• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Packing the Supreme Court

C

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It is now a virtual certainty the Democrats will pack the Supreme Court.

There is nothing in the Constitution mandating that the Supreme Court have nine members, and a simple act of Congress could increase that number to 11, or 15, or even more. That effectively creates a way for a political party in control of the House, Senate, and presidency to add a large number of ideologically sympathetic justices to the Court, all at once.
Click to expand...

The author makes a pretty compelling argument.

The Republican Senate’s refusal to even consider Merrick Garland for Antonin Scalia’s seat, Faris writes, violated “a norm that presidents should get to nominate whoever they like, within reason.”
He continues: “Because of this unspoken agreement between the two parties, both sides regarded Supreme Court openings as what they are — lotteries to be won by lucky presidents, or lost by those unfortunate enough not to preside over an opening. The GOP’s treatment of Merrick Garland means that this informal agreement is trashed.”
Click to expand...

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/20...dr-roosevelt-new-deal-democrats-supreme-court

The GOP won control of SCOTUS but not in the kind of generational way where the court would reflect the political composition of the United States. They did it through abandoning a long held mutual agreement on the institution. There is no political consequence for the Democrats to pack the court with liberals. Their options are to face a generation of having every progressive law overturned by the courts or to play like McConnell and change the rules of the game.
 
McConnell and the GOP violated the traditional SCOTUS appointment agreement.

If they decide to appoint/confirm a conservative judge before the midterms, then the Democrats would certainly have a credible casus belli to alter the SCOTUS composition when they are in the same majority position as the current GOP.
 
CriticalThought said:
It is now a virtual certainty the Democrats will pack the Supreme Court.



The author makes a pretty compelling argument.



https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/20...dr-roosevelt-new-deal-democrats-supreme-court

The GOP won control of SCOTUS but not in the kind of generational way where the court would reflect the political composition of the United States. They did it through abandoning a long held mutual agreement on the institution. There is no political consequence for the Democrats to pack the court with liberals. Their options are to face a generation of having every progressive law overturned by the courts or to play like McConnell and change the rules of the game.
Click to expand...

FDR tried this, and I wouldn't put it past Trump.
 
rocket88 said:
FDR tried this, and I wouldn't put it past Trump.
Click to expand...

He has no reason to do so at this point since SCOTUS is already under right wing control. I imagine as soon as the next recession hits and the Democrats retake the House, Senate, and Presidency they will increase the number of SCOTUS seats from 9 to 11 and appoint two liberals to shift the balance. They are practically justified in doing so and the political consequences of not doing it, far outweigh any consequences they face from doing it. Trump also cannot help himself. He will appoint someone who is far to the ideological right of Kennedy. If he picked someone as moderate and respectful of precedent as Kennedy then I imagine the left might be leary of packing the court, but Trump will pick someone very young who will push a hard right agenda. I think McConnell and Trump have ensured the demise of any respect Americans will have for the authority of the courts.
 
“If Democrats are unable to stop Republicans from confirming a new Justice, they can also thank Mr. Reid. In 2013 the Democratic Majority Leader changed Senate rules on a party-line vote and ended the filibuster on appellate court and executive nominees. That allowed Democrats to pack the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and win some favorable rulings on Mr. Obama’s regulatory agenda.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/harry-...?mod=nwsrl_commentary_noco&cx_refModule=nwsrl

:lol:
 
CriticalThought said:
There is no political consequence for the Democrats to pack the court with liberals.
Click to expand...

I doubt very, very, very much the voting public would back such a move. So, yeah, it would be have consequences.
 
X Factor said:
“If Democrats are unable to stop Republicans from confirming a new Justice, they can also thank Mr. Reid. In 2013 the Democratic Majority Leader changed Senate rules on a party-line vote and ended the filibuster on appellate court and executive nominees. That allowed Democrats to pack the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and win some favorable rulings on Mr. Obama’s regulatory agenda.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/harry-...?mod=nwsrl_commentary_noco&cx_refModule=nwsrl

:lol:
Click to expand...

There was no packing of the courts. Reid changed the rule because the Republicans were refusing to allow the President to fill existing vacancies.
 
CriticalThought said:
It is now a virtual certainty the Democrats will pack the Supreme Court.



The author makes a pretty compelling argument.



https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/20...dr-roosevelt-new-deal-democrats-supreme-court

The GOP won control of SCOTUS but not in the kind of generational way where the court would reflect the political composition of the United States. They did it through abandoning a long held mutual agreement on the institution. There is no political consequence for the Democrats to pack the court with liberals. Their options are to face a generation of having every progressive law overturned by the courts or to play like McConnell and change the rules of the game.
Click to expand...

