Court Packing and Court Stacking Discussion Thread

[Dave Moss]

 

 

[Dave Moss]

 

[Dave Moss]

 

[Diehardfan]

2 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

 

Covering this fair. Respect that. 

[Smokesdawg]

Look, what people may argue is unfair on both sides, is also constitutional. 
If the GOP wants to push through this nomination, it’s fine by the constitution but they must be prepared for the fallout. 
If the Dems retake the senate and decide to remove the filibuster and pass a law expanding the Supreme Court.... its constitutional. 
But it will come with significant fallout.  
I have no doubt we would see some iteration of the tea party arise from the ashes and remind middle Americans how they are the ones who are truly discriminated against. 
It’s not worth it. 

[DEagle7]

There is nothing in the constitution that specifically specifies the number of supreme court justices, however the last time it was changed was under Grant I believe (FDR tried but failed).

You can make the same argument for filling supreme court justice seats in a reasonable timeframe. Before Kavanaugh, I believe that only once in over 100 years has the Senate waited to nominate someone to  supreme court court for over a year. It was after Fortas as they stalled until Nixon was elected. 

Both moves are technically allowed but almost unprecedented in recent history (early on both happened somewhat regularly). IMO you can't reasonably be for one but against the other for any other reason than "I don't want the other side to do it". I am against both. 

[Dave Moss]

 

[Toastrel]

Justice dies, the president appoints a successor. Needs approval by Senate vote.

 

Not sure why people have a tough time with those rules. They seem simple. As president it is your duty to fill it ASAP.

All the time. Not just when the people feel their party might get extra benefit.

[Dave Moss]

1 hour ago, Toastrel said:

Justice dies, the president appoints a successor. Needs approval by Senate vote.

 

Not sure why people have a tough time with those rules. They seem simple. As president it is your duty to fill it ASAP.

All the time. Not just when the people feel their party might get extra benefit.

You know Obama nominated someone right away when Scalia died, right?

 

[Toastrel]

6 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

You know Obama nominated someone right away when Scalia died, right?

 

Yes, and the GOP were wrong. The Democrats said so at the time. Loudly.

Now, they don't think it is right.

 

How unsurprising.

[20dawk4life]

I’ll tell you what I think about it after the election. 

[Boogyman]

21 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

Covering this fair. Respect that. 

The guy couldn't get a census done. He is the last person anyone should want picking anyone for anything. Utter incompetence 

[EaglesRocker97]

Pack that b|tch!

[MidMoFo]

GOP was wrong to delay the Garland appointment.

By their own justification, they  would be wrong to rush this appointment.

Republicans are in fact packing the courts.

If Barrett is confirmed, I absolutely see the Democrats adding two justices to balance the court.

What I would prefer to see... Barrett not get confirmed, because what was fair in 2016 should still be fair in 2020.

Then a 2/3’s vote be reinstated as a requirement to confirm a Supreme Court judge. If neither party can nominate an unbiased, non-partisan judge for the position, that can’t get bipartisan approval... then pick someone else.

At some point in time the two parties must start working together again.

[NVeagle]

6 hours ago, 20dawk4life said:

I’ll tell you what I think about it after the election. 

# me too.

[Dave Moss]

 

[we_gotta_believe]

I'm kinda dumb with this political strategery stuff but is this the jist of it?

Court-packing = adding new judges

Court-stacking = picking judges from your side

 

As for accomplishing the former...

Step 1) declare new states

Step 2) ???

Step 3) Profit?

How do new states get you to more scotus seats?

[TEW]

39 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I'm kinda dumb with this political strategery stuff but is this the jist of it?

Court-packing = adding new judges

Court-stacking = picking judges from your side

 

As for accomplishing the former...

Step 1) declare new states

Step 2) ???

Step 3) Profit?

How do new states get you to more scotus seats?

Because the GOP holds a structural advantage in the senate due to the sheer number of smaller states that lean right. Even if the Democrats retake the senate, swing state senators might not risk their political career by going to the extreme measure of court packing since it is extremely unpopular. On the other hand, adding two more solid blue states would give the Dems 4 perpetual democratic senators to overcome this problem.

[EaglesRocker97]

12 hours ago, MidMoFo said:

Then a 2/3’s vote be reinstated as a requirement to confirm a Supreme Court judge. If neither party can nominate an unbiased, non-partisan judge for the position, that can’t get bipartisan approval... then pick someone else.

It was never 2/3. It used to be 60, same as the filibuster.

I don't see any way around this for the Democrats. The GOP has left them no choice. Trying to play the moral high ground and pounding their fists on the table about the rules has gotten them to where they are now. Any attempt to return to the former way of doing business simply cedes additional leverage to Republicans. Reinstating the supermajority for judicial appointments would just put us back where we were from 2010-2016 as majority party hamstrung by minority chicanery. The Republicans have shown time and again that they won't play by the rules and that they will game the system in the most despicable ways to avoid giving the majority party its due power following electoral victories.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  If the GOP insists on playing dirty, then it's about time we accept the challenge.

[we_gotta_believe]

5 minutes ago, TEW said:

Because the GOP holds a structural advantage in the senate due to the sheer number of smaller states that lean right. Even if the Democrats retake the senate, swing state senators might not risk their political career by going to the extreme measure of court packing since it is extremely unpopular. On the other hand, adding two more solid blue states would give the Dems 4 perpetual democratic senators to overcome this problem.

Ah got it, so it's basically a hedge even if they do win a majority. Thanks.

[EaglesRocker97]

I'll just leave this right here.

Quote

Republicans Are Enthusiastic about Court Packing

Although Republicans are universally warning how undemocratic it would be for Democrats to expand the U.S. Supreme Court next year, at the state level they are wildly enthusiastic about the idea. Strange. Oddly, their views on court packing seem to correlate rather strongly with who is doing the packing. Here is a state-by-state rundown on recent attempts to pack state supreme courts, some successful and some not.

• Alabama: For some reason, in 2009, the Democratic majority leader introduced a bill to slim down the state Supreme Court from nine to seven justices. However, all nine were Republican appointees, so it is not clear what he was up to. The bill failed.
   
• Arizona: In 2016, Arizona Republicans successfully expanded the Arizona Supreme Court from five to seven justices over the objections of the chief justice. The state's Republican governor picked the new justices. The bill's (Republican) sponsor let the cat out of the bag when he said: "If there were a different person appointing [the justices], I might feel less comfortable."
   
• Georgia: In 2016, Republicans in the state legislature pushed through a bill allowing then-governor Nathan Deal (R) to add two more justices to the seven-member state Supreme Court. Deal's lawyer said that he hoped the new court would make more decisions favorable to businesses.
   
• Florida: In 2007, the Republican-controlled Florida legislature attempted to increase the state Supreme Court from seven to 15 justices because they were upset about a ruling it had made on school vouchers. It failed. In 2011, the legislature tried again and failed again.
   
• Iowa: After the state Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage in 2009, Republicans in the legislature attempted to pack the court by adding two more justices. That didn't work because Democrats controlled the legislature at the time.
   
• Louisiana: In 2017, a Democrat introduced a bill to expand the Louisiana Supreme Court from seven to nine justices. It failed.
   
• Montana: In 2011, Republicans in the state legislature attempted to unpack the state's top court by removing the two most liberal justices. They were completely open about their motives. Nevertheless, the bill died in committee.
   
• Oklahoma: Same story in Oklahoma, only this time the unpacking would have reduced the number of justices from nine to five, eliminating four Democratic appointees. The effort failed.
   
• Pennsylvania: In 2014, the Republicans in the state legislature introduced a bill to shrink government, including eliminating the office of the lieutenant governor, reducing the size of the general assembly, and also the size of the state Supreme Court. Just by chance, all of these changes would have benefited the Republicans. It didn't make it.
   
• South Carolina: From 1995 to 2010, Democratic state senator Robert Ford kept introducing a bill to expand the top court from five to seven justices. It kept failing. Since 2013, Republicans have been trying to pack the court and have kept failing.
   
• Washington: In 2013, Republicans attempted to get rid of four Democratic appointees on the nine-member Supreme Court after the court shot down a Republican-imposed restriction on tax hikes. The Brennan Center for Justice characterized the move as a threat to judicial independence. It failed.

In nearly all the cases above, increasing or decreasing the size of the state Supreme Court would have helped the Republicans. Often the ideological balance of the Court was at stake. Clearly at the state level, the Republicans have been playing ideological hardball with the courts and sometimes succeeding. It would be hypocritical in the extreme if they condemned Democrats in a potential Biden administration for doing at the federal level what they have been actively trying to do at the state level for years. Needless to say, they will say that packing the state Supreme Courts with Republicans is completely different from packing the U.S. Supreme Court with Democrats. But it follows the same hallowed principle: It is legal and we have the power to do it so we will do it. (V)

 

[The Norseman]

On 10/14/2020 at 8:31 AM, EaglesRocker97 said:

It was never 2/3. It used to be 60, same as the filibuster.

I don't see any way around this for the Democrats. The GOP has left them no choice. Trying to play the moral high ground and pounding their fists on the table about the rules has gotten them to where they are now. Any attempt to return to the former way of doing business simply cedes additional leverage to Republicans. Reinstating the supermajority for judicial appointments would just put us back where we were from 2010-2016 as majority party hamstrung by minority chicanery. The Republicans have shown time and again that they won't play by the rules and that they will game the system in the most despicable ways to avoid giving the majority party its due power following electoral victories.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  If the GOP insists on playing dirty, then it's about time we accept the challenge.

I think it would be political suicide to pack the court and the mainstream members of the Democrat party know it.  I suspect that the reason Biden isn't answering whether he'd do it or not is that he knows he wont, but he doesn't want to disenfranchise the progressive vote prior to the election.  

[jsdarkstar]

The Court is already packed by McConnell. 

[DrPhilly]

Let’s discuss...

[DrPhilly]

House bill to be introduced today to extend to 13 justices. The only motivation is to pack the court will liberal minded justices to reverse perceived earlier injustices.