will, of course, be his downfall.

[MarkD]

Pack the f#cking courts and damn the consequences. If the Supreme Court is going to be used as a reactionary weapon, we might as well come clean about the biases of the justices. Mitch McConnell did not deny Merrick Garland a hearing to 'legitimize' the court, and that will have lasting political ramifications going down the line - and those will certainly outlive him.

Get ready for a new judiciary, especially if Roe is overturned or Obamacare is repealed.

This logic turns the Judiciary into a superlegislature with life tenure.  Something the Left wants because many of their key proposals are not popular and they want them enacted Judiclally.

If the GOP should magically get a trifecta why should they not pack the Court even further?  By your logic why not?

Every conservative Justice with the exception of Roberts is a Republican partisan. Why shouldn't Democrats expand by four seats and nominate four 50 year old raging liberals?

Because the judiciary is supposed to be apolitical and objective, that's why.

I have voted for Biden already this year. And after I did so, he impressed me by saying that he wants to have a bipartisan commission study and make recommendations for how to reform the judiciary, rather than expand the Supreme Court.

(Neil Gorsuch wrote the Court's opinion that interpreted the Civil Rights Act as protecting the LGBTQ+ community from employment discrimination, and yet you consider him to be a Republican hack?)

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

His knee-jerk impulse to pursue short-term power over long-term power will, of course, be his downfall.

Ramming a fortysomething extremist onto the Supreme Court is the definition of pursuing long-term power. If he were pursuing short-term power he'd have prioritized passing a broadly popular COVID stimulus.

[pbrower2a]

Rewarding elites for what they would already do and seeking to entrench those elites, perhaps through manipulation of the electoral results (perhaps by disqualifying enough Democratic votes this time) is imaginable.  

If the latter, then Amy Coney Barrett must not be confirmed.

Of course, power is everything and conscience is nothing for Mitch "Mc con-man" and many other Senate Republicans and when the ethos of the Party in control of the Senate has no higher ethos than to 'stick it' to everyone else,  then every sort of political mischief is possible.

[Stranger in a strange land]

It's been obvious for years that the reason Mitch is so obsessed with the courts is that he knows the GOP agenda is too unpopular to pass legislatively, so it has to be imposed from on high by unelected judges.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Pack the f#cking courts and damn the consequences. If the Supreme Court is going to be used as a reactionary weapon, we might as well come clean about the biases of the justices. Mitch McConnell did not deny Merrick Garland a hearing to 'legitimize' the court, and that will have lasting political ramifications going down the line - and those will certainly outlive him.

Get ready for a new judiciary, especially if Roe is overturned or Obamacare is repealed.

This logic turns the Judiciary into a superlegislature with life tenure.  Something the Left wants because many of their key proposals are not popular and they want them enacted Judiclally.

If the GOP should magically get a trifecta why should they not pack the Court even further?  By your logic why not?

In an ideal world the judiciary would show more restraint. But the Republican Party is seeking to accomplish policy goals in the courts, such as the repeal of the ACA, that they could not through the democratic political process. So frankly right-wing activist judges are a more scary prospect than left-wing activist judges.

To be fair, the left has done the same thing with the courts. The courts have never been apolitical, as much as we'd like to think they are because they were originally intended to be insulated from the ever-swinging pendulum that is our political system.

As someone who is practically a walking pre-existing condition, I stand to lose a hell of a lot if I'm kicked off of Medicaid and can't get health care anywhere else because the Supreme Court essentially took us back ten years and re-legalized discrimination against people with a history of mental and physical health issues.

So yes, pardon me if I'm more worried about falling under the cracks and resorting to suicide than I am about preserving the illusion of decorum and allowing McConnell's irreversible damage to the judiciary to go uninhibited.

[Pollster]

His knee-jerk impulse to pursue short-term power over long-term power will, of course, be his downfall.

Ramming a fortysomething extremist onto the Supreme Court is the definition of pursuing long-term power. If he were pursuing short-term power he'd have prioritized passing a broadly popular COVID stimulus.

No, it's very much short-term power as it is likely to result in some form of retaliation, as well as electoral consequences (be it immediately, or when SCOTUS starts handing down disastrous rulings). A long-term play would be to spend the time he's spent on Barrett's confirmation on popular COVID relief that will distinguish GOP Senators from the toxic top of the ticket in ways that won't simultaneously turn off the Republican base and give his members in tough races a fighting chance, while simultaneously using the vacant SCOTUS seat as a base motivator/line-holder as he successfully did in 2016.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

https://twitter.com/nielslesniewski/status/1320547350478266368?ref_src=twsrc%5Et...

[CrimsonCommander688]

The court needs to be packed.

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://twitter.com/nielslesniewski/status/1320547350478266368?ref_src=twsrc%5Et...

Gotta agree with his position on this. King has to be one of my favorite senators.