FDR tried packing and it failed. Garland should have had a up or down vote on the senate floor. With 54 Republican senators at the time, defeat or not confirming Garland was a foregone conclusion. It was stupid of McConnell not allowing a full hearing and vote. McConnell was about as wrong as wrong can get.

The rules of the game were changed by ex-Democratic senate majority Harry Reid with his first use nuclear option strike. Not McConnell. What Reid did was strip the minority party rights away in one full swoop. Hadn't Reid used the nuclear option, for a short term gain without thinking of the future, it still would take 60 votes for cloture and then the 51 for confirmation. You're overlooking whom the real blame falls on big time.

What was Reid thinking, that the Democrats would have control of the senate and the presidency until infinity? That the republicans would be good little boys once they obtained control of the senate and the presidency and never use the nuclear option Reid brought to the fore? Set the precedence. That he could use it once and that it wouldn't ever be used again? Escalation in war and politics don't work that way.

McConnell had the votes to easily defeat Garland and any and all SCOTUS nominee Obama nominated. He was a partisan idiot not to have the hearing and a vote. Now you are also missing the fact that Chuck Schumer said the Democrats wouldn't take up any SCOTUS nominations in G.W. Bush's last year if one became open. None did, so we don't know if Schumer would have carried through with his threat of not. But it was there. McConnell just took Schumer's unused threat and used it. Just like McConnell used the nuclear option that Harry Reid made available. That makes McConnell worst than Schumer in my opinion. But neither belongs in any leadership position or even in the senate if both put party above country as each has. Now your talking about doing the exact same thing. Party over country.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-in-2007-dont-confirm-any-bush-supreme-court-nominee
 
Napoleon said:
There was no packing of the courts. Reid changed the rule because the Republicans were refusing to allow the President to fill existing vacancies.
Click to expand...

I didn’t say there was, but there are always risks to changing rules to benefit your side in the short term. Ok, Dems add 2 more Supreme Court seats the next time they’re in power, so Repubs then add 2 more after that.
 
X Factor said:
I didn’t say there was, but there are always risks to changing rules to benefit your side in the short term. Ok, Dems add 2 more Supreme Court seats the next time they’re in power, so Repubs then add 2 more after that.
Click to expand...

That is the inevitable outcome. The court will continue to grow through our lifetimes as the pendulum swings back and forth. SCOTUS will now be viewed as just another political tool.
 
CriticalThought said:
That is the inevitable outcome. The court will continue to grow through our lifetimes as the pendulum swings back and forth. SCOTUS will now be viewed as just another political tool.
Click to expand...

I hope you’re not saying that it’s suddenly that way because of Trump. :lol:
 
Perotista said:
FDR tried packing and it failed. Garland should have had a up or down vote on the senate floor. With 54 Republican senators at the time, defeat or not confirming Garland was a foregone conclusion. It was stupid of McConnell not allowing a full hearing and vote. McConnell was about as wrong as wrong can get.

The rules of the game were changed by ex-Democratic senate majority Harry Reid with his first use nuclear option strike. Not McConnell. What Reid did was strip the minority party rights away in one full swoop. Hadn't Reid used the nuclear option, for a short term gain without thinking of the future, it still would take 60 votes for cloture and then the 51 for confirmation. You're overlooking whom the real blame falls on big time.

What was Reid thinking, that the Democrats would have control of the senate and the presidency until infinity? That the republicans would be good little boys once they obtained control of the senate and the presidency and never use the nuclear option Reid brought to the fore? Set the precedence. That he could use it once and that it wouldn't ever be used again? Escalation in war and politics don't work that way.

McConnell had the votes to easily defeat Garland and any and all SCOTUS nominee Obama nominated. He was a partisan idiot not to have the hearing and a vote. Now you are also missing the fact that Chuck Schumer said the Democrats wouldn't take up any SCOTUS nominations in G.W. Bush's last year if one became open. None did, so we don't know if Schumer would have carried through with his threat of not. But it was there. McConnell just took Schumer's unused threat and used it. Just like McConnell used the nuclear option that Harry Reid made available. That makes McConnell worst than Schumer in my opinion. But neither belongs in any leadership position or even in the senate if both put party above country as each has. Now your talking about doing the exact same thing. Party over country.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-in-2007-dont-confirm-any-bush-supreme-court-nominee
Click to expand...

I think you omitted a HUGE detail. Reid left SCOTUS at 60 votes. The nuclear option was not invoked for confirmation of SCOTUS nominees. That did not happen until April of 2017 when the nomination of Gorsuch failed to reach the 60 votes for ending debate. The Republicans then invoked the nuclear option to confirm Gorsuch. An equivalent retaliation would have been to use the nuclear option to fill lower courts as the Democrats had done, but McConnell not only drew out Garland but esclated by using the nuclear option for the higher court. This was done at no political consequence. The same will be true when Democrats pack the court.
 
X Factor said:
I hope you’re not saying that it’s suddenly that way because of Trump. :lol:
Click to expand...

Yes. Contrary to the era of "whataboutism" we have entered, every person is personally responsible for THEIR actions. The sins of others do not excuse your own. Reid is responsible for his own faults, McConnell for his, and Trump for his own. I used to credit conservatives for being about "personal responsibility" but now they have co-opted the Soviet "whataboutism" tactic, they are just a different kind of liberal.
 
CriticalThought said:
It is now a virtual certainty the Democrats will pack the Supreme Court.



The author makes a pretty compelling argument.



https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/20...dr-roosevelt-new-deal-democrats-supreme-court

The GOP won control of SCOTUS but not in the kind of generational way where the court would reflect the political composition of the United States. They did it through abandoning a long held mutual agreement on the institution. There is no political consequence for the Democrats to pack the court with liberals. Their options are to face a generation of having every progressive law overturned by the courts or to play like McConnell and change the rules of the game.
Click to expand...

The GOP won control of SCOTUS but not in the kind of generational way where the court would reflect the political composition of the United States.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court is irrelevant to the make-up of the United States. If the Supreme Court was intended to reflect the make-up of the United States, the justices would be elected and for short terms.
 
Tennyson said:
The Supreme Court is irrelevant to the make-up of the United States. If the Supreme Court was intended to reflect the make-up of the United States, the justices would be elected and for short terms.
Click to expand...

To the contrary they are given life terms so that they could be above the petty partisan antics that are now shaping the court. There is a reason Dred Scott is seen as a contributing factor to the Civil War. Despite what the Founders intended, public opinion matters a great deal when it comes to the court, and the president and Senate generally best serve the stability of the nation by choosing nominees who are not too out of step with the composition of the country.
 
CriticalThought said:
To the contrary they are given life terms so that they could be above the petty partisan antics that are now shaping the court. There is a reason Dred Scott is seen as a contributing factor to the Civil War. Despite what the Founders intended, public opinion matters a great deal when it comes to the court, and the president and Senate generally best serve the stability of the nation by choosing nominees who are not too out of step with the composition of the country.
Click to expand...

They are given life terms because they are not connected with the make-up of the country; that would violate the rule of law. Their only obligation is to the rule of law and the constitutionality of a law. Dred Scott was negliable regarding the Civil War: taxes and tariffs, and losing representation via new states being non-slave states were the primary causes.
 
CriticalThought said:
I think you omitted a HUGE detail. Reid left SCOTUS at 60 votes. The nuclear option was not invoked for confirmation of SCOTUS nominees. That did not happen until April of 2017 when the nomination of Gorsuch failed to reach the 60 votes for ending debate. The Republicans then invoked the nuclear option to confirm Gorsuch. An equivalent retaliation would have been to use the nuclear option to fill lower courts as the Democrats had done, but McConnell not only drew out Garland but esclated by using the nuclear option for the higher court. This was done at no political consequence. The same will be true when Democrats pack the court.
Click to expand...

Reid did it for everything else except the SCOTUS. Very True. But to think once the Republicans gained control of the senate and the presidency they wouldn't expand it would have been folly to the max. Reid left the SCOTUS off or out of his nuclear option only because there were not open vacancies.

Escalation, didn't I mention that in my first post? Matter of fact, I did. In war and in politics, once first use is out of the bag, escalation follows. I'm surprised McConnell hasn't used it for legislation yet. You're probably thinking like Reid, if I use the nuke option once, then the other side will be good little boys and never use it or escalate it. Like I said, that doesn't happen. escalation in war and politics is a sure thing.

Bring a knife to a fist fight, the other guy gets a gun. You go get a machine gun and he gets a howitzer and on and on. Politics works the same way. From 1837 until Reid first use of the nuclear option, tradition held. With first use, tradition went out the window onto the trash heap of history.

Reid will be forever remembered in the history books for his first use and the escalation that followed. Tradition, who the heck needs tradition? Right Ex-Democratic Senate Majority Leader Reid? I do get a chuckle that it was a Democrat, the Democratic Party who so strongly believes or supposedly believes in minority rights would strip away minority rights in the senate only because they had the power to do so. That is something one would usually equate to McConnell and the GOP.
 
