Will Trump get to appoint yet another justice?

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

One of Bill Clinton's greatest mistakes was appointing old justices. Clarence Thomas has been on the court since 1991, and his 70. Both of Clinton's justices were appointed a few years later, but are 15 years older than Clarence Thomas. We are going to be stuck with the disgraceful hack Clarence Thomas for another 10-15 years. Maybe even more.

If I was a incoming president, I would enact a court packing scheme FDR style. I would expand the court to 11 and appoint two 35 year old liberal justices. There can be no compromise. Democrats are always the whiny party complaining about the other side playing too dirty. They have to beat Republicans at their own game.

[Progressive Pessimist]

One of Bill Clinton's greatest mistakes was appointing old justices. Clarence Thomas has been on the court since 1991, and his 70. Both of Clinton's justices were appointed a few years later, but are 15 years older than Clarence Thomas. We are going to be stuck with the disgraceful hack Clarence Thomas for another 10-15 years. Maybe even more.

If I was a incoming president, I would enact a court packing scheme FDR style. I would expand the court to 11 and appoint two 35 year old liberal justices. There can be no compromise. Democrats are always the whiny party complaining about the other side playing too dirty. They have to beat Republicans at their own game.

The Democrats wouldn't be able to get away with that. They never can get away with half of the stuff that Republicans often do. It's impossible to beat the Republicans at their own game. If governing was Dungeons and Dragons, their asses would be glued to the Dungeon Master role, without compromise.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

One of Bill Clinton's greatest mistakes was appointing old justices. Clarence Thomas has been on the court since 1991, and his 70. Both of Clinton's justices were appointed a few years later, but are 15 years older than Clarence Thomas. We are going to be stuck with the disgraceful hack Clarence Thomas for another 10-15 years. Maybe even more.

If I was a incoming president, I would enact a court packing scheme FDR style. I would expand the court to 11 and appoint two 35 year old liberal justices. There can be no compromise. Democrats are always the whiny party complaining about the other side playing too dirty. They have to beat Republicans at their own game.

And then the next Republican appoints four 35-year-old arch-conservative justices, and the court becomes a partisan arm that will turn over via packing with every new President.

[MarkD]

One of Bill Clinton's greatest mistakes was appointing old justices. Clarence Thomas has been on the court since 1991, and his 70. Both of Clinton's justices were appointed a few years later, but are 15 years older than Clarence Thomas. We are going to be stuck with the disgraceful hack Clarence Thomas for another 10-15 years. Maybe even more.

If I was a incoming president, I would enact a court packing scheme FDR style. I would expand the court to 11 and appoint two 35 year old liberal justices. There can be no compromise. Democrats are always the whiny party complaining about the other side playing too dirty. They have to beat Republicans at their own game.

And then the next Republican appoints four 35-year-old arch-conservative justices, and the court becomes a partisan arm that will turn over via packing with every new President.

Yeah, let's just ditch the nomination/confirmation system of appointing Justices and instead hold national elections for all the seats on the Supreme Court. It won't improve the Court; it won't turn it into the kind of impartial, objective interpreters of law that it's supposed to be. But at least we can take the politicized Court that it has become and apparently will continue to be for decades to come and adopt a democratized system for it. This will take a constitutional amendment to implement the change, but that should be easy to accomplish since both parties have become dominated by people who have utterly given up on concept of a judiciary that is objective; they've both decided that the Supreme Court should be a political tool. The concept of objectivity in the judiciary is quaint, old-fashioned, and now dismissed as foolish.

[Cold War Liberal]

He will get to appoint two more justices in the coming six years.

This country will literally implode if that happens.

[Ban my account ffs!]

One of Bill Clinton's greatest mistakes was appointing old justices. Clarence Thomas has been on the court since 1991, and his 70. Both of Clinton's justices were appointed a few years later, but are 15 years older than Clarence Thomas. We are going to be stuck with the disgraceful hack Clarence Thomas for another 10-15 years. Maybe even more.

If I was a incoming president, I would enact a court packing scheme FDR style. I would expand the court to 11 and appoint two 35 year old liberal justices. There can be no compromise. Democrats are always the whiny party complaining about the other side playing too dirty. They have to beat Republicans at their own game.

