Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
105 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
John Dean has a great idea (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Sep 2020 OP
At least 11. dalton99a Sep 2020 #1
With 11 it would still be 6-5 conservatives hauckeye Sep 2020 #12
Yes - but Pubic Hair Thomas is a stroke waiting to happen sandensea Sep 2020 #14
I heard a rumor ellie Sep 2020 #23
Aha sandensea Sep 2020 #28
Until Kavanaugh gets removed. GoCubsGo Sep 2020 #24
Exactly. AZ8theist Sep 2020 #25
Yes, that's on the table too bucolic_frolic Sep 2020 #41
Waste of time & effort better spent elsewhere. oldsoftie Sep 2020 #77
So, you're ok with committing perjury AZ8theist Sep 2020 #87
Well, I didnt say that. I just said it would be a waste of time & effort. oldsoftie Sep 2020 #93
Perjury is perjury DonaldsRump Sep 2020 #94
+10000000000 AZ8theist Sep 2020 #101
process is the same as POTUS, the House impeaches, but 67 votes are needed in the Senate to remove Celerity Sep 2020 #27
He paid off a lot of debt in a short time before he was appointed. argyl Sep 2020 #67
a criminal conviction alone will not remove him, only impeachment and conviction in the Senate Celerity Sep 2020 #68
Keep his miserable ass tied up in criminal court. argyl Sep 2020 #69
I actually think, that say Trump, for instance, COULD shoot a person dead, on Fifth Avenue, just Celerity Sep 2020 #72
full house sheilahi Sep 2020 #76
Welcome to DU, sheilahi! calimary Sep 2020 #88
I found an article yesterday that explains the "15" reasoning. MoonchildCA Sep 2020 #82
Thanks for the link. mjvpi Sep 2020 #86
Interesting read! calimary Sep 2020 #104
Should be 23 1 for every 2 states/territories... ahoysrcsm Sep 2020 #99
GREAT idea. Zoonart Sep 2020 #2
We will do it either way. LakeArenal Sep 2020 #3
I agree. At this point, it's about driving both sides to the polls in November and Claustrum Sep 2020 #4
How would that help elect Biden? SharonClark Sep 2020 #5
A lot of women, especially young women, would be worried about Roe v. Wade being overturned. Lonestarblue Sep 2020 #16
+1 -K&R' get it done quickly! onetexan Sep 2020 #71
And he should do it quickly. Nevilledog Sep 2020 #6
I was against expansion... 2naSalit Sep 2020 #7
Great idea, too bad Biden won't get anywhere near it. NT enough Sep 2020 #8
Maybe. But... Grins Sep 2020 #17
enought.... Upthevibe Sep 2020 #29
Yes, agreed! Time to do it. 15. Hardball time. Baked Potato Sep 2020 #9
if we do it, we'd better keep dem power forever AlexSFCA Sep 2020 #10
I think he needs to hold off on any court packing announcement until he's President-elect. roamer65 Sep 2020 #11
Yep, but he got the last laugh when he ended up replacing most of BigmanPigman Sep 2020 #20
Correct. roamer65 Sep 2020 #42
K & R Duppers Sep 2020 #13
be careful here Travel Hat Sep 2020 #15
Out of idle curiosity... dpibel Sep 2020 #33
Really Pepsidog Sep 2020 #37
Kick burrowowl Sep 2020 #18
Why stop at 11? Make it 13 and I'm onboard. Hassler Sep 2020 #19
Hassler.... Upthevibe Sep 2020 #31
Why not 15? coti Sep 2020 #51
I am in complete agreement. Hassler Sep 2020 #105
What is the procedure for expanding the size of the Court? nt Ilsa Sep 2020 #21
My question. Hard to imagine House can do on own Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2020 #43
It can be done Turin_C3PO Sep 2020 #50
