• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Packing the Supreme Court?

So I gather the basic GOP argument is "don't stretch custom and follow the rules because if you do we're liable to act the same way the next time we get the chance. You know, what we've been doing anyway for the past 30 years."
 
There's a good essay on this over at Electoral-Vote.com


https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct29.html#item-11

A lot of Democrats are champing at the bit to expand the Supreme Court if they win all the marbles in November. Joe Biden doesn't want to state an opinion on the matter yet (possibly because he wants to see how partisan the Court is on the upcoming election cases). Instead of taking a position, he said he would form a commission to study the problem—that is, he kicked the can down the road. Despite digital everything these days, the world is not entirely binary and the options aren't just "pack" and "don't pack." The New York Times got eight people to write op-eds on the subject, briefly summarized as follows:
  • How we got here (by Emily Bazelon)
  • Create a new court (by Kent Greenfield):
  • Give justices term limits (by Steven Calabresi):
  • Don't Let the Court Choose Its Own Cases (by Melody Wang):
  • Threaten to Pack the Courts (by Aaron Tang):
  • Pack the courts (by Larry Kramer):
  • Expand the lower courts (by Leah Litman):
  • Keep the courts the same (by Randy Barnett):

Go to the link to read the one-paragraph summary of each editorial. It gives an interesting view of the possibilities.
 
ZiprHead said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
The year is 2050, and the Supreme Court just ruled 251-249 that the President can rule by executive order and disband the congress.
Click to expand...

That would be 2021 if bonespurs wins.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Which of the two candidates has been asked, and did not answer, if he would add additional seats to the Supreme Court to overcome the justices appointed by Trump?
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
The year is 2050, and the Supreme Court just ruled 251-249 that the President can rule by executive order and disband the congress.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day, packing the court means that the court will mostly agree with whomever is the president at that time. Packing, ending flibusters and other such actions will erode the power of the minority party to check the power the majority. Very dangerous.
 
Harry Bosch said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
The year is 2050, and the Supreme Court just ruled 251-249 that the President can rule by executive order and disband the congress.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day, packing the court means that the court will mostly agree with whomever is the president at that time. Packing, ending flibusters and other such actions will erode the power of the minority party to check the power the majority. Very dangerous.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Mitch McConnell. He ended the filibuster on SC choices and all picks since then have been highly partisan.
 
ZiprHead said:
Harry Bosch said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
The year is 2050, and the Supreme Court just ruled 251-249 that the President can rule by executive order and disband the congress.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day, packing the court means that the court will mostly agree with whomever is the president at that time. Packing, ending flibusters and other such actions will erode the power of the minority party to check the power the majority. Very dangerous.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Mitch McConnell. He ended the filibuster on SC choices and all picks since then have been highly partisan.
Click to expand...

I don't have his number. But yea, the far right which includes Mitch does not favor minority rights.
 
Harry Bosch said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
The year is 2050, and the Supreme Court just ruled 251-249 that the President can rule by executive order and disband the congress.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day, packing the court means that the court will mostly agree with whomever is the president at that time. Packing, ending flibusters and other such actions will erode the power of the minority party to check the power the majority. Very dangerous.
Click to expand...

I agree on packing. The filibuster is effectively dead anyway, the damage has been done. I think we are better off without it at present anyway given how obstructionist the Republicans are being.
 
Speaking of packing the court, what are the odds that Clarence Thomas will resign if Trump loses, and Trump and McConnell rush to confirm a replacement before end of the year? (The same scenario applies if Trump wins, but dems take the senate.)
 
Jayjay said:
Speaking of packing the court, what are the odds that Clarence Thomas will resign if Trump loses, and Trump and McConnell rush to confirm a replacement before end of the year? (The same scenario applies if Trump wins, but dems take the senate.)
Click to expand...
Stop giving them ideas!
 
Harry Bosch said:
ZiprHead said:
Tell that to Mitch McConnell. He ended the filibuster on SC choices and all picks since then have been highly partisan.
Click to expand...

I don't have his number. But yea, the far right which includes Mitch does not favor minority rights.
Click to expand...

They may not favor rights for minorities, but they do favor rule by the minority party, at least as long as the minority party is the Republicans.
 
ideologyhunter said:
The oppressed billionaires. With Mom & Pop jets. And so misunderstood!
Click to expand...

If they want to be better understood, they should offer themselves up to be eaten. We would certainly understand them better, knowing how they taste! It's an important understanding to have of the rich, I think. I do wonder what flavor Mammonaise has...
 
Hmmm, not at all where I was headed. Also, I'm vegetarian. So I'll leave that field of action to others. And remember, someone's gonna be stuck with the nose cartilage and, say, the balls. I'll leave that to you meat eaters.
 
Yesterday, as I write this, the Biden Admin announced this:

Executive Order on the Establishment of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States | The White House

The commission will have at most 36 members. "Members of the Commission shall be distinguished constitutional scholars, retired members of the Federal judiciary, or other individuals having experience with and knowledge of the Federal judiciary and the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court)."

What this commission is to be doing:
(a) The Commission shall produce a report for the President that includes the following:

(i) An account of the contemporary commentary and debate about the role and operation of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system and about the functioning of the constitutional process by which the President nominates and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints Justices to the Supreme Court;

(ii) The historical background of other periods in the Nation’s history when the Supreme Court’s role and the nominations and advice-and-consent process were subject to critical assessment and prompted proposals for reform; and

(iii) An analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform, including an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals.

(b) The Commission shall solicit public comment, including other expert views, to ensure that its work is informed by a broad spectrum of ideas.

(c) The Commission shall submit its report to the President within 180 days of the date of the Commission’s first public meeting.
Click to expand...
Very general, and no mention of specific proposals, like term limits or expanding the Court.
 
lpetrich said:
Yesterday, as I write this, the Biden Admin announced this:

Executive Order on the Establishment of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States | The White House

The commission will have at most 36 members. "Members of the Commission shall be distinguished constitutional scholars, retired members of the Federal judiciary, or other individuals having experience with and knowledge of the Federal judiciary and the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court)."

What this commission is to be doing:
(a) The Commission shall produce a report for the President that includes the following:

(i) An account of the contemporary commentary and debate about the role and operation of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system and about the functioning of the constitutional process by which the President nominates and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints Justices to the Supreme Court;

(ii) The historical background of other periods in the Nation’s history when the Supreme Court’s role and the nominations and advice-and-consent process were subject to critical assessment and prompted proposals for reform; and

(iii) An analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform, including an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals.

(b) The Commission shall solicit public comment, including other expert views, to ensure that its work is informed by a broad spectrum of ideas.

(c) The Commission shall submit its report to the President within 180 days of the date of the Commission’s first public meeting.
Click to expand...
Very general, and no mention of specific proposals, like term limits or expanding the Court.
Click to expand...

In other words "let's get a giant pile of constitutional experts to vet any changes that weay apply to the SCOTUS so that the SCOTUS itself can't block those changes reasonably.
 
lpetrich said:
Yesterday, as I write this, the Biden Admin announced this:

Executive Order on the Establishment of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States | The White House

The commission will have at most 36 members. "Members of the Commission shall be distinguished constitutional scholars, retired members of the Federal judiciary, or other individuals having experience with and knowledge of the Federal judiciary and the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court)."

What this commission is to be doing:
(a) The Commission shall produce a report for the President that includes the following:

(i) An account of the contemporary commentary and debate about the role and operation of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system and about the functioning of the constitutional process by which the President nominates and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints Justices to the Supreme Court;

(ii) The historical background of other periods in the Nation’s history when the Supreme Court’s role and the nominations and advice-and-consent process were subject to critical assessment and prompted proposals for reform; and

(iii) An analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform, including an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals.

(b) The Commission shall solicit public comment, including other expert views, to ensure that its work is informed by a broad spectrum of ideas.

(c) The Commission shall submit its report to the President within 180 days of the date of the Commission’s first public meeting.
Click to expand...
Very general, and no mention of specific proposals, like term limits or expanding the Court.
Click to expand...

Well that is a very welcome study. In addition to the numbers of people on the Supreme Court, there is also the question of what kinds of cases are appropriate there, and which should be adjudicated elsewhere to prevent 9 people from overriding legislation. Also the question of whether the supreme court should return to being a "circuit" such that the justices get our of their ivory towers now and again to serve on everyday cases.


I am interested in what this commission brings!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom