Eric Holder says Dems should pack SCOTUS

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Talking this up in the national media is probably a smart Dem politics at the moment as it seems to be having a noticeable moderating effect on Chief Justice Roberts and to a lesser extent Justice Kavanaugh so far this term. 

Actually doing it would be a whole different matter, though.  It would quickly become the new normal to pack the Supreme Court until your "side" comfortably controls it upon taking office.  You could end up with a situation where SCOTUS basically never overrules the new administration's executive actions.  The long term trend of the presidency slowly becoming more emperor-like would accelerate dramatically. 

Court packing is a dangerous road to go down for this very reason.

We will end up with a court with 552 members, and all of them too cowardly to stand up to administration excess regardless of where it comes from lest the next wave of packing occur.

The only real long term solution here is that the President gets to make their appointments from list of qualified people presented to him by some group like various states do and then said nominee gets an up or down vote automatically.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If they can break filibuster, go all in, but they should should try to use reconciliation to pass election reform bills through passing it through campaign finance reform.  

The Democrats need to focus on campaign finance reform, voting rights and ending gerrymandering, not extremist attacks on the Senate, Supreme Court and Electoral College that will never go anywhere, except to create one hell of a backlash in the lily white Midwest suburbs, the minute Trump is out of the picture.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's a terrible idea because Americans have always viewed ideas such as this as blatantly unfair.

FDR's court-packing scheme was not only rejected at the polls; it's advocacy ushered in the Southern Democrat-Republican coalition that stymied his progressive agenda for the rest of his Presidency, and which required the LBJ Landslide of 1964 in order to get a major Civil Rights Bill through.

And FDR's plan was done in an era where the SCOTUS was nowhere near the important issue it is today.  Judicial nominations were made with an eye to credentials; Hoover nominated Brandeis (a liberal) while FDR nominated Frankfurter (who was, on balance, a conservative).   Eisenhower nominated Warren and Brennan while JFK nominated the center-right Byron White (who was a Kennedy partisan and a lifelong Democrat). 

Any Democrat who pushes such a plan will suffer for it at the polls.  Truthfully, Trump would suffer at the polls, as would any other Republican, if they pushed such an idea.  People don't like the idea of rigging games. 

[BlueSwan]

Truthfully, Trump would suffer at the polls, as would any other Republican, if they pushed such an idea. 

Well, that is obviously untrue. No republicans would abandon Trump because of court packing, infact I'm 99% sure that his approval amongst republicans would soar.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Truthfully, Trump would suffer at the polls, as would any other Republican, if they pushed such an idea.

Well, that is obviously untrue. No republicans would abandon Trump because of court packing, infact I'm 99% sure that his approval amongst republicans would soar.

This would not play well with the broader public, including those voters in the middle who are honestly up for grabs.  There would also be some Republicans who would consider such a proposal as something that could come back to haunt them should their party be out of power.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The success of our system depends upon their being some limit beyond which both sides agree that none shall pass. Once you breach that, the only outcome can be civil war.

[S019]

We should not pack SCOTUS, this undermines the integrity and independence of our court system. We should leave SCOTUS as is, court packing is a blantant power grab by the Democrats and will undermine our democracy

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The only way an HR bill campaign finance reform bill pass a Roberts Crt if Dems add election reform, end soft money and add number of judges to SCOTUS. It can pass reconciliation and a constitutional challenge.  But, we are far away from that

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The only way an HR bill campaign finance reform bill pass a Roberts Crt if Dems add election reform, end soft money and add number of judges to SCOTUS. It can pass reconciliation and a constitutional challenge.  But, we are far away from that

You don't add judges because you cannot get your way. The Supreme Court isn't their to rubber stamp your sacrosanct agenda, it is to protect our rights from your bill's well intentioned oppressiveness.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

I'd rather see the Perry plan where justices serve 18-year terms than see more justices on the court.

Court packing would inevitably backfire on Democrats because justices get approved by the Senate, which geographically favors Republicans. But it's not just a bias towards Republicans, it's a bias towards predominantly small, non-diverse, older states which currently does and undoubtedly in the future will give SCOTUS an ideological bias.

Plus the removal of the filibuster means that a simple majority of 50-50 + VP (or 51-49) gets to leave a permanent imprint on the judiciary. This places an enormous amount of influence in the hands of a small number of swing vote Senators like Susan Collins and Joe Manchin (not to mention flukey special election winners like Doug Jones or temporary appointments like Carte Goodwin). That's obviously a really dumb allocation of power.

So yeah court packing is easier because it takes a simple majority (which in itself is a fatal flaw) but the way SCOTUS justices are confirmed needs to be drastically changed instead.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The success of our system depends upon their being some limit beyond which both sides agree that none shall pass. Once you breach that, the only outcome can be civil war.

