Expanding the Supreme Court...

[TreasonousBastard]

It can be done by Congress, and very simply. Just pass a law setting the number of Justices by three, or five, or 99. President Biden signs it and starts appointing.

FDR's problem was style, not substance. The pubic wasn't yet into his Depression solutions, and was OK with every one of the early attempts being ruled unconstitutional. when he tried to expand the court.

The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 aimed to appoint 6 new justices for every justice over 70 years 6 months of age who had been on the court for 10 years. It was not well received, and I don't think it even made it to a vote.

That was then.

I have no idea what would happen now, but I suspect it would have an easier time.

[Kali]

1. I would like to see more discussion on this

bookmarking

[Mystery sage]

2. Second that!!! For the love of democracy.

[FBaggins]

3. Not at all "very simply"

Unless you have 60 votes in the Senate. And there just aren't enough competitive seats for that to be possible.

[dalton99a]

5. You don't need 60 votes to change Senate rules.

[FBaggins]

6. Yes you do

Or rather... you need 60 to procedurally get a vote to change the rules.

People are forgetting how the "nuclear options" worked. It doesn't necessarily apply to an effort to kill the rule entirely for legislation.

[dalton99a]

8. Democrats can do it if they win the Senate.

The most straightforward way to eliminate the filibuster would be to formally change the text of Senate Rule 22, the cloture rule that requires 60 votes to end debate on legislation. Here’s the catch: Ending debate on a resolution to change the Senate’s standing rules requires the support of two-thirds of the members present and voting. Absent a large, bipartisan Senate majority that favors curtailing the right to debate, a formal change in Rule 22 is extremely unlikely.

A more complicated, but more likely, way to ban the filibuster would be to create a new Senate precedent. The chamber’s precedents exist alongside its formal rules to provide additional insight into how and when its rules have been applied in particular ways. Importantly, this approach to curtailing the filibuster—colloquially known as the “nuclear option” and more formally as “reform by ruling”—can, in certain circumstances, be employed with support from only a simple majority of senators.

The nuclear option leverages the fact that a new precedent can be created by a senator raising a point of order, or claiming that a Senate rule is being violated. If the presiding officer (typically a member of the Senate) agrees, that ruling establishes a new precedent. If the presiding officer disagrees, another senator can appeal the ruling of the chair. If a majority of the Senate votes to reverse the decision of the chair, then the opposite of the chair’s ruling becomes the new precedent.

In both 2013 and 2017, the Senate used this approach to reduce the number of votes needed to end debate on nominations. The majority leader used two non-debatable motions to bring up the relevant nominations, and then raised a point of order that the vote on cloture is by majority vote. The presiding officer ruled against the point of order, but his ruling was overturned on appeal—which, again, required only a majority in support. In sum, by following the right steps in a particular parliamentary circumstance, a simple majority of senators can establish a new interpretation of a Senate rule.

https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/what-is-the-senate-filibuster-and-what-would-it-take-to-eliminate-it/

[FBaggins]

9. Nothing in there contradicts what I said

The problem with the "nuclear option" in 2013 and 2017 were both making the argument that the filibuster rule applies to legislation and not constitutional duties of the Senate (i.e., the constitution sets a majority rule to consent, and interpreting the filibuster to apply to that obligation is inappropriate). You can't make the same type of argument for legislation... which is obviously what the filibuster has always been about.

Imagine a bill that a majority wanted to pass but also didn't want to be SEEN as voting for. Could they use the "nuclear option" to change Senate rules to require only 40 votes to pass a bill? The same "create a new precedent" standard would apply... but it's still nonsense.

I'm not sure there are enough votes to actually do it... especially if it's a narrow majority.

IOW... possible... but by no sense "very simply"

[world wide wally]

4. We need the Senate more than ever

Fucking vote!

[Dan]

7. Have to be an even number.