Harris , Gillibrand and Warren endorse packing the Supreme Court

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

court-packing is mind-numbingly stupid. Pure and simple.

[7,052,770]

There's a very easy compromise to avoid this. Gorsuch (or Kavanaugh) steps down and is replaced by Merrick Garland OR a different Democratic appointee if Republicans have a substantive reason to vote him down.

That would be nice...but is even less likely than passing a constitutional amendment reforming the Supreme Court.

There have been a few rumors that Roberts was so mad at McConnell for destroying the Supreme Court's legitimacy that he's planning to step down once a Democratic president gets in. Personally I'm pretty skeptical, but we'll see. Getting Obama in as Chief Justice would be pretty great.

[Progressive Pessimist]

There's a very easy compromise to avoid this. Gorsuch (or Kavanaugh) steps down and is replaced by Merrick Garland OR a different Democratic appointee if Republicans have a substantive reason to vote him down.

That would be nice...but is even less likely than passing a constitutional amendment reforming the Supreme Court.

There have been a few rumors that Roberts was so mad at McConnell for destroying the Supreme Court's legitimacy that he's planning to step down once a Democratic president gets in. Personally I'm pretty skeptical, but we'll see. Getting Obama in as Chief Justice would be pretty great.

Maybe I'm just jaded, but I don't see him doing that as very realistic either. But Obama would definitely get the last laugh in that hypothetical. It would be glorious!

[John Dule]

There's a very easy compromise to avoid this. Gorsuch (or Kavanaugh) steps down and is replaced by Merrick Garland OR a different Democratic appointee if Republicans have a substantive reason to vote him down.

Liberals are so insanely childish.

[GoTfan]

A Democrat with a hundred times the mandate that could be won today already tried.

Spoiler alert: it failed.

[TML]

A Democrat with a hundred times the mandate that could be won today already tried.

Spoiler alert: it failed.

Well, it was only abandoned after the court started issuing rulings favorable to the Democrat in charge (by virtue of one of the justices flipping).

I personally would consider it a victory if the court's composition remains the same, but one or more of the current justices flip to issue rulings upholding progressive legislation.

[YE]

court-packing is mind-numbingly stupid. Pure and simple.

[Landslide Lyndon]

There's a very easy compromise to avoid this. Gorsuch (or Kavanaugh) steps down and is replaced by Merrick Garland OR a different Democratic appointee if Republicans have a substantive reason to vote him down.

Liberals are so insanely childish.

Says the Tulsi Gabbard voter.

[Heebie Jeebie]

A Democrat with a hundred times the mandate that could be won today already tried.

Spoiler alert: it failed.

This is a faulty comparison.  FDR was in his second term by the time he started arguing for judicial reform, and at that point practically no big initiatives were getting through Congress--the country was on the mend and there was a general disinterest in further societal/political change (aside from arming our ally Great Britain).  Furthermore, Congressional Democrats torpedoes FDR's Court proposal because they feared a more liberal Court might interfere in the Jim Crow system in the South.  So, once again, systemic racism kept the country from progress.  The important point is that future Democratic presidents won't have these handicaps.

[GoTfan]

A Democrat with a hundred times the mandate that could be won today already tried.

Spoiler alert: it failed.

This is a faulty comparison.  FDR was in his second term by the time he started arguing for judicial reform, and at that point practically no big initiatives were getting through Congress--the country was on the mend and there was a general disinterest in further societal/political change (aside from arming our ally Great Britain).  Furthermore, Congressional Democrats torpedoes FDR's Court proposal because they feared a more liberal Court might interfere in the Jim Crow system in the South.  So, once again, systemic racism kept the country from progress.  The important point is that future Democratic presidents won't have these handicaps.

It also gives precedence for the Republicans to do the same, which is extremely dangerous.

[Heebie Jeebie]

A Democrat with a hundred times the mandate that could be won today already tried.

Spoiler alert: it failed.

This is a faulty comparison.  FDR was in his second term by the time he started arguing for judicial reform, and at that point practically no big initiatives were getting through Congress--the country was on the mend and there was a general disinterest in further societal/political change (aside from arming our ally Great Britain).  Furthermore, Congressional Democrats torpedoes FDR's Court proposal because they feared a more liberal Court might interfere in the Jim Crow system in the South.  So, once again, systemic racism kept the country from progress.  The important point is that future Democratic presidents won't have these handicaps.

It also gives precedence for the Republicans to do the same, which is extremely dangerous.

Are you being serious?  "Oh no!  Republicans might steal a Supreme Court majority!  We can't ever can't let that happen!"  I hate to be the one to tell you this, but that ship has already sailed.  If Democrats don't take back the majority when they have the chance (which, let's be honest, they probably won't even though they should), they are essentially endorsing what Republicans have done.

