Finally: Talk of expanding the Supreme Court

Cordelier said:

I agree with you that McConnell should be condemned for not allowing Garland's nomination to come to a vote... but I don't think the blame lies entirely with him. President Obama - with a little will and effort - could have gotten Garland a recess appointment by having Senator Reid make a point of order during a pro forma session that a quorum wasn't present. If the Republicans couldn't muster a quorum within 10 calendar days (which would have been neigh on impossible with so many of them running for re-election), then the President would have been entirely within his rights to give Judge Garland - and every other judicial nominee the Republicans had been holding up - a recess appointment. That he didn't choose to avail himself of this option is on him, not McConnell.

Click to expand...

I agree that’s something Obama could have tried, if he hadn’t been such a wimp.

Obama campaigned as a fighter then showed his belly for most of his Presidency. I’ve often referred to him as the Compromiser in chief.

Smart man, weak president

jnug said:

Actually on pain of being steamrolled on a SC Justice and Judgeships, the GOP would have mustered a quorum over a 10 day period...elections or no. It just is not that easy.

Click to expand...

Even if they could keep mustering quorums over the election period, it would have meant dragging Senators off the campaign trail 3 times a week just to show up for quorum calls. That very probably would have given the Democrats 3 additional Senate seats (Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Wisconsin).

Vidi said:

I agree that’s something Obama could have tried, if he hadn’t been such a wimp.

Obama campaigned as a fighter then showed his belly for most of his Presidency. I’ve often referred to him as the Compromiser in chief.

Smart man, weak president

Click to expand...

I agree with this 100%... I'm still trying to figure out why he even ran for a second term - he didn't even seriously attempt to pass anything of note.

Cordelier said:

Even if they could keep mustering quorums over the election period, it would have meant dragging Senators off the campaign trail 3 times a week just to show up for quorum calls. That very probably would have given the Democrats 3 additional Senate seats (Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Wisconsin).

Click to expand...

If that worked it would be the end of congressional recess. Do you really think Senators would let congressional recess go out of existence? I actually wish they would hang around more often and suspend more of their campaign donations junkets. Be that as it may, they are not going to chew off their own tails for anybodies benefit.

jnug said:

If that worked it would be the end of congressional recess. Do you really think Senators would let congressional recess go out of existence? I actually wish they would hang around more often and suspend more of their campaign donations junkets. Be that as it may, they are not going to chew off their own tails for anybodies benefit.

Click to expand...

Jesus... where have you been? We haven't had a Congressional recess for over 10 years! It's all pro forma sessions now. No party has been able to break the other's filibuster on recess motions.

Cordelier said:

Jesus... where have you been? We haven't had a Congressional recess for over 10 years! It's all pro forma sessions now. No party has been able to break the other's filibuster on recess motions.

Click to expand...

The pro-forma sessions completely defeat your argument though which is why I thought you were referring to recess. It takes virtually nothing for a Senator to gavel in and out a pro-forma session.

jnug said:

The pro-forma sessions completely defeat your argument though which is why I thought you were referring to recess. It takes virtually nothing for a Senator to gavel in and out a pro-forma session.

Click to expand...

Ahhhh.... but what if Vice President Biden had taken the gavel from Senator Cassidy that first Monday morning (Oct. 3)? Regardless, any Senator can make a point of order that a quorum isn't present at any time (so long as it isn't dilatory).

How else can democrats get the power of SCOTUS back without first gaining the white house and congress, and then expanding SCOTUS so that they can offset Trump's supreme court justices.

Nowhere do they actually explain how expanding it is actually beneficial, so... yeah, just democrats being democrats. Power is all they seek, and they don't even care anymore.

Harshaw said:

In any case, if anyone's behind this idea claiming it's because you want "balance," but are angry because a liberal judge -- Garland -- didn't replace a conservative Justice -- Scalia -- and thus tilting the Court liberal, you're not fooling anyone. It's not "balance" you want. It's a liberal court.

Click to expand...

