Packing the Supreme Court?

[Angra Mainyu]

Nobody would get "eternal power" with DC and/or PR statehood. Sure they would side with Democrats now. But political parties tend to move to the middle in a two-party system. After a while they would be back to roughly 50/50 split between parties.

The center might move left so to speak, if the percentage of people on the left (among voters) grows significantly. The trend in those places seems to be against Republicans or anything right-win as far as I can tell. So, yes, I do think Republicans almost certainly would have to win somewhere else to get to the White House and the Senate, and that's pretty difficult, unless perhaps the far left wing of the Democratic party goes too crazy too soon or things like that.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Does PR want statehood? They do have a choice in the matter. Past elections in PR indicate that their citizens don't want statehood because that choice has been given in several of their elections and has repeatedly been voted down. Most want to remain a territory but there is a large percentage that want independence.

Some people in PR want statehood, some do not. Polls for the November 3 referendum seem to heavily support statehood over any alternative.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum

However, all other alternatives together are above statehood, so it seems with those numbers in practice statu-quo wins even if it has far less support than statehood. But the referendum it's non-binding, and turnout might be very low, so who knows? I think a win for statehood in November would encourage Democrats to move forward, if they manage to win both houses of Congress and the Presidency. Personally, tentatively I think a win for statehood in November is more likely than a triple win for the Democrats.

DC is another matter. The land was granted to the federal government by Maryland and Virginia to establish a capitol that wasn't in any state. The government didn't need the land granted by Virginia so gave it back. It's questionable if the government could go back on the agreement with Maryland by declaring DC a state rather than returning it to Maryland.

Maryland can agree, though.

The PR and DC statehood idea sounds a bit like a democrat wet dream.

In the long run, I think it will happen due to demographic trends. But I don't know how fast it will be. I'm not convinced the Democrats will win big in November.

ETA:
But, in any case, such plans to change the system to insure eternal power should scare the shit out of those advocating them if they actually thought about it. Do they really think the nation would be a better place with an authoritarian power grab that permanently disenfranchises half the population?

Let me ask you in a different way: do you think the Democrats will not think it's better if the Republicans never win either house or he Presidency again? I think most Democrats would say 'yes' (and the same if you were to ask Republicans), or at least believe 'yes'.

But that aside, how is that an authoritatian power grab, and how does it disenfranchises anyone?
I mean, it would be constitutional. And I do not see why it would be particularly authoritarian to give Puerto Ricans the right to vote, and senators. The rest of the population could still vote. If it's about DC, why would giving them senators be disenfranchising someone?
Or do you mean packing the court? In any case, they see that as actually promoting freedom and prevent a right-wing power grab.

 

[RVonse]

Or, the dems could impeach and remove both Thomas and Kavanaugh for perjury during their confirmation hearings.There's a lot of evidence both did so that wasn't allowed to be heard during those hearings.

Interesting thought experiment! Especially for Thomas. What to do about all the decisions Thomas opinions influenced and changed throughout his tenure. Do you just throw all of them out retroactively because he was unqualified to serve in the first place?

That would be a major mess.

 

[Elixir]

Or, the dems could impeach and remove both Thomas and Kavanaugh for perjury during their confirmation hearings.There's a lot of evidence both did so that wasn't allowed to be heard during those hearings.

Interesting thought experiment! Especially for Thomas. What to do about all the decisions Thomas opinions influenced and changed throughout his tenure. Do you just throw all of them out retroactively because he was unqualified to serve in the first place?

That would be a major mess.

Right. Probably one reason it's never been done. More and more, I get the feeling that what the Dems will do about Reps' hypocrisy and abuse of power, is what they always do; nothing.
Even if they get the WH and the Senate in the next election and Trump's subsequent coup attempt is put down, I can't see them unifying to rectify the damage to the judiciary that Trump's cabal has wrought. .

 

[lpetrich]

Frank DiStefano apparently didn't bother to look at other countries where a political party took extreme measures to insure that they stayed in power. ...

The current threats by a few democrats in the US is, other than adding new democrat leaning states, is remaking the Supreme Court to their liking, eliminating the electoral college, no checks on voter qualifications, open boarders, allowing non-citizens to vote, etc.

That strikes me as projection with the help of a Fox News caricature of the Democratic Party, because if there is any party that's trying to do that, it's the Republican Party, with its gerrymandering and selectivity about who is allowed to vote and love of the Electoral College and selectivity about nominating Supreme Court Justices and other such things.

 

[Trausti]

Frank DiStefano apparently didn't bother to look at other countries where a political party took extreme measures to insure that they stayed in power. ...

The current threats by a few democrats in the US is, other than adding new democrat leaning states, is remaking the Supreme Court to their liking, eliminating the electoral college, no checks on voter qualifications, open boarders, allowing non-citizens to vote, etc.

That strikes me as projection with the help of a Fox News caricature of the Democratic Party, because if there is any party that's trying to do that, it's the Republican Party, with its gerrymandering and selectivity about who is allowed to vote and love of the Electoral College and selectivity about nominating Supreme Court Justices and other such things.

Yeah, ‘cause the Dems are not selective about Supreme Court nominees. Not.At.All.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Metaphorically, for the last 30 years, we are playing a football game and the GOP is the receiver and the Dems are the cornerback. The Dems are stretching the rules the best they can, all the contact in the first five yards they can get, putting an arm in or grabbing the jersey or opponents arm where the ref won't see... you know... professional cheating. Meanwhile the GOP receiver takes out a sledgehammer and smacks it to the head of the Dem cornerback.

Then the GOP and the red hats say "well, the Dems would have done it too".

If the Dems do anything out of the norm, the GOP, the next time the idiots of America put them back in charge, will go up a magnitude. It is unsustainable for our democracy! Also it becomes extraordinarily hard to even know the moral bounds the Dems have for trying to right what the GOP has done.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because if the Democrats do this, it's very unlikely that the Republicans will be able to do so, especially if they also give statehood to DC and PR.

Does PR want statehood?

They do now after Maria. The territory has also been harmed greatly when the US stopped giving rewards for corporations being on the island.

The PR and DC statehood idea sounds a bit like a democrat wet dream.

There is no reason why Puerto Rico shouldn't be a state. DC, on the other hand is almost a principality. DC has a population greater than two states, Vermont and Wyoming. I don't know what to do with it.

ETA:
But, in any case, such plans to change the system to insure eternal power should scare the shit out of those advocating them if they actually thought about it. Do they really think the nation would be a better place with an authoritarian power grab that permanently disenfranchises half the population?

With the placement of Barrett on the Supreme Court, SCOTUS becomes a theocratic board, and may remain that even if Thomas is replaced with a liberal. We are already becoming a right-wing authoritarian nation.

 

[Deepak]

Frank DiStefano apparently didn't bother to look at other countries where a political party took extreme measures to insure that they stayed in power. ...

The current threats by a few democrats in the US is, other than adding new democrat leaning states, is remaking the Supreme Court to their liking, eliminating the electoral college, no checks on voter qualifications, open boarders, allowing non-citizens to vote, etc.

That strikes me as projection with the help of a Fox News caricature of the Democratic Party, because if there is any party that's trying to do that, it's the Republican Party, with its gerrymandering and selectivity about who is allowed to vote and love of the Electoral College and selectivity about nominating Supreme Court Justices and other such things.

Yeah, ‘cause the Dems are not selective about Supreme Court nominees. Not.At.All.

Being selective about nominees is expected - you can’t expect the opposing party to have no platform or opinions. It bears mentioning explicitly that if you do expect this you’re profoundly stupid.

The selectivity that Republicans have in in the nominating not the nominee. There’s light years of difference between ‘we do not like Bork nominate someone else’ and ‘We explicitly named Garland, but the President is a darkie so no nominations will be considered’.

 

[skepticalbip]

They do now after Maria. The territory has also been harmed greatly when the US stopped giving rewards for corporations being on the island.

Maybe, maybe not. There are several advantages to remaining a territory. They receive more federal assistance as a territory than they would as a state. They have more autonomy than a state. The biggy is that, as a territory, they pay no federal income tax even though they are U.S. citizens with whatever benefits that entails other than Congressional representation.

There is no reason why Puerto Rico shouldn't be a state. DC, on the other hand is almost a principality. DC has a population greater than two states, Vermont and Wyoming. I don't know what to do with it.

Indeed, there is no reason PR couldn't be a state, if they wish statehood. But personally, if I were a citizen of PR, I would prefer the semi-autonomy, extra benefits, and no federal taxes over having a vote for U.S. congress critters.

Yeah, DC is a special case. I would think that Maryland would love to re-absorb the area and the enormous tax base (which would give DC residents representation in Congress, Maryland's congress critters) rather than see it become an independent state. But then I expect that it will remain the district it was originally intended to be and is.

 

[lpetrich]

Why the Supreme Court Should Have 27 Justices, Not 9 | Time from 2018

A much larger court would make the Supreme Court more comparably sized to our federal circuit courts, as law professor Jonathan Turley observed in a his 2012 call for a 19-person court. Those regional circuit courts are composed of anywhere from 6 to 29 judges. Not all judges sit on all cases heard by the circuits, as most cases are decided by smaller panels of three. In a small number of cases, the entire circuit sits to review a previously convened panel’s decision. ...

There are further benefits to a much larger Supreme Court. A larger court could hear more cases, which could help break up the cabal that currently controls the court’s docket. One of the most terrifying aspects of current Supreme Court practice is the politicking to get particular cases before it, which benefits a small cadre of insiders who are usually the system’s most staunch defenders.

