Pete Buttigieg Endorses Court Packing

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Before we continue this discussion, I just want to remind everyone that Mayor Pete never once "endorsed" court packing. He said he was open to such an idea, and that there's precedent, but that he doesn't have a serious opinion just yet.

[MarkD]

McConnell destroyed the legitimacy, and I want to make the Supreme Court legitimate again by restoring the rightful D+1 balance.

The "rightful balance" on the Court is not to have a liberal majority, a conservative majority, or even a moderate majority. The Court is supposed to be made up of the nine most highly objective interpreters of law. Justices are supposed to be so objective in doing their job that we can't tell whether they are conservative or liberal, we just know that they are coming to correct legal conclusions.

"If justices are simply lawyers appointed for their political reliability, then why should the public accept their decisions? For a court to have legitimacy, it must carry the moral authority of the ages and of a historical continuity with the past. It must display a commitment to precedent that constrains the incumbents even  when they are strongly tempted to follow their own preferences. The public must be right convinced that the decision is a product not of the justices alone but of history, precedent, and law." -- Alan Dershowitz, "Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000," published 2001, page 202.

Objectivity. That is the most important criterion that we should be looking for in a Supreme Court appointment. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have failed to understand that. Both parties want to appoint for the "political reliability," as Dershowitz said. Legitimacy can only be achieved if the Court is made up of the most highly objective interpreters of law. McConnell did something bad but two wrongs do not make a right.

[7,052,770]

McConnell destroyed the legitimacy, and I want to make the Supreme Court legitimate again by restoring the rightful D+1 balance.

The "rightful balance" on the Court is not to have a liberal majority, a conservative majority, or even a moderate majority. The Court is supposed to be made up of the nine most highly objective interpreters of law. Justices are supposed to be so objective in doing their job that we can't tell whether they are conservative or liberal, we just know that they are coming to correct legal conclusions.

"If justices are simply lawyers appointed for their political reliability, then why should the public accept their decisions? For a court to have legitimacy, it must carry the moral authority of the ages and of a historical continuity with the past. It must display a commitment to precedent that constrains the incumbents even  when they are strongly tempted to follow their own preferences. The public must be right convinced that the decision is a product not of the justices alone but of history, precedent, and law." -- Alan Dershowitz, "Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000," published 2001, page 202.

Objectivity. That is the most important criterion that we should be looking for in a Supreme Court appointment. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have failed to understand that. Both parties want to appoint for the "political reliability," as Dershowitz said. Legitimacy can only be achieved if the Court is made up of the most highly objective interpreters of law. McConnell did something bad but two wrongs do not make a right.

No, the rightful balance is 5 justices appointed by Democrats and 4 appointed by Republicans. That's independent of ideology or my personal preferences (obviously, I'd pick 9D-0R if it were up to me).

If Ginsburg dies tomorrow, the rightful balance becomes 5R,4D. I'm not being a hack here, I'm just going by what was precedent for decades, including when Democratic senates let Reagan and Bush have justices, until McConnell changed it.

And don't even start with the "two wrongs don't make a right" BS. Republicans broke the Supreme Court, but adding 2 Democratic justices fixes it. Democrats can right Republicans' wrong and hopefully create a system where neither party can ever try the McConnell Scam again.

[John Dule]

I mean, it's literally called the Supreme Court, so I don't know what you expected.

That doesn't address the substance of the concern.  Are you really okay with a small body of people with lifetime appointments, granted their authority through anti-democratic means, arbitrarily declaring which laws shall stand and which shall fall, all with no accountability or recourse?  We rightly disdain this kind of legal system when we observe it in other countries.  We should be equally as outraged that our own politics have grown around this warped system.