Takes an Act of Congress lastlib Sep 2020 #46
Roosevelt tried to pack the court. It turned out badly n/t Schmice3 Sep 2020 #22
Schmic3 Upthevibe Sep 2020 #32
Well... Dark n Stormy Knight Sep 2020 #36
Judicial Procedures Reform Act of 1937 Schmice3 Sep 2020 #95
Different times dpibel Sep 2020 #34
How has Trump's stacking of the courts worked out for us NOW?! BADLY as well! usaf-vet Sep 2020 #83
needs to be done demtenjeep Sep 2020 #26
Rt John Dean! Cha Sep 2020 #30
I wonder if he has it in him to take such a big move? mysteryowl Sep 2020 #35
Won't that have to xxqqqzme Sep 2020 #38
No number in the Constitution dpibel Sep 2020 #40
Good! We need a more diverse SCOTUS xxqqqzme Sep 2020 #45
Brilliant idea! Thanks for post. RestoreAmerica2020 Sep 2020 #39
This would be a bad precedent. wnylib Sep 2020 #44
Precedent has already been set Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Sep 2020 #47
So it's a good idea to emulate Republicans? wnylib Sep 2020 #56
Really? Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Sep 2020 #59
I'm far from being a purist. But I also wnylib Sep 2020 #61
Losing healthcare, civil rights etc is what we're facing. Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Sep 2020 #66
First get Biden into the WH and wnylib Sep 2020 #73
Impeachment ain't gonna happen. lastlib Sep 2020 #54
So, politicing the court even further wnylib Sep 2020 #58
There was a law passed not long after Lincoln NewJeffCT Sep 2020 #74
It wouldn't have to be repealed, just amended. lastlib Sep 2020 #78
It's never a 'bad precedent' to save the Republic. WheelWalker Sep 2020 #60
How would a threat to expand the court wnylib Sep 2020 #62
They also need to take the cap off the House membership Warpy Sep 2020 #48
Kill the fillibuster...without that nothing else gets done... Wounded Bear Sep 2020 #49
"If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying"? czarjak Sep 2020 #52
FDR tried that softydog88 Sep 2020 #53
But Saint RBG would disapprove. SleeplessinSoCal Sep 2020 #55
depoliticize, maybe it could be catchy. BootinUp Sep 2020 #57
Threatening to Stack the Court Zeitghost Sep 2020 #63
That needs to be done regardless of what Moscow*itch does ecstatic Sep 2020 #64
That's just the beginning, baby. nt Grasswire2 Sep 2020 #65
Wow, this is interesting. Mike 03 Sep 2020 #70
Oh I love it!! BlancheSplanchnik Sep 2020 #75
Yes! Nitram Sep 2020 #79
Fucking A - this is perfect! lark Sep 2020 #80
I don't think that's a great idea. gulliver Sep 2020 #81
This is a good thing and not a breaking of norms Hortensis Sep 2020 #85
A good idea. malthaussen Sep 2020 #84
Dean should be listened to benld74 Sep 2020 #89
Um Yes John, But why are you showing your hand? We're going to do that anyway. W T F Sep 2020 #90
Biggest fear, Trump installs crony, and then challenges the election with his hand picked SCOTUS. W T F Sep 2020 #91
add DC and PR as states rdking647 Sep 2020 #92
Great idea, but propose and implement after November 3 DonaldsRump Sep 2020 #96
I was listening to AM Joy and I heard 21 justices should be sitting on that bench turbinetree Sep 2020 #97
"announce"? garybeck Sep 2020 #98
No more being nice the repukes need a big payback for what they did kimbutgar Sep 2020 #100
that needs to happen bdamomma Sep 2020 #102
I was listening to AM Joy and I heard 21 justices should be sitting on that bench turbinetree Sep 2020 #103