We've been steadily eroding those conventions for years now. The Garland fiasco effectively killed what semblance of nonpartisanship remained around the judicial confirmation process—and while I'm not an advocate for court packing, nobody—particularly not anyone who supported blocking Garland's confirmation for what were blatantly partisan reasons—has any right to be surprised that we've come to this point. You can't give a panel of nine jurists appointed for life the power to decide questions of national import forever, then introduce partisanship into the selection process, and expect the factions to behave reasonably.

[Virginiá]

I'd rather see the Perry plan where justices serve 18-year terms than see more justices on the court.

Court packing would inevitably backfire on Democrats because justices get approved by the Senate, which geographically favors Republicans. But it's not just a bias towards Republicans, it's a bias towards predominantly small, non-diverse, older states which currently does and undoubtedly in the future will give SCOTUS an ideological bias.

Plus the removal of the filibuster means that a simple majority of 50-50 + VP (or 51-49) gets to leave a permanent imprint on the judiciary. This places an enormous amount of influence in the hands of a small number of swing vote Senators like Susan Collins and Joe Manchin (not to mention flukey special election winners like Doug Jones or temporary appointments like Carte Goodwin). That's obviously a really dumb allocation of power.

So yeah court packing is easier because it takes a simple majority (which in itself is a fatal flaw) but the way SCOTUS justices are confirmed needs to be drastically changed instead.

That's why Democrats should immediately admit DC and PR as states. It won't fix the Senate bias, but it'll make it less egregious. Republicans haven't had more than 55 Senators since the 1920s. Even a modest addition of 2-4 new Democratic Senators would be a problem for them. Plus, Democrats would have to kill the filibuster to pack the court, so that is the point where they should go buck wild anyway. H.R. 1, DC/PR statehood, VRA fix, and so on.

FWIW, I think the idea of court packing is pretty disgusting, but I don't really see what choices are left. Republicans have done nothing but try to seize power by almost any means necessary for years now. They should have known where this path would lead. Or they did, but didn't give a crap because all that matters to them is power and control, and if people have an issue with that, they can be marginalized and disenfranchised.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The success of our system depends upon their being some limit beyond which both sides agree that none shall pass. Once you breach that, the only outcome can be civil war.

We've been steadily eroding those conventions for years now. The Garland fiasco effectively killed what semblance of nonpartisanship remained around the judicial confirmation process—and while I'm not an advocate for court packing, nobody—particularly not anyone who supported blocking Garland's confirmation for what were blatantly partisan reasons—has any right to be surprised that we've come to this point. You can't give a panel of nine jurists appointed for life the power to decide questions of national import forever, then introduce partisanship into the selection process, and expect the factions to behave reasonably.

I said Garland should have had a vote in 2016 Truman, try again!

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The success of our system depends upon their being some limit beyond which both sides agree that none shall pass. Once you breach that, the only outcome can be civil war.

We've been steadily eroding those conventions for years now. The Garland fiasco effectively killed what semblance of nonpartisanship remained around the judicial confirmation process—and while I'm not an advocate for court packing, nobody—particularly not anyone who supported blocking Garland's confirmation for what were blatantly partisan reasons—has any right to be surprised that we've come to this point. You can't give a panel of nine jurists appointed for life the power to decide questions of national import forever, then introduce partisanship into the selection process, and expect the factions to behave reasonably.

I said Garland should have had a vote in 2016 Truman, try again!

I'm not arguing with you, I'm agreeing with you.

[Sumner 1868]

The Supreme Court is a partisan body that shouldn't exist.

[Progressive Pessimist]

The Supreme Court is a partisan body that shouldn't exist.

I don't know about that. The United States probably should have a Supreme Court, but one that operates and exists differently for sure. I'm not entirely sure how that would work in an ideal world though. It's yet another part of our Constitution that has become outdated and flawed as "blind justice" doesn't seem to exist when the President gets to appoint the justices and where a party in the Senate can find itself able to block an appointee if they have a majority and the will to do so.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Supreme Court is a partisan body that shouldn't exist.

I don't know about that. The United States probably should have a Supreme Court, but one that operates and exists differently for sure. I'm not entirely sure how that would work in an ideal world though. It's yet another part of our Constitution that has become outdated and flawed as "blind justice" doesn't seem to exist when the President gets to appoint the justices and where a party in the Senate can find itself able to block an appointee if they have a majority and the will to do so.

Automatic up or down votes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Supreme Court is a partisan body that shouldn't exist.

I don't know about that. The United States probably should have a Supreme Court, but one that operates and exists differently for sure. I'm not entirely sure how that would work in an ideal world though. It's yet another part of our Constitution that has become outdated and flawed as "blind justice" doesn't seem to exist when the President gets to appoint the justices and where a party in the Senate can find itself able to block an appointee if they have a majority and the will to do so.

Automatic up or down votes.

How about the nominee automatically becomes a Justice but serves only until the next GE (so 2 yrs max) if the Senate hasn't voted up or down within say 3 months of nomination?

Its a possibility, but it seems unnecessarily complex.