Fine, and conservative presidents want to create a conservative court. Maybe that's not how the court justices should be picked, but they are, and a president gets to appoint them. You can nitpick minutae all day long. McConnell gave a bull**** excuse, (no lame duck Supreme Court confirmation) he did not wax poetic about "intended separation of powers", and then he and his cohorts did a 180 and said outright that NO DEMOCRAT (translation: Hillary) would appoint a justice.

Intended separation of DICK moves. One deserves another. We didn't start the fire. But we'll put it out.

Bilgewater said:

How else can democrats get the power of SCOTUS back without first gaining the white house and congress, and then expanding SCOTUS so that they can offset Trump's supreme court justices.

Nowhere do they actually explain how expanding it is actually beneficial, so... yeah, just democrats being democrats. Power is all they seek, and they don't even care anymore.

Click to expand...

But it's okay when McConnell pulls stunts like he pulls. Nice double standard ya got there.

Harshaw said:

I definitely did:






McConnell had no idea who was going retire or die next, nor did anyone else. It could have just as easily been one of the "conservatives."

The Kavanaugh nomination happened in the normal course of events. So, that nomination has nothing to do with the maneuver re: Garland.

Click to expand...

Anthony Kennedy never signaled his intent? Sure about that?

This is very unlikely to pass given that it would require unity and a large majority and the Dems don't have either of these ingredients. And then, this would only increase the polarization even more, with the Republicans then trying to expand it again, next time they'd be on top.

I deeply miss the time when things were more civil, Congress was less dysfunctional, and compromise was not supposed to be a foul word.

AtlantaAdonis said:

2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court - POLITICO

Good. The Supreme Cult's power has to be cut down.

And I know right wingers and "kawnstitutional" purists will try and compare this to the attempt to circumvent separation of powers by an emergency declaration, but it needs to be said there is a different between doing it for the sake of rights and social justice versus doing it for racist and bigoted policies.

It's good to see Democrats taking the kid gloves off to fight a regressive agenda.

Click to expand...

No justice involved. It's all about political power and getting one's way for their agenda. Not the Constitution. The SCOTUS has become so politicized neither side gives a dang about the constitution. All either side wants is a court that will give them a free hand with their agenda. Pure and simple.

Helix said:

you feel that way because it has been imbalanced through trickery and scumbaggery. as for expanding the court, though, i'm not sure that i support it.

Click to expand...

For the record, I too "am not sure" I support it either but as long as the love child of Granny Clampett and a turtle is drawing breath, I AM sure he will devise ever increasingly crooked gambits to continue stacking the deck and will stop at nothing.
McConnell's move was a SCOTUS first.
If nothing else, the attempt will fail but it will send a message. If the attempt succeeds, McConnell can go pound sand.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

For the record, I too "am not sure" I support it either but as long as the love child of Granny Clampett and a turtle is drawing breath, I AM sure he will devise ever increasingly crooked gambits to continue stacking the deck and will stop at nothing.
McConnell's move was a SCOTUS first.
If nothing else, the attempt will fail but it will send a message. If the attempt succeeds, McConnell can go pound sand.

Click to expand...

i'm hoping that he gets voted out. i don't expect it to happen, though.

AtlantaAdonis said:

2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court - POLITICO

Good. The Supreme Cult's power has to be cut down.

And I know right wingers and "kawnstitutional" purists will try and compare this to the attempt to circumvent separation of powers by an emergency declaration, but it needs to be said there is a different between doing it for the sake of rights and social justice versus doing it for racist and bigoted policies.

It's good to see Democrats taking the kid gloves off to fight a regressive agenda.

Click to expand...

Unless they are going to work for free I am against it.

I am sick of paying for every SOB in DC.

Cordelier said:

Jesus... where have you been? We haven't had a Congressional recess for over 10 years! It's all pro forma sessions now. No party has been able to break the other's filibuster on recess motions.

Click to expand...

With only one or two exceptions, a modern day filibuster is the equivalent of pushing a button.
Bring back the standing talking filibuster for EVERYTHING.
Maybe THAT will rein in some of the more base, venal and vulgar proclivities of both parties in the legislative branch.