The Bill of Rights isn't up for a vote, and I don't want it being decided "democratically." The justices do not rule "arbitrarily," they interpret the law to the best of their abilities based on years of studying and practicing constitutional law. I would support expanding the court to 15 people provided that both sides of the aisle each nominate three justices, because this would make each pivotal vote a little less important. I would also support term limits so that each president would choose two nominees every four years or so. Unilaterally packing the court, however, is what dictators do. As you say, "we rightly disdain this sort of thing when we observe it in other countries," so I'm sorry that I don't want to fill the court with activist progressive justices who explicitly attempt to interpret the constitution to fit their own personal opinions.

So destroying the legitimacy of the highest court in the country is worth it so long as you get what you want. Got it.

The legitimacy of the Court has been on life support since Bush v. Gore. It isn't our job to blithely accept whatever the right dishes out so as not to imperil the institutions they're on an active mission to destroy. If you have a problem with the current state of affairs, you ought to focus your ire on the folks responsible. As it stands now, we've had a appointment stolen from us. Our proposed redress is perfectly constitutional, it just involves the abrogation of a few norms. Norms which are completely meaningless in a context in which the opposition has jettisoned any pretense of civility. Any norms being violated at the Justice Department these days? Whether you recognize it or not, it's incumbent on us to destroy this monster before it metastasizes into something truly abhorrent. And yes, that entails getting our hands dirty.

At least half of the country will never accept this, and another 25% or so will be uncomfortable with it. It is not a good idea to wrench this country apart solely to enact your partisan political agenda. Your language reads like the personal journal of a wannabe authoritarian dictator.

Do you understand why Al Gore chose to step aside in 2000? It's not because "Democrats don't have spines" or "We're not willing to fight hard enough." It's because he understood that democracy requires legitimacy in order to function. He chose to be the bigger man. While the petty and ignorant partisans of the world might've preferred a long, drawn-out, destructive legal battle, we cannot allow the process itself to become any more politicized than it already is.

McConnell destroyed the legitimacy, and I want to make the Supreme Court legitimate again by restoring the rightful D+1 balance.

Only the most ardent party-line Democrats of America will see this as "restoring legitimacy." The rest of the country will see it for what it is-- a power grab that will further erode our democratic norms.

This is how the Roman Republic fell.

[Beet]

About Al Gore, he should never have stepped aside. He should have fought tooth and nail. I agree with what he did at the time, but in the 18 years since, the Republicans have totally abandoned the spirit of democracy and the Constitution. Sorry, but that's the truth.

One of my principles is that in a healthy society, prosocial behavior is rewarded and antisocial behavior is punished, because that will encourage the former. What reward did Al Gore get for stepping aside? Seeing 1 million people slaughtered because the guy he conceded to exploited a terror attack to start a war on false premises? Where is Al Gore now? Looking in the mirror at his gray hair and beard, perhaps thinking about his last decade and a half of wasted activism over a climate agreement that his country is no longer even a part of. A failed, broken, forgotten man.

No, he should have fought.

[John Dule]

About Al Gore, he should never have stepped aside. He should have fought tooth and nail. I agree with what he did at the time, but in the 18 years since, the Republicans have totally abandoned the spirit of democracy and the Constitution. Sorry, but that's the truth.

One of my principles is that in a healthy society, prosocial behavior is rewarded and antisocial behavior is punished, because that will encourage the former. What reward did Al Gore get for stepping aside? Seeing 1 million people slaughtered because the guy he conceded to exploited a terror attack to start a war on false premises? Where is Al Gore now? Looking in the mirror at his gray hair and beard, perhaps thinking about his last decade and a half of wasted activism over a climate agreement that his country is no longer even a part of. A failed, broken, forgotten man.

No, he should have fought.

How do you define "antisocial behavior" and what do you do to "punish" it? Serious question.

[OctoCube]

This idea is deeply unsettling, but I'd be a lot more worried if a candidate with an actual chance was saying this.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

This idea is deeply unsettling, but I'd be a lot more worried if a candidate with an actual chance was saying this.

"Goodnight sweet Ojeda"

[OctoCube]

This idea is deeply unsettling, but I'd be a lot more worried if a candidate with an actual chance was saying this.

"Goodnight sweet Ojeda"

I feel like I can be sad about him dropping out while also understanding that he never had a chance to begin with. I really would have wanted him to all-out-brawl in the debates.

[Heebie Jeebie]

The Bill of Rights isn't up for a vote, and I don't want it being decided "democratically." The justices do not rule "arbitrarily," they interpret the law to the best of their abilities based on years of studying and practicing constitutional law. I would support expanding the court to 15 people provided that both sides of the aisle each nominate three justices, because this would make each pivotal vote a little less important. I would also support term limits so that each president would choose two nominees every four years or so. Unilaterally packing the court, however, is what dictators do. As you say, "we rightly disdain this sort of thing when we observe it in other countries," so I'm sorry that I don't want to fill the court with activist progressive justices who explicitly attempt to interpret the constitution to fit their own personal opinions.

My God.  You don't actually believe this nonsense, do you?  For the past 25 years, the judiciary has moved increasingly further right and the Supreme Court has tossed out duly enacted legislation, opened the floodgates to public corruption, and undermined substantive democracy.  But people like you are just so committed to this fairy tale of a non-politicized Court that they can't see what's been blindingly obvious to activists on the right for over a generation.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

This idea is deeply unsettling, but I'd be a lot more worried if a candidate with an actual chance was saying this.

"Goodnight sweet Ojeda"

I feel like I can be sad about him dropping out while also understanding that he never had a chance to begin with. I really would have wanted him to all-out-brawl in the debates.

It's just not fair to say, this early, that Pete Buttigieg has no chance. Sure, he's not a front-runner and he's probably not going to win the nomination, but who knows? I don't think anyone saw Trump winning the nomination a year before the primaries started, or Obama, or any number of underdogs-turned-Presidents. You never know.

[R.P. McM]

At least half of the country will never accept this and another 25% or so will be uncomfortable with it. It is not a good idea to wrench this country apart solely to enact your partisan political agenda.

F**k 'em. My half of the country doesn't accept the current Republican Court as legitimate, and for good reason. So it looks like someone's gonna be disappointed. Better the degenerate, proto-fascist minority than the decent, respectable majority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Impressive mental gymnastics. Wanting to end the illegitimate reign of a racist, authoritarian minority party using perfectly constitutional measures makes me an aspiring autocrat. Sure thing, hombre.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're delusional. This is the logic of appeasement. Can't risk another war, so we have to give Hitler Czechoslovakia. I'm sure that will sate his appetite! (Good thing Gore conceded, otherwise we'd have children in cages and Republican presidents praising Nazis.) Plus, if we forcefully oppose Hitler, why, wE'LL bE jUsT aS bAD aS hIM !!! /s.

Thankfully, most of the left is waking up.

[John Dule]

The Bill of Rights isn't up for a vote, and I don't want it being decided "democratically." The justices do not rule "arbitrarily," they interpret the law to the best of their abilities based on years of studying and practicing constitutional law. I would support expanding the court to 15 people provided that both sides of the aisle each nominate three justices, because this would make each pivotal vote a little less important. I would also support term limits so that each president would choose two nominees every four years or so. Unilaterally packing the court, however, is what dictators do. As you say, "we rightly disdain this sort of thing when we observe it in other countries," so I'm sorry that I don't want to fill the court with activist progressive justices who explicitly attempt to interpret the constitution to fit their own personal opinions.

My God.  You don't actually believe this nonsense, do you?  For the past 25 years, the judiciary has moved increasingly further right and the Supreme Court has tossed out duly enacted legislation, opened the floodgates to public corruption, and undermined substantive democracy.  But people like you are just so committed to this fairy tale of a non-politicized Court that they can't see what's been blindingly obvious to activists on the right for over a generation.

There are elements of a constitution that should not be overridden for any reason. They must be constant and immutable. This includes the Bill of Rights, which is coming under attack from both Republicans and Democrats as of late. I do not want the court charged with protecting these rights to be turned into a partisan arm of either party.

