Biden Launches Commission to Look at Supreme Court Reform (1 Viewer)

Mr. Blue Sky

Still P***** at Yoko
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
522
Reaction score
953
Location
Between the Moon and New York City
Offline
I say pack it, stack it, shellack it, tallywhack it... As Moscow Mitch McConnell has proven with his actions re the SCOTUS over the last few years, there are no rules.





 

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,437
Reaction score
1,813
Age
43
Location
Earth
Online
Actually, no.

I haven't seen the kind of machinations from the Democrats that are designed to cement power regardless of elections.
So crushing the GOP would get you single-party rule for one, maybe two cycles. Then something with conservative principles would rise from the ashes to address the concerns of that segment of the electorate.
But *this* thing, this fascist, white-Christian supremacist, theocratic abomination currently masquerading as Team Red has *got* to go. It's dangerous. Demonstrably so. It's already attempted a freaking coup.
It's a rabid animal that has to be put down by any means necessary.

What stops the Republicans from adding 60 or 600 justices to the Supreme Court when they take over?

There isn’t an end point where we get to declare ourselves the winner.

Do you believe that the Republicans will never be in power again?
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,716
Reaction score
1,956
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Online
What stops the Republicans from adding 60 or 600 justices to the Supreme Court when they take over?

There isn’t an end point where we get to declare ourselves the winner.

Do you believe that the Republicans will never be in power again?

It can happen, but I don't want it to be in the form it's in now. I'm concerned that the changes will have severe unintended consequences later.
 

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,437
Reaction score
1,813
Age
43
Location
Earth
Online
It can happen, but I don't want it to be in the form it's in now. I'm concerned that the changes will have severe unintended consequences later.

Polarization has made our elections seem more important than they really are. Every election is the most important of our lifetime, or at least that is the perception we have.

Winning the election is more important than governing because we’ve accepted that rationalization that we can’t do anything if we don’t win the election. So we do whatever it takes to win the election.

Then we win the election and winning the next election becomes more important than governing, so we govern in the way that most helps win the next election.

Our government is becoming a tool of our politics.

We need reforms like getting rid of the primary system, and anything else we can think of that will start to nudge us away from polarization.
 
Last edited:

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,437
Reaction score
1,813
Age
43
Location
Earth
Online
In 2024 America will have voters that have never experienced a Republican president winning the popular vote. That is insane.

Packing the Supreme Court isn’t going to fix that. Neither will ending the filibuster.

The Democrats don’t have time to remove the guardrails and make the changes needed before they lose control of the power. They would just be taking down the guardrails saving the Republicans the trouble of having to do it.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,716
Reaction score
1,956
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Online
And really, packing the court is a fool's errand right now because the Democrats don't have the numbers anyway. Which is why I called it a red herring. It's a waste of time imo.
 

SaulGoodmanEsq

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2020
Messages
647
Reaction score
1,055
Age
42
Location
New Orleans
Offline
It would be a mistake.

Justices have their beliefs, but we’ve seen many times, at least in the last half century, where their respect for the law guides their decisions more than their interests.

I’m no fan of Kavanaugh. I don’t agree with ACB, but I do respect her.

The more slots we add to the court, the more likely we get people of poor moral character on the court. I’d rather have a justices who believe something different than me than one who doesn’t believe in anything.

We don’t elect justices, but our elections revolve around their selection. Making nominations more common only further politicizes the court, and we don’t need justices who are more like politicians.

We don’t need to go changing institutions that represent stability right now. I feel the same way about the filibuster.
The mistake would be to assume that newer judges and those going forward will still put the law first or, at least, have so much ingrained bias that it doesn't matter if they're doing it consciously. Judges are far far FAR less independent now then they have historically been in the history of this country. ACB is a walking Establishment Clause violation.

That said, this Commission is little more than political theater. Nothing can be done to change the life tenure of federal judges as that is a matter of constitutional interpretation. Nor will Biden add any spots to the Court (but do NOT be surprised to see a Republican successor do so as the GOP becomes more and more marginalized in terms of raw voter tallies).