And then the next Republican appoints four 35-year-old arch-conservative justices, and the court becomes a partisan arm that will turn over via packing with every new President.

Who cares?  Politics is a blood sport.  You people made that clear.

[OSR stands with Israel]

One of Bill Clinton's greatest mistakes was appointing old justices. Clarence Thomas has been on the court since 1991, and his 70. Both of Clinton's justices were appointed a few years later, but are 15 years older than Clarence Thomas. We are going to be stuck with the disgraceful hack Clarence Thomas for another 10-15 years. Maybe even more.

If I was a incoming president, I would enact a court packing scheme FDR style. I would expand the court to 11 and appoint two 35 year old liberal justices. There can be no compromise. Democrats are always the whiny party complaining about the other side playing too dirty. They have to beat Republicans at their own game.

First of all they cant ask abolishing legislative filibuster requires 67 votes and cant be changed via nuclear option like judicial filibusters can.


Second, if Democrats attempt to that I will hope Republicans do everything they can to obstruct the hell of the next Democratic President in unprecedented ways as well.


If a Democrat runs on that platform not only will I vote for Trump in 2020 I will enthusiastically do so to make sure that Democrat loses.

[Person Man]

The latest the Republicans can ram through someone is 2023. I think Ginsberg and Breyer can live that long.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

One of Bill Clinton's greatest mistakes was appointing old justices. Clarence Thomas has been on the court since 1991, and his 70. Both of Clinton's justices were appointed a few years later, but are 15 years older than Clarence Thomas. We are going to be stuck with the disgraceful hack Clarence Thomas for another 10-15 years. Maybe even more.

If I was a incoming president, I would enact a court packing scheme FDR style. I would expand the court to 11 and appoint two 35 year old liberal justices. There can be no compromise. Democrats are always the whiny party complaining about the other side playing too dirty. They have to beat Republicans at their own game.

And then the next Republican appoints four 35-year-old arch-conservative justices, and the court becomes a partisan arm that will turn over via packing with every new President.

Who cares?  Politics is a blood sport.  You people made that clear.

Then this continues until someone orders their personally-appointed Supreme Court to disqualify the election results, with no appeals process.

You want to take the bet your guys get to that opportunity first?

[Ban my account ffs!]

One of Bill Clinton's greatest mistakes was appointing old justices. Clarence Thomas has been on the court since 1991, and his 70. Both of Clinton's justices were appointed a few years later, but are 15 years older than Clarence Thomas. We are going to be stuck with the disgraceful hack Clarence Thomas for another 10-15 years. Maybe even more.

If I was a incoming president, I would enact a court packing scheme FDR style. I would expand the court to 11 and appoint two 35 year old liberal justices. There can be no compromise. Democrats are always the whiny party complaining about the other side playing too dirty. They have to beat Republicans at their own game.

And then the next Republican appoints four 35-year-old arch-conservative justices, and the court becomes a partisan arm that will turn over via packing with every new President.

Who cares?  Politics is a blood sport.  You people made that clear.

Then this continues until someone orders their personally-appointed Supreme Court to disqualify the election results, with no appeals process.

You want to take the bet your guys get to that opportunity first?

The alternative is allowing a minority to game the broken system we already have until they control everything and implement their agenda on all Americans, the majority of whom do not want what they are doing.

It's entirely possible that in 2020 Trump wins re-election with an even bigger popular vote deficit and then gets to appoint two more conservative justices in his 2nd term with a senate that favors his rural, white base.

If you think liberals are angry now, wait till you see what happens if that scenario plays out.  It might not even take a personally-appointed Supreme Court to disqualify the election results. 

[Ban my account ffs!]

One of Bill Clinton's greatest mistakes was appointing old justices. Clarence Thomas has been on the court since 1991, and his 70. Both of Clinton's justices were appointed a few years later, but are 15 years older than Clarence Thomas. We are going to be stuck with the disgraceful hack Clarence Thomas for another 10-15 years. Maybe even more.

If I was a incoming president, I would enact a court packing scheme FDR style. I would expand the court to 11 and appoint two 35 year old liberal justices. There can be no compromise. Democrats are always the whiny party complaining about the other side playing too dirty. They have to beat Republicans at their own game.

And then the next Republican appoints four 35-year-old arch-conservative justices, and the court becomes a partisan arm that will turn over via packing with every new President.