Are we surprised that the rules got broken? That's what the current administration is about.

I frankly don't care who gets appointed as long as jurisprudence and prior precedent are upheld. Despite what complainers like to think, SCOTUS is rarely engaged in judicial activism. Almost every ruling in recent years has had a stack of prior cases to justify it. That's how SCOTUS should operate and it's how I want to see it continuing to operate.

I fear that we are about to enter a dark period of true judicial activism. Future rulings will tell all. Based on the current POTUS and the state of Congress and the Senate, any loss of objectivity of SCOTUS could mean there is nothing holding America back from real tyranny anymore.
 
Northern Light said:
Are we surprised that the rules got broken? That's what the current administration is about.

I frankly don't care who gets appointed as long as jurisprudence and prior precedent are upheld. Despite what complainers like to think, SCOTUS is rarely engaged in judicial activism. Almost every ruling in recent years has had a stack of prior cases to justify it. That's how SCOTUS should operate and it's how I want to see it continuing to operate.

I fear that we are about to enter a dark period of true judicial activism. Future rulings will tell all. Based on the current POTUS and the state of Congress and the Senate, any loss of objectivity of SCOTUS could mean there is nothing holding America back from real tyranny anymore.
Click to expand...

I frankly don't care who gets appointed as long as jurisprudence and prior precedent are upheld.
Click to expand...

This is antipodal to the rule is law, the justices' oath of office, and relegates the Constitution to common law status.
 
Tennyson said:
This is antipodal to the rule is law, the justices' oath of office, and relegates the Constitution to common law status.
Click to expand...

The Constitution is part of jurisprudence.
 
CriticalThought said:
Yes. Contrary to the era of "whataboutism" we have entered, every person is personally responsible for THEIR actions. The sins of others do not excuse your own. Reid is responsible for his own faults, McConnell for his, and Trump for his own. I used to credit conservatives for being about "personal responsibility" but now they have co-opted the Soviet "whataboutism" tactic, they are just a different kind of liberal.
Click to expand...

You’ll credit conservatives just so long as they capitulate and don’t act the way the people you support do.
 
CriticalThought said:
He has no reason to do so at this point since SCOTUS is already under right wing control. I imagine as soon as the next recession hits and the Democrats retake the House, Senate, and Presidency they will increase the number of SCOTUS seats from 9 to 11 and appoint two liberals to shift the balance. They are practically justified in doing so and the political consequences of not doing it, far outweigh any consequences they face from doing it. Trump also cannot help himself. He will appoint someone who is far to the ideological right of Kennedy. If he picked someone as moderate and respectful of precedent as Kennedy then I imagine the left might be leary of packing the court, but Trump will pick someone very young who will push a hard right agenda. I think McConnell and Trump have ensured the demise of any respect Americans will have for the authority of the courts.
Click to expand...

I mean I guess that will work until the next time republicans take charge then we'll have thirty supreme court judges, then fifty, then a hundred, and before long the Supreme Court will have more judges then members of congress because each time the pendulum swings more judges get packed on the court.
 
X Factor said:
“If Democrats are unable to stop Republicans from confirming a new Justice, they can also thank Mr. Reid. In 2013 the Democratic Majority Leader changed Senate rules on a party-line vote and ended the filibuster on appellate court and executive nominees. That allowed Democrats to pack the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and win some favorable rulings on Mr. Obama’s regulatory agenda.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/harry-...?mod=nwsrl_commentary_noco&cx_refModule=nwsrl

:lol:
Click to expand...
Entirely true, but that only proves that Mitch is a bigger asshole for having outdone Reid.
 
of course also a court challenge can be filed against court packing legislation and in a 5-4 decision court packing will be ruled unconstitutional.

Then it will be prior precendent and democrats who care so deeply now about Stare Decicis will have no choice but to accept it.

Also when are democrats going to pack the court? even if they get congress in 2018 Trump will still be in charge of nominations, and the GOP will probably keep the senate so any legislation... like for all intents and purposes this needs a democratic super majority plus presidency to work, I mean and if republican leaning states which outnumber democratic leaning states by a good margin now see this as a problem they can just call a constitutional convention and cut a democratic congress out of the decision altogether, this is a bad idea because it requires way too much political capital to pull off, and pull off before a backlash is organized against it.

I mean seriously, if that's the game we're playing the republicans could simply pass legislation to cut the court by eliminating all seats of judges over 78....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom