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

Packing the Supreme Court?

I am interested in what this commission brings!

Me too.
I'm in favor of expanding the SCOTUS, maybe 15 over time.
That's because I think that the USA is so much bigger and more diverse than it was quite recently, that a bigger pool of minds would better represent all Americans.
Tom
 
Biden Creating Commission to Study Expanding the Supreme Court - The New York Times
But while Mr. Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has asserted that the system of judicial nominations is “getting out of whack,” he has declined to say whether he supports altering the size of the court or making other changes — like imposing term limits — to the current system of lifetime appointments.

...
The president understands, they said, that changes to the size of the court, or limitations on the length of time that a justice can serve, would be “reforms for the ages” that would have far-reaching implications for the courts for decades, not just during Mr. Biden’s time in office.

...
“There’s growing recognition that the Supreme Court poses a danger to the health and well-being of the nation and even to democracy itself,” said Aaron Belkin, the director of the group Take Back the Court. “A White House judicial reform commission has a historic opportunity to explain the gravity of the threat and to help contain it by urging Congress to add seats, which is the only way to restore balance to the court.”

...
The commission’s members include liberal scholars like Laurence H. Tribe, a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and a leading progressive voice in the legal community, and Caroline Fredrickson, the former president of the American Constitution Society.

But progressives may balk at some of the conservative members of the commission. They include: Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who was a top Justice Department official under President George W. Bush; Adam White, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School; and Keith E. Whittington, a professor of politics at Princeton University who takes an “originalist” view of the Constitution.
Seems like President Biden wants to be fair.
 
Democrats to introduce bill to expand Supreme Court from 9 to 13 justices
Congressional Democrats will introduce legislation Thursday to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices, joining progressive activists pushing to transform the court.

The move intensifies a high-stakes ideological fight over the future of the court after President Donald Trump and Republicans appointed three conservative justices in four years, including one who was confirmed days before the 2020 election.

The Democratic bill is led by Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee. It is co-sponsored by Reps. Hank Johnson of Georgia and Mondaire Jones of New York.

The Supreme Court can be expanded by an act of Congress, but the legislation is highly unlikely to become law in the near future given Democrats' slim majorities, which include scores of lawmakers who are not on board with the idea. President Joe Biden has said he is "not a fan" of packing the court.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters on Thursday she has "no plans to bring it to the floor."

"I don't know that that's a good idea or bad idea. I think it's an idea that should be considered," she said of the court expansion plan. "And I think the president's taking the right approach to have a commission to study such a thing. It's a big step."
 
The bill itself:

In the House,
Cosponsors - H.R.2584 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): To amend title 28, United States Code, to allow for twelve associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
and its Senate companion,
S.1141 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to allow for twelve associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

No text, no cosponsors other than what that article listed. "Associate Justices" are all those other than the Chief Justice, making the total 13 Justices.


On the other side,
H.J.Res.40 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine justices. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

It was introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs, R-AZ-05, and its 9 cosponsors, all original, are also Republicans.

Ted Cruz (R-TX-SEN) weighed in on this issue somewhat earlier.

S.461 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): A bill to create a point of order against legislation modifying the number of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
- in effect, the Senate is not to consider any change to that number. That can be overridden if 2/3 of Senators agree.

S.J.Res.9 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine justices. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
- self-explanatory
 
What Is Court Packing? | Rutgers University law professor David Noll

What does it mean to pack the courts, is it the appropriate response and would it make the courts less of a partisan battleground issue?

People often use "court packing" to describe changes to the size of the Supreme Court, but it's better understood as any effort to manipulate the Court's membership for partisan ends. A political party that's engaged in court packing will usually violate norms that govern who is appointed (e.g., only appoint jurists who respect precedent) and how the appointment process works (e.g., no appointments during a presidential election).

Seen from this perspective, the Barrett appointment is classic court packing. The president nominated a hardline conservative who appears to question major parts of U.S. constitutional law. And the Senate majority changed its procedural rules – invented to deny Merrick Garland a hearing – to ram through the nomination as people were voting.
 
What Is Court Packing? | Rutgers University law professor David Noll

What does it mean to pack the courts, is it the appropriate response and would it make the courts less of a partisan battleground issue?

