Is the supreme court basically gone now?

[leftyladyfrommo]

Has it simply become a right wing political machine?

And how do we get around that?

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Time heals all wounds. We've been here before...

and FDR even tried to pack the court to get the New Deal passed.

If we take the WH and Senate next year, we could try expanding the Court, too. And we might even be successful.

[Joe941]

5. Yup. We gotta pack the court.

[Amishman]

13. I don't think packing the court would go over well with the voters

It will appear to be a partizan power grab,and that will have severe repercussions.

Even now, the supreme Court has a 51% approval rating,far higher than any other branch of government.

[Joe941]

16. Many things aren't popular at the time...

but the public then warms up to the decision. Take the ACA for example. It really wasn't very popular at the time we pushed it through. But today it has pretty good public support. I think this case would be similar.

[SWBTATTReg]

2. 'And how do we get around that?' ... do you not know how the supreme court justices are ...

nominated and then confirmed by the senate? Kind of a vague ? you're posing.

[Bettie]

6. SC Justices are indeed nominated and then confirmed

however, if Republicans hold the senate in the next election (and it is likely they will), a Democrat will never again get a nominee confirmed or even get a hearing for one. That is how the other side has decided the game is played now.

So, getting around it does need to be a consideration.

[W_HAMILTON]

3. Win in 2020 and keep winning.

We'll be able to replace the older liberal justices and odds are it won't be long before we'll get a chance to replace a conservative justice (e.g., Thomas).

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. It's definitely tilted way to the right ATM

In part because Trump got to fill two seats when he should have only been able to fill one (although one of the seats was basically an even swap for Republicans but Garland would have likely been more moderate than Scalia) but also because he got to replace a more moderate Justice (Kennedy) with a more right-wing Justice (and rapist douche) Kavanaugh. The only short-term remedy I can see is expanding the court with another seat for a Democratic President to pick, which I think needs to happen because of the extraordinary outrage with Garland. Hopefully, we have a Democratic President in 2021 and can replace Ginsburg before she dies or is forced to retire, allowing Trump or another Republican to replace her. There's a marginal possibility of Thomas retiring but he would likely do whatever he can do to hold on until a Republican could pick his replacement.

[Joe941]

17. I think we need to expand by 2 seats.

We can't have an even number of judges which would produce some deadlocks. That would be bad.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

18. Good point

n/t

[pecosbob]

7. If we can hold the House, capture the Presidency and get a split in the Senate

we can make D.C. and Puerto Rico States and get four shiny new U.S. Senators, likely liberal and likely of color. This will give us the power to create new judges. Then we begin to impeach the most egregious cases of people that should not be on the bench where they're usually most vulnerable...conflicts of interest and corruption. I'd probably start with the Kennedy retirement-payoff just to clear up old dirty laundry.

[exboyfil]

8. It is a shame that more high profile candidates

aren't running for Senate. Beto in Texas. Abrams in Georgia. Vilsack in Iowa.

[pecosbob]

11. Senate is the make or break for actually legislating next term

There are a few I would like to see get back to the business of being Senators instead of campaigners.

[Jake Stern]

30. Puerto Rico, yes

The constitution would have to be amended to grant statehood to DC like it took an amendment to give it home rule.

Don’t see many GOP controlled states ratifying such an amendment, especially as it would erode their power in the Senate.

[pecosbob]

31. Doesn't require ratification by the States...only a majority in both chambers and Pres. sig.

[ooky]

9. Almost.

One more right wing justice and then I will say yes, completely gone.

[Yeehah]

10. More should have been done when the traitorous republican Senate refused to vote on Garland

Republicans / McConnel refused to obey the Constitution and there should have been Democratic revolt and people in the streets.

[PoliticAverse]

20. The constitution doesn't require the Senate to hold confirmation hearings...

or take a vote on any nominee. It simply requires "advice and consent of the Senate," for an appointment to take place.

[Yeehah]

22. Which it didn't do.

What's your point?

[PoliticAverse]

25. It requires consent for an appointment, there wasn't consent.

The Republican action was political "hardball", but it wasn't unconstitutional.

[Yeehah]

24. Well, here is how that "advice and consent" thing works...

Typically, a congressional hearing is held to question an appointee prior to a committee vote. If the nominee is approved by the relevant committee, the nomination is sent to the full Senate for a confirmation vote. The actual motion adopted by the Senate when exercising the power is "to advise and consent".[5][6] For appointments, a majority of Senators present are needed to pass a motion "to advise and consent". A filibuster requiring a three-fifths vote to override, as well as other similar delaying tactics, have been used to require higher vote tallies in the past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_and_consent#United_States

The Senate refused to perform its implied constitutional duty to "advise & consent" to President Obama's nominee, and there should have been hell to pay, but somehow, it happened with barely a whimper from our Democratic "leadership."

[DavidDvorkin]

12. Increase the number of justices

If we have both houses of Congress and the presidency, we have to do that (or at least try to) right away in January 2021. That would solve the problem.

[ellie]

14. For now

Those right wing wackos aren't going to live forever, especially the drunk rapey one. His name escapes me.

[Initech]

15. The Christian right is coming for the courts and they want them badly.

It's part of turning their vision of a right wing Christian utopia (hell hole) into a reality. They will get the courts or die trying, that's why they're propping up Chump as the most godly god man to ever take the realm of the presidency. They will gladly put up with his lunacy, arrogance, and asshole tendencies as he says what they want to hear and nominates the most hard right judges they want.

[elocs]

19. If Trump is reelected, then kissing the SC goodbye is certain.

That and a lot of other things. The nation would never be the same again.

[leftyladyfrommo]

21. We need a better way.

We need half the justices to be more liberal and half more conservative and someone really to work as tie breaker.

The court should reflect the population. Right now it doesn't. The right wing just rubber stamps the political party.

Expanding the court might backfire. The right wing could just put in more right wingers and make the situation even worse.

[standingtall]

23. Congress not only has the authority to ad seats to the supreme court, but also has the authority

to incorporate territories as States. Each states gets 2 Senators there are about 5 or 6 inhabited U.S. territories and if they were States they would probably vote Democratic. So if every U.S. territory were a State that would give us about 10 to 12 new Democratic Senators which would allows us to control the Senate and the Supreme Court for a long time.

We need to engage in procedural warfare once we get back the Presidency,house and senate for the good of the future the country and the Democratic party. Once we have unified government we should ad seats to the supreme court and ad as many states as we can from the territories in the 1st term of the next Democratic President. If republicans were in our position they would go ahead and do it and wouldn't even consider it backfiring. Even if we were to lose the election after adding to the supreme court and and adding states it would still benefit us in the long run.

[procon]

26. Term limits and standard rules for judicial conduct.

The justices have neither right now. They have unchecked absolute power and we all know how corrupting that is.

[Kurt V.]

27. you go straight at the legitimacy of the justices themselves.

https://thinkprogress.org/five-democratic-senators-just-declared-all-out-war-on-the-supreme-court-7601fed719e6/

[pangaia]

29. Great article. Thanks...

[doc03]

28. If we get the presidency and the Senate we

should get rid of the one they stole from us.