Who cares?  Politics is a blood sport.  You people made that clear.

Then this continues until someone orders their personally-appointed Supreme Court to disqualify the election results, with no appeals process.

You want to take the bet your guys get to that opportunity first?

Also... the election results are already likely to be invalid in places like Georgia, where election fraud by elected Republican officials is occurring as we speak.  Of course you will think it's all fair and legal and according to the rules of the game.

So stop getting all bent out of shape about OH NOES DEMONRAT DICTATOR CUZ COURT PACKING!  You people already poisoned the well.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

I suppose the issue is, how do the Democrats 'prepare' for something like this? There's nothing they can do about it.

Start building political support to eventually pack the courts and reform the Senate.

He will get to appoint two more justices in the coming six years.

This forum will literally implode if that happens.

Maybe so, but it will be pretty irrational given that Dems can eventually just pack the courts regardless of who and how many Trump appoints.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

If I was a incoming president, I would enact a court packing scheme FDR style. I would expand the court to 11 and appoint two 35 year old liberal justices. There can be no compromise. Democrats are always the whiny party complaining about the other side playing too dirty. They have to beat Republicans at their own game.

Precisely. Bring on the dirt.

The next time the Dems get a trifecta, they should also implement policies such as a national Poll Tax Credit, giving people money for voting in order to raise turnout (including turnout in midterms) among low-propensity non-white, low-income, and young voters, along with national universal voter registration, etc. Grab bag of everything that can shift politics structurally in favor of Dems.

[Cashew]

One of Bill Clinton's greatest mistakes was appointing old justices. Clarence Thomas has been on the court since 1991, and his 70. Both of Clinton's justices were appointed a few years later, but are 15 years older than Clarence Thomas. We are going to be stuck with the disgraceful hack Clarence Thomas for another 10-15 years. Maybe even more.

If I was a incoming president, I would enact a court packing scheme FDR style. I would expand the court to 11 and appoint two 35 year old liberal justices. There can be no compromise. Democrats are always the whiny party complaining about the other side playing too dirty. They have to beat Republicans at their own game.

First of all they cant ask abolishing legislative filibuster requires 67 votes and cant be changed via nuclear option like judicial filibusters can.

That is just flat out not true. You wishing it was does not make it so.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

One of Bill Clinton's greatest mistakes was appointing old justices. Clarence Thomas has been on the court since 1991, and his 70. Both of Clinton's justices were appointed a few years later, but are 15 years older than Clarence Thomas. We are going to be stuck with the disgraceful hack Clarence Thomas for another 10-15 years. Maybe even more.

If I was a incoming president, I would enact a court packing scheme FDR style. I would expand the court to 11 and appoint two 35 year old liberal justices. There can be no compromise. Democrats are always the whiny party complaining about the other side playing too dirty. They have to beat Republicans at their own game.

And then the next Republican appoints four 35-year-old arch-conservative justices, and the court becomes a partisan arm that will turn over via packing with every new President.

Who cares?  Politics is a blood sport.  You people made that clear.

Then this continues until someone orders their personally-appointed Supreme Court to disqualify the election results, with no appeals process.

You want to take the bet your guys get to that opportunity first?

Also... the election results are already likely to be invalid in places like Georgia, where election fraud by elected Republican officials is occurring as we speak.  Of course you will think it's all fair and legal and according to the rules of the game.

So stop getting all bent out of shape about OH NOES DEMONRAT DICTATOR CUZ COURT PACKING!  You people already poisoned the well.

So your response to Republicans supposedly rigging the system is...to put the idea out there for a way they can rig the system beyond all possible repair. Brilliant move, Holmes.

If the Republicans hold the Senate in November, what exactly is stopping Trump from doing this in December?

[The Mikado]

Why are people focusing on Justices dying? My first thought was Thomas resigning in 2019 to make sure his replacement's a conservative.

[Person Man]

Train left the station. Dumbfounded dipsh**ts complain. News at at 11.

[Ban my account ffs!]

One of Bill Clinton's greatest mistakes was appointing old justices. Clarence Thomas has been on the court since 1991, and his 70. Both of Clinton's justices were appointed a few years later, but are 15 years older than Clarence Thomas. We are going to be stuck with the disgraceful hack Clarence Thomas for another 10-15 years. Maybe even more.