Author Jacob Hale Russell proposed gradually adding Justices to reach his target number, like two every other year. So that would take 18 years to go from 9 to 27 Justices.

 

[lpetrich]

Debate commission to mute Trump, Biden microphones during parts of debate - The Washington Post - about 3/5 of the way down is "Cruz, other Senate Republicans to release plan barring ‘court-packing’"

A half-dozen senators led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) will unveil the proposals later Monday. The first is a constitutional amendment — which would require support of two-thirds of Congress and then ratification by three-fourths of individual states — barring the contraction or expansion of the number of seats on the Supreme Court.

The second would bar any proposals to change the size of the Supreme Court from even being considered in the Senate unless two-thirds of its members agree.

“Make no mistake, if Democrats win the election, they will end the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court, expanding the number of justices to advance their radical political agenda, entrenching their power for generations, and destroying the foundations of our democratic system,” Cruz said in a statement describing his proposals.

He added: “We must take action before Election Day to safeguard the Supreme Court and the constitutional liberties that hang in the balance.”

Then
Senator Ted Cruz on Twitter: "NEW from @washingtonpost’s @seungminkim: A half-dozen senators led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) to release plan barring ‘court-packing’" / Twitter

Then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Is the plan to withdraw Barrett’s nomination?

Because if not, I’ve got the world’s tiniest violin at the ready " / Twitter

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Debate commission to mute Trump, Biden microphones during parts of debate - The Washington Post - about 3/5 of the way down is "Cruz, other Senate Republicans to release plan barring ‘court-packing’"

A half-dozen senators led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) will unveil the proposals later Monday. The first is a constitutional amendment — which would require support of two-thirds of Congress and then ratification by three-fourths of individual states — barring the contraction or expansion of the number of seats on the Supreme Court.

The second would bar any proposals to change the size of the Supreme Court from even being considered in the Senate unless two-thirds of its members agree.

“Make no mistake, if Democrats win the election, they will end the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court, expanding the number of justices to advance their radical political agenda, entrenching their power for generations, and destroying the foundations of our democratic system,” Cruz said in a statement describing his proposals.

He added: “We must take action before Election Day to safeguard the Supreme Court and the constitutional liberties that hang in the balance.”

Then
Senator Ted Cruz on Twitter: "NEW from @washingtonpost’s @seungminkim: A half-dozen senators led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) to release plan barring ‘court-packing’" / Twitter

Then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Is the plan to withdraw Barrett’s nomination?

Because if not, I’ve got the world’s tiniest violin at the ready ??????" / Twitter

Appointing Barrett is not "court-packing". If some Democrats wish to change the meaning of the words, it would make no sense to ascribe that new meaning to Republicans speaking in the usual sense.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Debate commission to mute Trump, Biden microphones during parts of debate - The Washington Post - about 3/5 of the way down is "Cruz, other Senate Republicans to release plan barring ‘court-packing’"

A half-dozen senators led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) will unveil the proposals later Monday. The first is a constitutional amendment — which would require support of two-thirds of Congress and then ratification by three-fourths of individual states — barring the contraction or expansion of the number of seats on the Supreme Court.

The second would bar any proposals to change the size of the Supreme Court from even being considered in the Senate unless two-thirds of its members agree.

“Make no mistake, if Democrats win the election, they will end the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court, expanding the number of justices to advance their radical political agenda, entrenching their power for generations, and destroying the foundations of our democratic system,” Cruz said in a statement describing his proposals.

He added: “We must take action before Election Day to safeguard the Supreme Court and the constitutional liberties that hang in the balance.”

Then
Senator Ted Cruz on Twitter: "NEW from @washingtonpost’s @seungminkim: A half-dozen senators led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) to release plan barring ‘court-packing’" / Twitter

Then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Is the plan to withdraw Barrett’s nomination?

Because if not, I’ve got the world’s tiniest violin at the ready " / Twitter

Appointing Barrett is not "court-packing". If some Democrats wish to change the meaning of the words, it would make no sense to ascribe that new meaning to Republicans speaking in the usual sense.

 

[ZiprHead]

Debate commission to mute Trump, Biden microphones during parts of debate - The Washington Post - about 3/5 of the way down is "Cruz, other Senate Republicans to release plan barring ‘court-packing’"

A half-dozen senators led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) will unveil the proposals later Monday. The first is a constitutional amendment — which would require support of two-thirds of Congress and then ratification by three-fourths of individual states — barring the contraction or expansion of the number of seats on the Supreme Court.

The second would bar any proposals to change the size of the Supreme Court from even being considered in the Senate unless two-thirds of its members agree.

“Make no mistake, if Democrats win the election, they will end the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court, expanding the number of justices to advance their radical political agenda, entrenching their power for generations, and destroying the foundations of our democratic system,” Cruz said in a statement describing his proposals.

He added: “We must take action before Election Day to safeguard the Supreme Court and the constitutional liberties that hang in the balance.”

Then
Senator Ted Cruz on Twitter: "NEW from @washingtonpost’s @seungminkim: A half-dozen senators led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) to release plan barring ‘court-packing’" / Twitter

Then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Is the plan to withdraw Barrett’s nomination?

Because if not, I’ve got the world’s tiniest violin at the ready ������" / Twitter

Appointing Barrett is not "court-packing". If some Democrats wish to change the meaning of the words, it would make no sense to ascribe that new meaning to Republicans speaking in the usual sense.

It's the culmination of many years of right-wing court packing.

Perhaps you can provide a definition that shows this is not court packing?

 

[Deepak]

The statement is that withdrawing the Barrett nomination would be a plan that would prevent court packing, not that the Barrett nomination constitutes court packing in itself.

 

[Worldtraveller]

The GOP has been court packing since the days of Reagan (Trent Lott, if I'm remembering the right scumbags).

When a Dem is in the whitehouse, they filibuster and delay appointments, often leaving dozens to hundreds of court vacancies.

Then when they get to nominate the judges, they rush them through (and count on the dems NOT fighting hard enough to stop them). The most obvious and blatant abuse has been by McConnel, both in terms of how many judges he stopped from even getting a hearing during Obama's terms, and in terms of changing the rules to eliminate both the possibility of a filibuster, and getting rid of the 60 vote rule, all for the sake of ramming through ideological right wingers at all levels with a simple senate majority.

Note that this has been pointed out more than once that the senate 'majority' represents a significant minority of US citizens.

 

[laughing dog]

Debate commission to mute Trump, Biden microphones during parts of debate - The Washington Post - about 3/5 of the way down is "Cruz, other Senate Republicans to release plan barring ‘court-packing’"

A half-dozen senators led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) will unveil the proposals later Monday. The first is a constitutional amendment — which would require support of two-thirds of Congress and then ratification by three-fourths of individual states — barring the contraction or expansion of the number of seats on the Supreme Court.

The second would bar any proposals to change the size of the Supreme Court from even being considered in the Senate unless two-thirds of its members agree.

“Make no mistake, if Democrats win the election, they will end the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court, expanding the number of justices to advance their radical political agenda, entrenching their power for generations, and destroying the foundations of our democratic system,” Cruz said in a statement describing his proposals.

He added: “We must take action before Election Day to safeguard the Supreme Court and the constitutional liberties that hang in the balance.”

Then
Senator Ted Cruz on Twitter: "NEW from @washingtonpost’s @seungminkim: A half-dozen senators led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) to release plan barring ‘court-packing’" / Twitter

Then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Is the plan to withdraw Barrett’s nomination?

Because if not, I’ve got the world’s tiniest violin at the ready ??????" / Twitter

Appointing Barrett is not "court-packing". If some Democrats wish to change the meaning of the words, it would make no sense to ascribe that new meaning to Republicans speaking in the usual sense.

It make sense at the most fundamental level - insuring the Court has a clear ideological or partisan majority.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Appointing Barrett is not "court-packing". If some Democrats wish to change the meaning of the words, it would make no sense to ascribe that new meaning to Republicans speaking in the usual sense.

It's the culmination of many years of right-wing court packing.

Perhaps you can provide a definition that shows this is not court packing?

Certainly.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/19/us/politics/what-is-court-packing.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/22/packing-supreme-court/

https://reason.com/2020/08/20/does-the-democratic-platform-endorse-court-packing/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...re-behind-packing-u-s-supreme-court-quicktake

https://time.com/5702280/court-packing-history/

https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/fdrs-court-packing-plan

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/2/175135...dr-roosevelt-new-deal-democrats-supreme-court

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12721216/packing-the-court-justices-rbg-democrats-republicans-trump/

https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/51/lets-think-about-court-packing-2/

I can provide many more links if you like. Surely, by that definition - using by legal scholars and media outlets and activists ranging from the far left to the moderate right at least, but I probably can find that usage in the far right too -, the Republicans are not doing any court-packing. At any rate, it would make no sense to attribute to Cruz and other Republicans the new meaning AOC is pushing for.

 

[Deepak]

Note that this has been pointed out more than once that the senate 'majority' represents a significant minority of US citizens.

Not simply that, but they're pushing through their Supreme Court nominee, and trying to prevent the incoming Senate from exercising its legislative power with the expectation that they're going to lose both the Presidency and Senate. That is, not only is it minority rule, not only is it a clear case of not having a mandate, but it's subverting a power that the legislative body has had since the birth of the country (and has exercised five times already).

Meanwhile the centrists are shitting themselves in fear that the Dems will be the ones breaking tradition. Faith and begorrah