I don’t see all the dems in on this, won’t pass.

There’s already a court packing thread that I started, but I guess @DrPhilly thinks his is better. 

Thanks, mods

 

6 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

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. 

DOA. The House should stop wasting our time.

If the Dems pack the court, the Republicans will double stuff and then the Dems will triple pack until they hopefully implode in a river of shite.

8 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

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. 

13 is a bit much. I'd favor 11. 11 is fair. 

15 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

That stairway was already climbed last year. 

3 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

There’s already a court packing thread that I started, but I guess @DrPhilly thinks his is better. 

My thread was better. Your version couldn’t even stay on the first page without my help. 

Not happening.

Like I said, the House needs to stop wasting our time.

4 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Like I said, the House needs to stop wasting our time.

Yep.  This seems even less likely than statehood and election reform.  Spend your time and political capital on stuff that might actually make a difference instead of these grand gestures.  

Pelosi already said the bill is DOA. 

Biden threw the base a bone by allowing the "issue to be studied" without even requiring a recommendation at the end of the day.

I suspect they'll recommend something like requiring the Senate to begin hearings on SC nominations within some number of days of the nomination happening to help ensure we don't have a repeat of Garland. But I doubt they'll recommend adding justices.

12 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Pelosi already said the bill is DOA. 

Biden threw the base a bone by allowing the "issue to be studied" without even requiring a recommendation at the end of the day.

I suspect they'll recommend something like requiring the Senate to begin hearings on SC nominations within some number of days of the nomination happening to help ensure we don't have a repeat of Garland. But I doubt they'll recommend adding justices.

Largely agree with this.  It's a sop to the left wing base.

If they really wanted to get additional judges on the court, they could have insisted on belatedly giving Garland the hearing he was wrongly denied by McConnell and placed him on the court.  Then said, "Well we can't have an even number of justices and placed another. 

At least then you could deny wanting to expand the court but argue that it needed to happen to restore fairness to the process and put the blame on McConnell and Republicans for it happening.

these political threads are honestly gayer than a bathouse in San Fran in the 70s. A bunch of pretend intellectuals constantly trying to prove whos opinion is more important.

Periodically sneaking in personal information bragging about how great life is and how much money you Make. This embarrassing conduct makes my tummy hurt.  

42 minutes ago, Blobeph said:

these political threads are honestly gayer than a bathouse in San Fran in the 70s. A bunch of pretend intellectuals constantly trying to prove whos opinion is more important.

Periodically sneaking in personal information bragging about how great life is and how much money you Make. This embarrassing conduct makes my tummy hurt.  

So don't read them, stupid.

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Pelosi already said the bill is DOA. 

Biden threw the base a bone by allowing the "issue to be studied" without even requiring a recommendation at the end of the day.

I suspect they'll recommend something like requiring the Senate to begin hearings on SC nominations within some number of days of the nomination happening to help ensure we don't have a repeat of Garland. But I doubt they'll recommend adding justices.

I'm 100% behind this with one exception.  We would have been better off had the Commission been given marching orders that specifically ruled out an expansion.  There are some items one just has to tell the base "no" to.

2 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Pelosi already said the bill is DOA. 

Biden threw the base a bone by allowing the "issue to be studied" without even requiring a recommendation at the end of the day.

I suspect they'll recommend something like requiring the Senate to begin hearings on SC nominations within some number of days of the nomination happening to help ensure we don't have a repeat of Garland. But I doubt they'll recommend adding justices.

That will be the most likely result, however I'm enjoying the mass triggering of the right in the meantime. 

29 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

I'm 100% behind this with one exception.  We would have been better off had the Commission been given marching orders that specifically ruled out an expansion.  There are some items one just has to tell the base "no" to.

I tend to disagree. I don't think you give a Commission parameters like that; they should look at all things and come up with reasons why expanding the court is a non-starter.

15 minutes ago, Gannan said:

That will be the most likely result, however I'm enjoying the mass triggering of the right in the meantime. 

I enjoy triggering the right, but I don't like motivating MAGA morons.

3 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I tend to disagree. I don't think you give a Commission parameters like that; they should look at all things and come up with reasons why expanding the court is a non-starter.

All commissions are given parameters.  The question is which parameters they receive.

In this case, the optics were already in place regarding expansion and that is why I believe the prudent thing for Biden to do was to rule that out ahead of the commission.

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I enjoy triggering the right, but I don't like motivating MAGA morons.

They think ee are living under the yolk of communism. They tried to overthrow the government. They don't really have another level to jump up to. 

I did a 15 minute search and found these two WH statements.  The first says the commission is is setup to study the

Quote

merits and legality of particular reform proposals

So if this is correct then there is a specific set of things to consider, i.e. and not beyond those.

 

Then comes this comment from the WH

Quote

The White House said it will study the length of service and turnover of the justices, the size of the court and its case selection, rules and practices

 

Here we see the size of the court as a specifically named topic for review along with a couple of others.