At least half of the country will never accept this and another 25% or so will be uncomfortable with it. It is not a good idea to wrench this country apart solely to enact your partisan political agenda.

F**k 'em. My half of the country doesn't accept the current Republican Court as legitimate, and for good reason. So it looks like someone's gonna be disappointed. Better the degenerate, proto-fascist minority than the decent, respectable majority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Impressive mental gymnastics. Wanting to end the illegitimate reign of a racist, authoritarian minority party using perfectly constitutional measures makes me an aspiring autocrat. Sure thing, hombre.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're delusional. This is the logic of appeasement. Can't risk another war, so we have to give Hitler Czechoslovakia. I'm sure that will sate his appetite! (Good thing Gore conceded, otherwise we'd have children in cages and Republican presidents praising Nazis.) Plus, if we forcefully oppose Hitler, why, wE'LL bE jUsT aS bAD aS hIM !!! /s.

Thankfully, most of the left is waking up.

I've never liked the whole "love it or leave it" mentality of the right, but honestly at this point, you should probably just move to Europe. It fits your politics much better, and after all, what's the point of living in a country where you loathe half the population this much? Democracy only works when everyone has the interests of the nation at heart; you can't make decisions based on how much it pisses off the people you don't like.

I know it's pointless to ask this, but why are you comparing Trump to Hitler and his followers to Nazis? Is there anything they've actually done, or any policy they've enacted, that warrants such a comparison?

[7,052,770]

There are elements of a constitution that should not be overridden for any reason. They must be constant and immutable. This includes the Bill of Rights, which is coming under attack from both Republicans and Democrats as of late. I do not want the court charged with protecting these rights to be turned into a partisan arm of either party.

It already has. You are willfully blind if you don't see that, and McConnell removed all pretense otherwise with his perverted power grab. The Buttigieg Plan is the only way to save the Supreme Court in the short term, and long term we need a new system where appointments happen on a schedule, rather than whenever there happens to be a vacancy and the senate majority leader allows it.

[OSR stands with Israel]

There are elements of a constitution that should not be overridden for any reason. They must be constant and immutable. This includes the Bill of Rights, which is coming under attack from both Republicans and Democrats as of late. I do not want the court charged with protecting these rights to be turned into a partisan arm of either party.

It already has. You are willfully blind if you don't see that, and McConnell removed all pretense otherwise with his perverted power grab. The Buttigieg Plan is the only way to save the Supreme Court in the short term, and long term we need a new system where appointments happen on a schedule, rather than whenever there happens to be a vacancy and the senate majority leader allows it.

Thankfully Joe Manchin would never vote for such an outrageous idea and neither would Sinema or Jones.

[DrScholl]

I wouldn't be so sure about Jones and he might be gone before Democrats retake the Senate. Polarization has set in and after McConnell's stunt the game has changed. Being nice isn't going to be in vogue anymore.

[forgotten manatee]

Court packing is wrong, but frankly I don’t blame the Democrats for “going there”. What else are they going to when the Republicans are acting in such bald bad faith? Just keep taking it in the shorts like pre-Red Wedding House Stark? Like it or not, Republicans, the north remembers, so if you keep allowing your elected officials to get away with gross norm violations, like refusing a Democratic President a vote on his Supreme Court nominee, then you will sow the consequences when other norms become collateral damage. You can’t only care about the norms when it benefits your side. I can’t help but shake my head at the high handed responses of some of the yellow and blue avatars in his thread.

[7,052,770]

There are elements of a constitution that should not be overridden for any reason. They must be constant and immutable. This includes the Bill of Rights, which is coming under attack from both Republicans and Democrats as of late. I do not want the court charged with protecting these rights to be turned into a partisan arm of either party.

It already has. You are willfully blind if you don't see that, and McConnell removed all pretense otherwise with his perverted power grab. The Buttigieg Plan is the only way to save the Supreme Court in the short term, and long term we need a new system where appointments happen on a schedule, rather than whenever there happens to be a vacancy and the senate majority leader allows it.

Thankfully Joe Manchin would never vote for such an outrageous idea and neither would Sinema or Jones.

Actually, all of them will, as well as several Republicans, as part of a grand compromise that puts Supreme Court appointments on a schedule and restores the Court's legitimacy.

[PaperKooper]

I like the Biden Rule.  It's been 131 years since the last time the Senate confirmed the nominee of a President of the other party in an election year, and 87 years since the Senate confirmed any election year nominee. 

[Heebie Jeebie]

There are elements of a constitution that should not be overridden for any reason. They must be constant and immutable. This includes the Bill of Rights, which is coming under attack from both Republicans and Democrats as of late. I do not want the court charged with protecting these rights to be turned into a partisan arm of either party.

It already has. You are willfully blind if you don't see that, and McConnell removed all pretense otherwise with his perverted power grab. The Buttigieg Plan is the only way to save the Supreme Court in the short term, and long term we need a new system where appointments happen on a schedule, rather than whenever there happens to be a vacancy and the senate majority leader allows it.

Exactly!  What's more, normalizing court packing would actually make SCOTUS a more effective body. Each party tends to get unified control of government about once every 16 years or so. If sitting justices knew the ideological balance of the Court were likely to shift at those moments, they'd be incentivized to pursue a moderate, middle path if they wanted their rulings to stand as stable precedent.

[Huey Long is a Republican]

Honesly, I agree on getting rid of McConnell (F**k that idiotic turtle) but packing the court is a truly awful idea. If the Democrats pack the courts, then what's to stop the Republicans from packing the courts? When you say *Muh Amendment* or something along the lines, those can also be ignored/repealed by the party. We could have a system where both party just keep adding judges to outdo one another on the supreme court and have as many people they can appoint on it. I don't know about you, but I don't want 50 some odd people being the court. Maybe with 15, I'll be more comfortable, but not just constant packing. Also, those bringing up Court packing forget it was very different times. The country was in chaos, as the Civil War showed. Packing was absolutely necessary to establish law of the land. I don't see the Nation falling apart any time soon. Honestly, a lot of dems are claiming that McConnell was the first to pull a stunt like this, but this is actually old news as Strom Thurmond has it as a rule, as it was named after him. The idea was brought up in 1996 (when Lott was Senate Majority Leader), 2000 (again Lott as Maj Leader), 2004 (Senate Maj Frist who knew better), and 2008 (Senate Maj Leader Reid). None of it was implemented then and it was only implemented in 2016 because McConnell was Senate Majority Leader. Again, not a fan of McConnell so I won't even bother to defend him. But, if you think you're so much superior than right-wingers, why stoop to their levels? Why do the same exact thing McConnell did? Being a Libertarian Centrist, I want to see discourse and no politicizing of the court. Hell, I'm planning on running for Congress in the 2020s and announcing legislation that would make Court Packing and the Thurmond Rule illegal for good. God, I'm sick of this America! Can't wait until people are turned off from both parties going to the extremes due to arguments like these. *sigh*

[7,052,770]

I like the Biden Rule.  It's been 131 years since the last time the Senate confirmed the nominee of a President of the other party in an election year, and 87 years since the Senate confirmed any election year nominee. 

31. Not 131. Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic Senate in 1988 unanimously. There has never been a "Biden Rule" outside of Mitch McConnell's charlatan fantasies.

[R.P. McM]

I've never liked the whole "love it or leave it" mentality of the right, but honestly at this point, you should probably just move to Europe.