People often use "court packing" to describe changes to the size of the Supreme Court, but it's better understood as any effort to manipulate the Court's membership for partisan ends. A political party that's engaged in court packing will usually violate norms that govern who is appointed (e.g., only appoint jurists who respect precedent) and how the appointment process works (e.g., no appointments during a presidential election).

Seen from this perspective, the Barrett appointment is classic court packing. The president nominated a hardline conservative who appears to question major parts of U.S. constitutional law. And the Senate majority changed its procedural rules – invented to deny Merrick Garland a hearing – to ram through the nomination as people were voting.

This is bullshit gaslighting. When FDR tried it we knew what it meant. When Justice Ginsburg said she was against it we knew what it meant. We have always been at war with Eastasia!

FDR announces “court-packing” plan
 
I'm in favor of expanding the SCOTUS.

The USA is hugely larger and more diverse than it was when the number 9 was settled upon. I think we need a larger court to accurately represent the populace.

That said, I don't think it should happen all at once. Don't just let Biden and the barely Democratic Senate pack the court.
Maybe one new judge every two years, two per presidential term. Put limits on SCOTUS terms, like retiring at 75. Require the Senate to produce a supermajority to overrule a presidential nomination. Etc.

I think that SCOTUS should be larger and more restricted.
But I'm not sure how to go about getting there.
Tom
 
What Is Court Packing? | Rutgers University law professor David Noll

What does it mean to pack the courts, is it the appropriate response and would it make the courts less of a partisan battleground issue?

People often use "court packing" to describe changes to the size of the Supreme Court, but it's better understood as any effort to manipulate the Court's membership for partisan ends. A political party that's engaged in court packing will usually violate norms that govern who is appointed (e.g., only appoint jurists who respect precedent) and how the appointment process works (e.g., no appointments during a presidential election).

Seen from this perspective, the Barrett appointment is classic court packing. The president nominated a hardline conservative who appears to question major parts of U.S. constitutional law. And the Senate majority changed its procedural rules – invented to deny Merrick Garland a hearing – to ram through the nomination as people were voting.

This is bullshit gaslighting. When FDR tried it we knew what it meant. When Justice Ginsburg said she was against it we knew what it meant. We have always been at war with Eastasia!

FDR announces “court-packing” plan


What exactly do you think he said that is wrong?
 
This is bullshit gaslighting. When FDR tried it we knew what it meant. When Justice Ginsburg said she was against it we knew what it meant. We have always been at war with Eastasia!

FDR announces “court-packing” plan


What exactly do you think he said that is wrong?

Packing the court has always meant adding seats. Saying that Barrett's appointment is "classic court packing" is just stupid.

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1382759938636779520[/TWEET]
 
Packing the court has always meant adding seats.

That's not the only way to pack the court.

Remember when McConnell insisted that the Constitution didn't matter, and Obama shouldn't get to nominate a SCOTUS judge? Because judgeships should wait for another election, so The People have a say? But then, when The People voted for Clinton he changed his mind and decided that the sitting president should nominate?
Or at the end of Trump's administration, McConnell thought it crucial to rush through a SCOTUS judgeship, because"The Constitution"?

Do you remember any of that, or are you too partisan to care about the Constitution and procedures when the TeaParty is in power?
Tom
 
Packing the court has always meant adding seats.

That's not the only way to pack the court.

Remember when McConnell insisted that the Constitution didn't matter, and Obama shouldn't get to nominate a SCOTUS judge? Because judgeships should wait for another election, so The People have a say? But then, when The People voted for Clinton he changed his mind and decided that the sitting president should nominate?
Or at the end of Trump's administration, McConnell thought it crucial to rush through a SCOTUS judgeship, because"The Constitution"?

Do you remember any of that, or are you too partisan to care about the Constitution and procedures when the TeaParty is in power?
Tom

That’s not court packing; that’s partisanship. The Senate gets to approve or reject the president’s nominee. That’s the constitution.
 
Packing the court has always meant adding seats.

That's not the only way to pack the court.

Remember when McConnell insisted that the Constitution didn't matter, and Obama shouldn't get to nominate a SCOTUS judge? Because judgeships should wait for another election, so The People have a say? But then, when The People voted for Clinton he changed his mind and decided that the sitting president should nominate?
Or at the end of Trump's administration, McConnell thought it crucial to rush through a SCOTUS judgeship, because"The Constitution"?

Do you remember any of that, or are you too partisan to care about the Constitution and procedures when the TeaParty is in power?
Tom

That’s not court packing; that’s partisanship. The Senate gets to approve or reject the president’s nominee. That’s the constitution.

It's court packing.

The Senate didn't actually vote on Garland, if you'll recall.
McConnell just overruled the Constitution and refused to hold a vote.
Tom
 
This is bullshit gaslighting. When FDR tried it we knew what it meant. When Justice Ginsburg said she was against it we knew what it meant. We have always been at war with Eastasia!

FDR announces “court-packing” plan


What exactly do you think he said that is wrong?

Packing the court has always meant adding seats. Saying that Barrett's appointment is "classic court packing" is just stupid.


Or it's that you can't handle the truth. "Court packing" does not mean and never meant simply adding seeks to the court, it means adding them in an illegitimate norm-violating manner. There is nothing inherently illegitimate about adding seats, what makes it illegitimate is the context of how it's done.

FDR wanted to add seats simply because he didn't like the rulings, which was considered an illegitimate reason.

Republicans likewise blocked Garland's confirmation for illegitimate reasons. They also jammed through Barrett's confirmation very sketchily. They stole seats and in effect packed the court.


[TWEET]https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1382759938636779520[/TWEET]


Who cares? But good to know you consider Biden an authority on all things now.
 
Packing the court has always meant adding seats.

That's not the only way to pack the court.

Remember when McConnell insisted that the Constitution didn't matter, and Obama shouldn't get to nominate a SCOTUS judge? Because judgeships should wait for another election, so The People have a say? But then, when The People voted for Clinton he changed his mind and decided that the sitting president should nominate?
Or at the end of Trump's administration, McConnell thought it crucial to rush through a SCOTUS judgeship, because"The Constitution"?

Do you remember any of that, or are you too partisan to care about the Constitution and procedures when the TeaParty is in power?
Tom

That’s not court packing; that’s partisanship. The Senate gets to approve or reject the president’s nominee. That’s the constitution.

If all that matters were whether it's not unconstitutional, then adding seats qualifies. Nice self own.

But between the two, blocking a nomination for nearly a year is far more unconstitutional in spirit than adding seats to rectify illegitimate confirmations.
 
That’s not court packing; that’s partisanship. The Senate gets to approve or reject the president’s nominee. That’s the constitution.

It's court packing.

The Senate didn't actually vote on Garland, if you'll recall.
McConnell just overruled the Constitution and refused to hold a vote.
Tom

Find me one person - just one commentator / jurist - who defined that as “court packing” a year ago. Before Ginsburg died. (Who, of course, was against court packing.) If not, you’ve got a lot of work to do Winston.
 
That’s not court packing; that’s partisanship. The Senate gets to approve or reject the president’s nominee. That’s the constitution.

It's court packing.

The Senate didn't actually vote on Garland, if you'll recall.
McConnell just overruled the Constitution and refused to hold a vote.
Tom

Find me one person - just one commentator / jurist - who defined that as “court packing” a year ago. Before Ginsburg died. (Who, of course, was against court packing.) If not, you’ve got a lot of work to do Winston.

I'm one.

And I'm still saying it was.
Right here and right now.

The TeaParty Republicans ignored the Constitution in order to pack the court. They even ignored their own claims to pack the court.
Tim
 
If we are going to increase the Supreme Court it should be by a formula tied to the population.
 
Find me one person - just one commentator / jurist - who defined that as “court packing” a year ago. Before Ginsburg died. (Who, of course, was against court packing.) If not, you’ve got a lot of work to do Winston.

I'm one.

And I'm still saying it was.
Right here and right now.

The TeaParty Republicans ignored the Constitution in order to pack the court. They even ignored their own claims to pack the court.
Tim

Okay, can you cite us the post where you said that before Ginsburg died?
 
Back
Top Bottom