The best change that could happen is a constitutional amendment requiring 2/3rds majority vote of the Senate to confirm all federal judges. It operates to the benefit of both parties and helps keep political hacks away from the federal bench. You could also tack on a limit of nine justices for good measure.
 

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,437
Reaction score
1,813
Age
43
Location
Earth
Online
The best change that could happen is a constitutional amendment requiring 2/3rds majority vote of the Senate to confirm all federal judges. It operates to the benefit of both parties and helps keep political hacks away from the federal bench. You could also tack on a limit of nine justices for good measure.

I totally agree with this.

I think something like this it what we’re most likely to get as a recommendation from this committee. I think Biden is going through this process to appease the liberal wing, but he knows he would never support adding justices.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,415
Reaction score
7,344
Location
Midwest
Offline
What stops the Republicans from adding 60 or 600 justices to the Supreme Court when they take over?

There isn’t an end point where we get to declare ourselves the winner.

Do you believe that the Republicans will never be in power again?

What makes you think they won’t expand the court anyway the first chance they get? We’ve seen there isn’t any bottom with them, they denied Garland a hearing for almost a year and then rammed Barrett through in a week. McConnell refused to hold votes for Obama judges to the point there was a record number of vacancies and then rammed through Trump judges as fast as he could.

He even seated federal judges during the lame duck period, which broke a precedent that is over 100 years old. He cares not a damn about precedence or “playing by the rules”. If he can convince the dems that they should abide by the rules of precedent, he will smirk his evil smirk and break every precedent the first chance he gets.

Expanding the SC isn’t even breaking any sort of precedent, it has happened before. It needs to be looked at as a legitimate, viable response to what McConnell has been doing.

That being said, I don’t really care if they expand the SC or not, what we need to do first is something about guaranteeing voting rights and not allowing state legislatures to declare an election invalid because they feel like it.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,716
Reaction score
1,956
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Online
What makes you think they won’t expand the court anyway the first chance they get? We’ve seen there isn’t any bottom with them, they denied Garland a hearing for almost a year and then rammed Barrett through in a week. McConnell refused to hold votes for Obama judges to the point there was a record number of vacancies and then rammed through Trump judges as fast as he could.

He even seated federal judges during the lame duck period, which broke a precedent that is over 100 years old. He cares not a damn about precedence or “playing by the rules”. If he can convince the dems that they should abide by the rules of precedent, he will smirk his evil smirk and break every precedent the first chance he gets.

Expanding the SC isn’t even breaking any sort of precedent, it has happened before. It needs to be looked at as a legitimate, viable response to what McConnell has been doing.

That being said, I don’t really care if they expand the SC or not, what we need to do first is something about guaranteeing voting rights and not allowing state legislatures to declare an election invalid because they feel like it.

But this is exactly what we get mad at Republicans for doing. Republicans do it with Democrats. They accuse Democrats of doing what they're already doing, so...Democrats do the same thing? Are you proposing that the Democrats just throw the rules out just because the Republicans are doing it? If neither side has any integrity left, then I'm simply not gonna have faith that our political system works, even a little bit. I'm not going to become the thing I despise. Sorry.

And what states declared their election invalid in any election? I'll grant that the voting rights issues from state to state is a problem that needs to be resolved.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,415
Reaction score
7,344
Location
Midwest
Offline
Expanding the number of SC justices doesn’t break any rules, as far as I know. I think it has already happened several times in our history.

There’s a legitimate case to be made that the SC could use more justices for efficiency, and I also think term limits or a retirement age should be looked at as well.

The recent Republican state voting law changes are often including new pathways for the state legislatures to insert themselves in the counting of votes. Even a R official in GA admitted that if the current law they just passed had been in place during 2020, the GA state legislature would have most certainly awarded the state to Trump. They were itching to do it, and the new law makes it easier for them to do so.
 

V Chip

Truth Addict
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
862
Reaction score
1,522
Age
53
Location
Outside Atlanta
Offline
The Republicans have already won this game. They have shown that they will take any necessary step to expand their power and influence no matter if it breaks with norms or a “gentleman’s agreement” without batting an eye. The Democrats talk a decent game at times, but they’re not willing to do whatever it takes. It’s the Lannisters against the Starks (except for that crappy ending GRRM didn’t write).
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,716
Reaction score
1,956
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Online
Expanding the number of SC justices doesn’t break any rules, as far as I know. I think it has already happened several times in our history.