Look, all of you, on both sides of this argument, and all of you in between:
This much is known...Mitch McConnell shows NO intention of controlling his naked bloodlust.
In today's atmosphere, there is no functioning mechanism to stop him, not even the law itself, because we've clearly reached the point where no one in power is even the least bit worried about breaking or circumventing the law. There are no longer any consequences because we lack the constitutional fidelity to even call it out much less stop it.

If you think for one moment that Mr. McConnell won't try to pull this same stunt again, you're in for a rude awakening. He literally said that his proudest moment in his career was telling Barack Obama that he would not be allowed to appoint a justice.

Forget his nonsensical references to the validity of lame duck appointments, even he proved that he didn't actually care about that once the 2016 Democratic candidate was chosen.
Forget the picayune blather about separation of powers, forget all of it because the only thing that mattered to Mr. McConnell was his ability to be the Walkin' Boss on the plantation, and his gambit reinforces every screaming stereotype film farce caricature reference to corrupt Southern politicians ever made, and even invented some new ones.

McConnell is just a human shield for an organized crime family and he has now come to the realization that he can distort the spirit if not the letter of the law to the breaking point, to the precipice of outright constitutional crisis and he can do it with total impunity. History is filled with laws that are named after both perps and victims of horrendous abuses. I assure you that at some point in the near future, a "McConnell Clause" or law will be passed to put a stop to some of this nonsense, but it might be passed atop an ash heap in the aftermath of a collapse.

We are well past constitutional crisis now, we are in constitutional rot. Rancid meat cannot be made fresh again and termite infested beams cannot be made whole again. The body politic eats one and walks on the other at this present time.

And Mitch McConnell is the poster child for this fulminating infection, therefore if it takes a bold prophylactic move by the opposition to stop it, so be it. Were it only not necessary to take it this far, but it is, apparently.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

But it's okay when McConnell pulls stunts like he pulls. Nice double standard ya got there.

Click to expand...

I'm certainly no fan of McConnell, but what stunt did he play?

Bilgewater said:

I'm certainly no fan of McConnell, but what stunt did he play?

Click to expand...

This isn't remedial history class. If you got held back for not keeping abreast of current events, that's not my problem.
This is the adult table where the adults are talking.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

With only one or two exceptions, a modern day filibuster is the equivalent of pushing a button.
Bring back the standing talking filibuster for EVERYTHING.
Maybe THAT will rein in some of the more base, venal and vulgar proclivities of both parties in the legislative branch.

Click to expand...

It hasn't gone anywhere, Checkerboard.... of the Top 10 longest filibusters in Senate history, three of them have been in the last six years. But they're like 60 yard field goals.... how often do you actually go for one in a game?

Cordelier said:

It hasn't gone anywhere, Checkerboard.... of the Top 10 longest filibusters in Senate history, three of them have been in the last six years. But they're like 60 yard field goals.... how often do you actually go for one in a game?

Click to expand...

Specifically, just to refresh everyone's memory, what were they about?

veritas1 said:

It's a naked power grab. If the left wants to appoint justices, let them win more elections.

Click to expand...

How is it a power grab
so far the proposals I have heard have been
Expand to 15 with 10 being apponted and 5 being appointed by the justices in a unanimous vote. That sounds like a fair and balanced court.
The other is term limit justices and every president should get 2-3 justice pics

What is wrong with either of those things...they both sound like power balance

AtlantaAdonis said:

2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court - POLITICO

Good. The Supreme Cult's power has to be cut down.

And I know right wingers and "kawnstitutional" purists will try and compare this to the attempt to circumvent separation of powers by an emergency declaration, but it needs to be said there is a different between doing it for the sake of rights and social justice versus doing it for racist and bigoted policies.

It's good to see Democrats taking the kid gloves off to fight a regressive agenda.

Click to expand...

FDR already attempted that in 1937....not a good idea then, not a good idea now.

Continually adding judges to favor one side or the other will just become a game of one upsmanship when each side gains power.

Have any of you disagreeing actually lokked at or listened to the actual plans?

It's not just add more, there are a lot of good ideas out there.