If I was a incoming president, I would enact a court packing scheme FDR style. I would expand the court to 11 and appoint two 35 year old liberal justices. There can be no compromise. Democrats are always the whiny party complaining about the other side playing too dirty. They have to beat Republicans at their own game.

And then the next Republican appoints four 35-year-old arch-conservative justices, and the court becomes a partisan arm that will turn over via packing with every new President.

Who cares?  Politics is a blood sport.  You people made that clear.

Then this continues until someone orders their personally-appointed Supreme Court to disqualify the election results, with no appeals process.

You want to take the bet your guys get to that opportunity first?

Also... the election results are already likely to be invalid in places like Georgia, where election fraud by elected Republican officials is occurring as we speak.  Of course you will think it's all fair and legal and according to the rules of the game.

So stop getting all bent out of shape about OH NOES DEMONRAT DICTATOR CUZ COURT PACKING!  You people already poisoned the well.

So your response to Republicans supposedly rigging the system is...to put the idea out there for a way they can rig the system beyond all possible repair. Brilliant move, Holmes.

If the Republicans hold the Senate in November, what exactly is stopping Trump from doing this in December?

Our system was always full of loopholes that could be exploited to one party’s benefit.  They just didn’t do it, so there was not a need for a major reform.  But that’s not the case anymore.  And now we have to reform it.  And both sides hate each other.

I have no idea what you weremtalking about in your post.

[Virginiá]

First of all they cant ask abolishing legislative filibuster requires 67 votes and cant be changed via nuclear option like judicial filibusters can.


Second, if Democrats attempt to that I will hope Republicans do everything they can to obstruct the hell of the next Democratic President in unprecedented ways as well.


If a Democrat runs on that platform not only will I vote for Trump in 2020 I will enthusiastically do so to make sure that Democrat loses.

You keep saying this but it's just not true.  United States v. Ballin already established Senate rule changes only take a majority vote, and trying to codify a super-majority vote requirement would likely be ruled unconstitutional.

But if you still think you're right, you should start a tour across America and inform the people/punditocracy, because the consensus I've seen is that the legislative filibuster can be nuked by a simple majority.

[morgieb]

Depends on whether he wins 2020 or not.

[Frodo]

Forget the Supreme Court -it is lost.  It's the lower courts I am worried about if he wins re-election AND retains the GOP Senate.  Currently, the Federalist Society hasn't quite made as much headway in the federal judiciary as many have feared/hoped, but after eight years?  

[Joey1996]

Probably, McConnell has already said he'll support nominees in 2020 and RBG and Breyer are old

[Virginiá]

Forget the Supreme Court -it is lost.  It's the lower courts I am worried about if he wins re-election AND retains the GOP Senate.  Currently, the Federalist Society hasn't quite made as much headway in the federal judiciary as many have feared/hoped, but after eight years? 

Part of the reason articles have swooning over "Trump reshaping the judiciary" is because McConnell stole over 100 seats from Obama (many of which would have likely have been filled had Mitch been fair to Obama), and Trump has been steadily filling those and ones that opened post-2016. But overall, even by 2021, Trump will have made big progress but not an overwhelming amount. 4 years of a Democratic president in 2021-2025 with a Senate that will confirm their judges could swing the judiciary back. Even more so if they stay on for 8 years. It will make all these articles look stupid. The real damage is if Trump wins reelection with a Republican Senate. He'll probably end up confirming a lot of judges, even if Democrats win the Senate in 2022 and shut down confirmations. I wouldn't be surprised if those 6 years results in what would normally be 8 years worth of judges for a president with a normal backlog upon entering office.

But, again, if a Democrat ousts Trump in 2020 and wins reelection in 2024, we'll probably see a judiciary even more slanted towards the left than it was at the end of 2016. That would be because between 2008-2028, there was only 4 years of a GOP president to 16 years of Democrats. Bonus points if Democrats pack the courts and add new circuits/expand existing ones . So if Republicans are overjoyed about this right now, they might do well to consider that they can end up in a much worse spot than they started if Trump bullies his way right out of the White House in 2020.

[mencken]

Ginsburg, Breyer, and Thomas will all retire to spend more time with their loved ones before Trump leaves office.