There’s a legitimate case to be made that the SC could use more justices for efficiency, and I also think term limits or a retirement age should be looked at as well.

The recent Republican state voting law changes are often including new pathways for the state legislatures to insert themselves in the counting of votes. Even a R official in GA admitted that if the current law they just passed had been in place during 2020, the GA state legislature would have most certainly awarded the state to Trump. They were itching to do it, and the new law makes it easier for them to do so.

Expanding the number of justices is a pipe dream. It's not going to happen unless the Democrats get rid of the filibuster and get Manchin to support expanding the court. He's not going to do either. Adding more justices would make it less efficient, not more. I'm not seeing how it would be more efficient. I'm down with a term or age limit. I don't know what that would he, but that would be a good thing the commission can look at.

What exactly in the state law would negate the outcome of the last election? Are you saying the state election boards would just arbitrarily void or alter their results? They might have the power to do it, but if they did, I'll bet that would get litigated and Georgia's law will probably get scrutiny in the courts.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,415
Reaction score
7,344
Location
Midwest
Offline
Well, yes, Georgia’s new law is going to court. But it gives the state legislature the power to completely replace a bipartisan local election board at their discretion with an individual that they appoint.

‘Beyond any provisions on voting itself, the new Georgia election law risks making election subversion easier. It creates new avenues for partisan interference in election administration. This includes allowing the state elections board, now newly controlled by appointees of the Republican State Legislature, to appoint a single person to take control of typically bipartisan county election boards, which have important power over vote counting and voter eligibility.’


Seeing how many Republicans were willing to disenfranchise millions of voters with only allegations of fraud that were never proven, I don’t see how anyone can look at the changes made in a benign way.

It potentially gives Rs a way to reach into heavily Democratic counties and control their elections. They know this, it’s why they did it.
 

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
2,092
Reaction score
1,474
Location
Madisonville
Offline
That stability was lost when Mitch McConnell sat on a SCOTUS vacancy for a year to ensure a conservative justice got the seat. That action thrust SCOTUS firmly into the political lane, whether anybody likes it or not.

It's time to stop acting like there's a high ground to be had with these people. It's time to beat them at their own game. The alternative is accepting we will eventually have an autocracy. They were happy to let Trump do it but fortunately for us he was too stupid to stick the landing. The next guy won't be and if McConnell has his way he'll install a SCOTUS that will deem it legal. The GOP needs to be utterly crushed and made completely irrelevant.
So there's no worry about "destroying norms" anymore now that Trump's gone?
 

Saint by the Bay

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2019
Messages
980
Reaction score
3,349
Age
48
Location
Houston, TX
Offline
Well, yes, Georgia’s new law is going to court. But it gives the state legislature the power to completely replace a bipartisan local election board at their discretion with an individual that they appoint.

‘Beyond any provisions on voting itself, the new Georgia election law risks making election subversion easier. It creates new avenues for partisan interference in election administration. This includes allowing the state elections board, now newly controlled by appointees of the Republican State Legislature, to appoint a single person to take control of typically bipartisan county election boards, which have important power over vote counting and voter eligibility.’


Seeing how many Republicans were willing to disenfranchise millions of voters with only allegations of fraud that were never proven, I don’t see how anyone can look at the changes made in a benign way.

It potentially gives Rs a way to reach into heavily Democratic counties and control their elections. They know this, it’s why they did it.

While everyone is talking about water and polling times this is the real crazy thing about this legislation to me. State legislators are notoriously partisan to the point of lunacy. Effectively giving them complete control of election certification is absolutely nuts.
 

cuddlemonkey

Well-known monkey
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,369
Reaction score
1,737
Offline
So there's no worry about "destroying norms" anymore now that Trump's gone?

This has nothing to do with Trump. This is about Senate Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, using every underhanded tactic they can to tilt the balance of power to themselves despite the will of the electorate and any norms they have to destroy along the way, up to and including blatant hypocrisy and lies. How do you think the Democratic Party should respond to this now that they are in control?
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom