Expanding the Supreme Court

[Phil1111 1,149]

"Republicans want their opponents to play by the old rules, as if the game is theirs alone to shape. A typical response comes from Rich Lowry of National Review magazine who, in a comment on Twitter directed at Biden’s reluctance to answer a question about court expansion, declared,

You can’t be the candidate of norms and refuse to say whether or not you are going to undertake a truly radical attempt to destroy the legitimacy of one of our key governing institutions."

So the GOP wants democrats and Biden to obey norms of behavior in the face of their corruption and disavowing every promise.

Biden is smart by not responding to the baiting. But an expansion of the SC to undercut the luciferian deal between trump and his base. Is legitimate and warranted.

[ryoder 1,590]

McConnell made the decision to stack the court when he refused to do his constitutional duty to take a vote on Merrick Garland. Fuck the GOP and their whining.

[kallend 2,026]

Pres. Biden should re-nominate Judge Garland on 1/21/21, and then another judge ASAP afterwards to make an odd number of justices.

[Phil1111 1,149]

So I flipped the channel to the Barrett confirmation hearings and Lindsey Graham is questioning her. Q- How would you rule if a law banning gay marriage comes before you?

A- Well someone would have to file a claim. Then the state courts would have to overturn existing case law. So i would likely never have to rule on that.

Paraphrase Graham. Oh Ok that certainly clears up that contentious issue!

Graham onto next question.

What B.S. theater. Makes you wonder if the GOP doesn't rehearse questions beforehand.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

So I flipped the channel to the Barrett confirmation hearings and Lindsey Graham is questioning her. Q- How would you rule if a law banning gay marriage comes before you?

A- Well someone would have to file a claim. Then the state courts would have to overturn existing case law. So i would likely never have to rule on that.

Paraphrase Graham. Oh Ok that certainly clears up that contentious issue!

Graham onto next question.

What B.S. theater. Makes you wonder if the GOP doesn't rehearse questions beforehand.

I doubt it. Now it just flows naturally.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

2 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

"Republicans want their opponents to play by the old rules, as if the game is theirs alone to shape. A typical response comes from Rich Lowry of National Review magazine who, in a comment on Twitter directed at Biden’s reluctance to answer a question about court expansion, declared,

You can’t be the candidate of norms and refuse to say whether or not you are going to undertake a truly radical attempt to destroy the legitimacy of one of our key governing institutions."

The legitimacy of the court is being destroyed by the Republicans, who are using deceitfulness, hypocrisy, and naked power grabbing to install a Supreme Court that is far more conservative than the American public.  I have read some analysis that suggests this court, with Judge Barrett on board, will be more conservative (as in, more hostile to civil rights and more friendly to business interests) than any court since the 1930s when the court was busy invalidating every New Deal program that came before it.  Any court that seeks to turn the clock back almost a century will be seen as an enemy of the people by most of the population.  If adding to the court is the only way to restore some balance, that would be (in my opinion) less damaging than the current direction.

The question the Republicans are demanding that Biden answer is similar to the old "when did you stop beating your wife" canard.  It is designed to have no correct answer, and to take attention away from the way Republicans are stacking the court with extremist Federalist Society alumni.  Republicans have literally no platform (at least, that they are willing to disclose to the public) other than King Trump, so they have abdicated any right to demand any answers on policy matters from the Democrats.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

45 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

The legitimacy of the court is being destroyed by the Republicans, who are using deceitfulness, hypocrisy, and naked power grabbing to install a Supreme Court that is far more conservative than the American public.  I have read some analysis that suggests this court, with Judge Barrett on board, will be more conservative (as in, more hostile to civil rights and more friendly to business interests) than any court since the 1930s when the court was busy invalidating every New Deal program that came before it.  Any court that seeks to turn the clock back almost a century will be seen as an enemy of the people by most of the population.  If adding to the court is the only way to restore some balance, that would be (in my opinion) less damaging than the current direction.

The question the Republicans are demanding that Biden answer is similar to the old "when did you stop beating your wife" canard.  It is designed to have no correct answer, and to take attention away from the way Republicans are stacking the court with extremist Federalist Society alumni.  Republicans have literally no platform (at least, that they are willing to disclose to the public) other than King Trump, so they have abdicated any right to demand any answers on policy matters from the Democrats.

Well said. I remain in favor of simply defunding the courts instead of packing. No money for clerks, paper clips or summer vacations. I’d go so far as to turn the heat off. That’ll slow down things and take the fun out of being a strict textualist.

That said, if they do pack it go big. Add another 10 or 20 justices just to make it insane for the right to add another 20 when they regain power. 

[jakee 1,489]

2 hours ago, GeorgiaDon said:

Any court that seeks to turn the clock back almost a century will be seen as an enemy of the people by most of the population.  If adding to the court is the only way to restore some balance, that would be (in my opinion) less damaging than the current direction.

It really says something about the state of the current Republican party that there has been a continuous conservative appointed majority in the SC for decades and yet they desperately need to appoint even more conservative Justices because they still fail time and time again in their arguments in front of that court either in favour of their own policies or against Democrat ones.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Since Biden has now committed to making some sort of a statement about expanding* the court, I was thinking about what he could say that would be reasonable, not piss off progressives in the party too much, and not scare away voters who don't like Trump but don't want to mess with the court too much either.  Here is what I came up with; I'm curious what others think.

1. Say he will give it 2 years to see if this court is determined to take a wrecking ball to civil rights (and replace them with a fundamentalist Christian theocracy), environmental law, consumer protections etc.

2. If the court acts in a reasonably balanced way, leave it as is.

3. If the court is clearly trying to push the country back to the 1800s, propose adding 2 seats and make that an issue for the next Senate election.  People would be able to vote on the proposal by choosing senators who support or oppose the idea.

By promising to wait to see how the Court behaves, and to leave the choice to voters in the next election, he can defuse the issue  for this election while still leaving expansion of the court on a short fuse.

*The press likes to use the term "packing the court" when they talk about expanding it.  I think the term is perhaps intended to gin up an emotional (i.e. negative) response.  What the Republicans have done is "pack the court" by removing the filibuster and using their minimal majority (only 1 seat in the case of Kavanaugh) and naked hypocrisy to seat the most extreme conservatives they could find.  Increasing the number of justices only modestly and only moving the balance back towards the middle (6 conservative, 5 liberal) would not be "packing the court" by any reasonable definition.

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by GeorgiaDon

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

1 hour ago, GeorgiaDon said:

... Increasing the number of justices only modestly and only moving the balance back towards the middle (6 conservative, 5 liberal) would not be "packing the court" by any reasonable definition.

 

If you are expecting the Rs to accept any 'reasonable definition' of ANYTHING that they don't like, you are fooling yourself.