And in any case, it would be an improvement on our current system to normalize more frequent changes in the Court's ideological balance.  Let's just accept that every time a party has control of both the presidency and the Senate it can reapportion the Court.  That happens about once a decade, so the Court would still be significantly more stable than the presidency or the Senate, and it would add some democratic accountability to the Court's actions.  Adding more democracy to our political system would be a good thing!

[Grassroots]

Ugh...

[Lord Admirale]

I don't think Democrats realize that Republicans will take back the presidency at some point and pack the courts.

[GoTfan]

A Democrat with a hundred times the mandate that could be won today already tried.

Spoiler alert: it failed.

This is a faulty comparison.  FDR was in his second term by the time he started arguing for judicial reform, and at that point practically no big initiatives were getting through Congress--the country was on the mend and there was a general disinterest in further societal/political change (aside from arming our ally Great Britain).  Furthermore, Congressional Democrats torpedoes FDR's Court proposal because they feared a more liberal Court might interfere in the Jim Crow system in the South.  So, once again, systemic racism kept the country from progress.  The important point is that future Democratic presidents won't have these handicaps.

It also gives precedence for the Republicans to do the same, which is extremely dangerous.

Are you being serious?  "Oh no!  Republicans might steal a Supreme Court majority!  We can't ever can't let that happen!"  I hate to be the one to tell you this, but that ship has already sailed.  If Democrats don't take back the majority when they have the chance (which, let's be honest, they probably won't even though they should), they are essentially endorsing what Republicans have done.

And in any case, it would be an improvement on our current system to normalize more frequent changes in the Court's ideological balance.  Let's just accept that every time a party has control of both the presidency and the Senate it can reapportion the Court.  That happens about once a decade, so the Court would still be significantly more stable than the presidency or the Senate, and it would add some democratic accountability to the Court's actions.  Adding more democracy to our political system would be a good thing!

[Sestak]

I don't think Democrats realize that Republicans will take back the presidency at some point and pack the courts.

The thought is more along the lines that people like McConnell would do this anyway if the court ever shifted left.

[OctoCube]

court-packing is mind-numbingly stupid. Pure and simple.

[emailking]

What is to stop the Republicans from packing the courts after the Democrats lose an election, if the Democrats do it? Why even have a supreme court at that point?

The Supreme Court should have the authority to decide particular cases, but not to settle larger political disputes over the meaning of the Constitution.  The roots of "judicial review,” as it's called, are not legal or constitutional but themselves political.  If we believe in democracy, the Court should be empowered to make decisions, but not make the law.

The way it was explained to me, is that Judicial Review is more of a result than a prescription.

So for example, if SCOTUS deicdes a specific gay couple can get married because of the equal protection clause, then all lower court justices will feel compelled to follow that precedent or they know their cases will get reversed under the same justification. Rather than have a zillion cases following this path and clogging the courts, most jurisdictions will realize any laws they have against gay marriage have effectively been overturned and stop enforcing them.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Well that will spell the end of the Supreme Court as an independant judicial body. Guess what happens if the Democrats pack the courts? The GOP will pack the courts in their favour next time they hold the White House.

I mean, the Supreme Court already has two sex predators (one of whom tried to rape a woman and sexually assaulted another woman) and one illegitimate justice (Gorsuch) serving on it.  I certainly don’t see how this is any worse than what the Republicans did with Garland. 

Setting that aside, the idea that the Supreme Court isn’t already functionally a political institution in much the same way Congress and the Presidency is pretty blatantly at odds with reality.  Take Bush v. Gore, is there anyone in America who believes - regardless of the case’s merits - that it wouldn’t have been a 5-4 split the other way if Bush and Gore’s situations were reversed?  This isn’t even an ideological thing, it’s just a reality of modern day America.

[DrScholl]

A Democrat with a hundred times the mandate that could be won today already tried.

Spoiler alert: it failed.

"FDR did it and it didn't work, so let's not try at all." I find it interesting that the maroon avatars seem to be against this idea on the basis that "it won't work".

[OSR stands with Israel]

These were FDR's majorities in both houses when he tried


House:

Democrats: 334
Republicans: 88

Senate:

Democrats: 74
Republicans 17

[Heebie Jeebie]

These were FDR's majorities in both houses when he tried


House:

Democrats: 334
Republicans: 88

Senate:

Democrats: 74
Republicans 17

Again, this is misrepresents the actual circumstances.  A large block of those Congressional Democrats were pro-segregationists conservatives from the South (and Congressional leadership in particular was overwhelmingly from the South) who were opposed to expanding judicial authority lest it threaten Jim Crow.  A modern Democratic president wouldn't have the numbers you cite, but the Congress he or she would be working with would be infinitely more unified ideologically.

[Heebie Jeebie]

What is to stop the Republicans from packing the courts after the Democrats lose an election, if the Democrats do it? Why even have a supreme court at that point?