It's been 13 years since I last voted for a candidate who lost a local/statewide election, so I think I fit just fine where I'm at. But your concern is appreciated.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nowhere fits your politics. It must really sting to be confronted with the reality that the only electorally viable form of libertarianism is one wedded to white nationalism. Barry Goldwater, et al.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, I think your arguments would be better directed at the right. Why have they spent the past 40 years incessantly demonizing liberals? That's bound to generate some animosity on the other side. And if the Supreme Court is eventually packed — as it should be — there'll be no need to lend credence to the right's inevitable tantrum. Because they can love it or leave it, amirite?! The unstated assumption in all of this is that Democrats can't adopt the right's tactics because Republicans are just clumps of nerve endings, rabid animals without agency, so their response is liable to be violent or extreme. Again: that's not my problem. If the other side is truly so constituted, any hope of harmonious coexistence is already dead.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think it's the children in cages, the phony "emergency" declaration, the "Muslim ban," the refusal of the Republican Congress to conduct any oversight whatsoever, the outrageous effort to transform the Justice Department into an arm of the Party, the rampant and explicit racism that's characterized both Trump's presidency and GOP campaigns post-2016, the praise for tiki-torch Nazis, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. ...

I mean, we haven't seen any real atrocities — yet — but there's no longer any question that the right is teeming with racists and the GOP is in the process of becoming an overtly white nationalist organization.

[R.P. McM]

Honesly, I agree on getting rid of McConnell (F**k that idiotic turtle) but packing the court is a truly awful idea. If the Democrats pack the courts, then what's to stop the Republicans from packing the courts?

Nothing. It's just that their proposals aren't popular, so implementing them will inevitably generate backlash. How many upscale suburbanites would be willing to risk voting Republican for lower taxes if it meant they or their daughters might be forced to give birth? How many would sacrifice their gay son's civil rights on the altar of mammon? Let's find out.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why did the 101st Airborne stoop to the same level as the Waffen-SS? Using firearms to murder people over a political disagreement?! Outrageous!

[Heebie Jeebie]

Honesly, I agree on getting rid of McConnell (F**k that idiotic turtle) but packing the court is a truly awful idea. If the Democrats pack the courts, then what's to stop the Republicans from packing the courts? When you say *Muh Amendment* or something along the lines, those can also be ignored/repealed by the party. We could have a system where both party just keep adding judges to outdo one another on the supreme court and have as many people they can appoint on it. I don't know about you, but I don't want 50 some odd people being the court. Maybe with 15, I'll be more comfortable, but not just constant packing. Also, those bringing up Court packing forget it was very different times. The country was in chaos, as the Civil War showed. Packing was absolutely necessary to establish law of the land. I don't see the Nation falling apart any time soon. Honestly, a lot of dems are claiming that McConnell was the first to pull a stunt like this, but this is actually old news as Strom Thurmond has it as a rule, as it was named after him. The idea was brought up in 1996 (when Lott was Senate Majority Leader), 2000 (again Lott as Maj Leader), 2004 (Senate Maj Frist who knew better), and 2008 (Senate Maj Leader Reid). None of it was implemented then and it was only implemented in 2016 because McConnell was Senate Majority Leader. Again, not a fan of McConnell so I won't even bother to defend him. But, if you think you're so much superior than right-wingers, why stoop to their levels? Why do the same exact thing McConnell did? Being a Libertarian Centrist, I want to see discourse and no politicizing of the court. Hell, I'm planning on running for Congress in the 2020s and announcing legislation that would make Court Packing and the Thurmond Rule illegal for good. God, I'm sick of this America! Can't wait until people are turned off from both parties going to the extremes due to arguments like these. *sigh*

My God, this is painfully naive. First, the size of the Court was changed frequently throughout the 19th century, not just in times of crisis. Second, I don't think you get just how much of an aberration the American judicial system is in comparison to those of other developed countries. It's only a slight exaggeration to say that our Supreme Court has as much in common with Iran's Guardian Council as it does with the top judicial bodies of Europe.  Most first-world countries have judiciaries that are more democratic than ours, and they're not slipping into tyranny.  Why are you so opposed to democracy?