The Supreme Court should have the authority to decide particular cases, but not to settle larger political disputes over the meaning of the Constitution.  The roots of "judicial review,” as it's called, are not legal or constitutional but themselves political.  If we believe in democracy, the Court should be empowered to make decisions, but not make the law.

The way it was explained to me, is that Judicial Review is more of a result than a prescription.

So for example, if SCOTUS deicdes a specific gay couple can get married because of the equal protection clause, then all lower court justices will feel compelled to follow that precedent or they know their cases will get reversed under the same justification. Rather than have a zillion cases following this path and clogging the courts, most jurisdictions will realize any laws they have against gay marriage have effectively been overturned and stop enforcing them.

Yeah, that's a nice story, but it's not what we have in practice.  In the real world, the Court arbitrarily decided that the incentives the ACA created to expand Medicaid were excessively powerful and states should be allowed to opt out of expansion without losing access to existing federal funding streams. There is absolutely no basis for this idea anywhere in the text of the Constitution — and millions of Americans have been deprived of their health insurance as a result.   In the real world, we have the case of Bush v. Gore, a refusal to look at the problem of partisan gerrymandering,  a series of judicial decisions striking down efforts to regulate the campaign finance system, the Shelby County v. Holder decision in which five conservative justices arbitrarily decided that racially motivated voter suppression was no longer a problem, etc. etc.  In what world are rulings like these not prescriptive?

[OSR stands with Israel]

These were FDR's majorities in both houses when he tried


House:

Democrats: 334
Republicans: 88

Senate:

Democrats: 74
Republicans 17

Again, this is misrepresents the actual circumstances.  A large block of those Congressional Democrats were pro-segregationists conservatives from the South (and Congressional leadership in particular was overwhelmingly from the South) who were opposed to expanding judicial authority lest it threaten Jim Crow.  A modern Democratic president wouldn't have the numbers you cite, but the Congress he or she would be working with would be infinitely more unified ideologically.

Even then , Liberals still had a clear majority in both houses of Congress. It wasnt until after the 1938 midterms that the Conservative Coalition was able to take control

[Heebie Jeebie]

These were FDR's majorities in both houses when he tried


House:

Democrats: 334
Republicans: 88

Senate:

Democrats: 74
Republicans 17

Again, this is misrepresents the actual circumstances.  A large block of those Congressional Democrats were pro-segregationists conservatives from the South (and Congressional leadership in particular was overwhelmingly from the South) who were opposed to expanding judicial authority lest it threaten Jim Crow.  A modern Democratic president wouldn't have the numbers you cite, but the Congress he or she would be working with would be infinitely more unified ideologically.

Even then , Liberals still had a clear majority in both houses of Congress. It wasnt until after the 1938 midterms that the Conservative Coalition was able to take control

I gotta keep pushing back on this.  Roosevelt spent 1938 openly campaigning against members of his own party because they were already kneecapping his agenda.  Even at the height of New Deal liberalism, Congressional leaders were always very careful to place limits on federal power, to protect "states' rights" to segregate, and to exclude black people from federal assistance whenever possible.  That's why so many of those New Deal programs only passed with clear sunset provisions, why universal health care and UBI were nonstarters, and why Social Security initially excluded service workers and agricultural workers.  The running theme is that Congressional Democrats during FDR's presidency were willing to support liberal initiatives up to the point that those acts might threaten the racist status quo.  And as subsequent decades would prove, they were right to fear that a more liberal Supreme Court would undermine institutional segregation.

[OSR stands with Israel]

These were FDR's majorities in both houses when he tried


House:

Democrats: 334
Republicans: 88

Senate:

Democrats: 74
Republicans 17

Again, this is misrepresents the actual circumstances.  A large block of those Congressional Democrats were pro-segregationists conservatives from the South (and Congressional leadership in particular was overwhelmingly from the South) who were opposed to expanding judicial authority lest it threaten Jim Crow.  A modern Democratic president wouldn't have the numbers you cite, but the Congress he or she would be working with would be infinitely more unified ideologically.

Even then , Liberals still had a clear majority in both houses of Congress. It wasnt until after the 1938 midterms that the Conservative Coalition was able to take control

I gotta keep pushing back on this.  Roosevelt spent 1938 openly campaigning against members of his own party because they were already kneecapping his agenda.  Even at the height of New Deal liberalism, Congressional leaders were always very careful to place limits on federal power, to protect "states' rights" to segregate, and to exclude black people from federal assistance whenever possible.  That's why so many of those New Deal programs only passed with clear sunset provisions, why universal health care and UBI were nonstarters, and why Social Security initially excluded service workers and agricultural workers.  The running theme is that Congressional Democrats during FDR's presidency were willing to support liberal initiatives up to the point that those acts might threaten the racist status quo.  And as subsequent decades would prove, they were right to fear that a more liberal Supreme Court would undermine institutional segregation.

FDR's agenda really didnt start to unravel until the court packing attempt and the 1937 recession.  Until then he had basically rammed through almost everything he wanted