sandensea

(21,530 posts)
28. Aha
Fri Sep 18, 2020, 10:17 PM
Sep 2020

Thanks for the info, ellie!

Far be it from me to wish anyone ill health - but at a time when over 200,000 mostly good people have died thanks in part to Repug criminal negligence, it's safe to say Clarence deserves no respect at all.

GoCubsGo

(32,061 posts)
24. Until Kavanaugh gets removed.
Fri Sep 18, 2020, 09:56 PM
Sep 2020

Which he should be, given that he lied to Congress during his confirmation hearing.

bucolic_frolic

(42,679 posts)
41. Yes, that's on the table too
Fri Sep 18, 2020, 11:02 PM
Sep 2020

The Constitution gave us powers to make government work well, but the truce between parties to stay in power as well as the political reality of running the country has mothballed far too many of them. So few impeachments in our history, so few judges removed. It's become a spoils system of sometimes marginal incompetence or worse. Money and lobbying was never meant to control judiciary appointments, but you know what we have in the way of lobbyists. America is due for a tuneup and a cleansing. Yet Joe Biden will have his plate full with Covid, recession, running the country. But if anyone understands Washington it's someone who's been there forever, he should delegate duties. Maybe we'll have a Senate majority to stop the gridlock.

Already it's a long agenda.

oldsoftie

(12,410 posts)
77. Waste of time & effort better spent elsewhere.
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 09:51 AM
Sep 2020

Would just look like sour grapes & would be doomed to fail

oldsoftie

(12,410 posts)
93. Well, I didnt say that. I just said it would be a waste of time & effort.
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 05:42 PM
Sep 2020

He's not going to be convicted of lying about when he heard what or drinking stories & the like.
If the Dems get the Senate then they need to show the people that they can ACCOMPLISH something in order to KEEP the Senate.

DonaldsRump

(7,715 posts)
94. Perjury is perjury
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 05:49 PM
Sep 2020

Start an investigation and let's see if he perjured himself. There was NO investigation in 2018. Let there be one when the Ds take over the White House and Senate and expand in the house.

It needs to be both FBI/US Attorney as well as Congressional investigations. Failure to answer questions or to show up gets you thrown in prison for contempt.

This all should be done and dusted in one year or less.

EVERYTHING should be on the table. We need to expose what has happened and restore the rule of law.

Celerity

(42,674 posts)
27. process is the same as POTUS, the House impeaches, but 67 votes are needed in the Senate to remove
Fri Sep 18, 2020, 10:07 PM
Sep 2020

so zero chance, probably even if Trump is POTUS and the Rethugs control the Senate, so could easily swap him out

argyl

(3,064 posts)
67. He paid off a lot of debt in a short time before he was appointed.
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 01:48 AM
Sep 2020

Fuck a 2/3rds impeachment, a criminal conviction would be a lot more straightforward.

Celerity

(42,674 posts)
68. a criminal conviction alone will not remove him, only impeachment and conviction in the Senate
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 02:55 AM
Sep 2020

There are a few scholars who say you could have an Act of Congress that changes that, but the vast, vast percentage of other legal scholars disagree.

argyl

(3,064 posts)
69. Keep his miserable ass tied up in criminal court.
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 04:50 AM
Sep 2020

Have a hard time doing his duties. Thought that was only the Dotard?
Fuck, these assholes are appointed for life. That shit really has to go.

And the vast , vast percentage of scholars are full of shit. Are these fucks beyond the law? Could they literally shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get any with it?

Celerity

(42,674 posts)
72. I actually think, that say Trump, for instance, COULD shoot a person dead, on Fifth Avenue, just
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 08:33 AM
Sep 2020

like you said, and nothing would happen (as long as he was POTUS) as long as the Rethugs in the Senate do not vote to remove in sufficient numbers to get to 67 total votes.

The Constitution has massive blind spots.

calimary

(80,700 posts)
88. Welcome to DU, sheilahi!
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 02:43 PM
Sep 2020

We DO have to start thinking in those terms, though.

I wish WE fought like the CONs do. They're ruthless, and look how it's benefited them. They're on the doorstep to abolishing the ACA, a woman's right to choose, and even Social Security and the rest of the social safety net.

They don't see government as being in the position to help people, only to kill people. Because they're more than okay having a big time military and all the guns you can eat.

Republicans. They DON'T want to help you. And they never did. Didn't see it as their job or their sacred quest when they swore to uphold the Constitution to be seated in their government jobs.

MoonchildCA

(1,301 posts)
82. I found an article yesterday that explains the "15" reasoning.
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 11:40 AM
Sep 2020

It would remake it in the image of the federal court of appeals, they could someway hold the number to 15. If we just randomly add two, then the republicans add two, we add two, ad infinitum.

Here is the article Four Ways to Expand the US Supreme Court

mjvpi

(1,384 posts)
86. Thanks for the link.
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 02:08 PM
Sep 2020

15 makes sense to me. Ever the idealistic Democrat, I would hope that picks were made to correct this Federalist Society mess, in terms of balance, but past that goal picks would not be made vindictively. In my civics classes (yes, I’m that old) the judiciary was depicted as the most spiritually pure manifestation of our democracy, with the Supremes being diamond like in their dedication to the fairness of our laws. A lock step majority of any persuasion is not in the deliberative best interest of our ideals as a country. I don’t think the founders had Bret the weeny wagger in mind.

calimary

(80,700 posts)
104. Interesting read!
Mon Sep 21, 2020, 01:50 AM
Sep 2020

These things can sometimes be really helpful when we're writing up our "asks" in our Indivisible group's Research & Writing team. Sometimes it's not enough to say "do something!" Sometimes you have to give them direction! "Hold news conferences and stay in the public eye on this." "Make some noise about this! Keep it on the front pages." "Deploy your rapid-response team on this issue, and at EVERY turn, and if you don't have one, GET ONE!" This article has some meaty suggestions, and should be said, read, and spread.

Sometimes We The People have to lead our "leaders." Spoon-feed them, put words in their mouths and ideas in their heads. And calcium in their backbones.

Btw - If you have an Indivisible group operating near you, join it! Highly recommended! It's the best activism I've found, and I've put a few years in (ever since the Student Coalition for Humphrey/Muskie!). It's done quite a bit of good, on a personal level, too. These things are good for the morale. You really feel like you're actually DOING something, not just sitting and moping or complaining. It's also generated friendships, helped a newcomer in a new state start feeling the way around. Our group is small but spunky. And indeed we do stuff. Even if it's just via Zoom, which is most of the time. Last night, though, some in our team wanted to get together and maybe say a few words over the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Maybe it was just because we all haven't seen each other, or hung out together, or gone out to do stuff or knock on doors or meet at a local restaurant after church for our postcard parties. I was surprised - there were 17 of us in this little mini-park, holding flashlights, posters, and those electronic "candles". It was nice. We all needed to just BE, together. It was nice. And I needed it.

Highly recommended, if you're not in Indivisible already.

ahoysrcsm

(787 posts)
99. Should be 23 1 for every 2 states/territories...
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 06:51 PM
Sep 2020

I recall the total being 57 states/territories, so one judge per 2 should right every wrong done by neocons.

Claustrum

(4,845 posts)
4. I agree. At this point, it's about driving both sides to the polls in November and
Fri Sep 18, 2020, 08:53 PM
Sep 2020

see who has the bigger number.

Lonestarblue

(9,880 posts)
16. A lot of women, especially young women, would be worried about Roe v. Wade being overturned.
Fri Sep 18, 2020, 09:17 PM
Sep 2020

This might be the one thing that would get younger people out to vote. Not only Roe, but the ACA would be gone with another right-wing justice. Many young people work in the gig economy,,and the ACA is the only healthcare they have. I think Biden needs to really hit these two points hard. Or maybe Kamala should since she might be better with younger voters.

Grins

(7,134 posts)
17. Maybe. But...
Fri Sep 18, 2020, 09:24 PM
Sep 2020

... it will give McConnell and the Republicans something to think about. And “theater” is something R’s understand.

Say it! Just to see the reaction, and get the R’s on the record.

AlexSFCA

(6,137 posts)
10. if we do it, we'd better keep dem power forever
Fri Sep 18, 2020, 09:08 PM
Sep 2020

cause if gop ever get to power again, they’ll expand it to 20.

roamer65

(36,739 posts)
11. I think he needs to hold off on any court packing announcement until he's President-elect.
Fri Sep 18, 2020, 09:12 PM
Sep 2020

The fight that FDR had over it did not help him politically.

Wait and see the Repukes first move.

BigmanPigman

(51,432 posts)
20. Yep, but he got the last laugh when he ended up replacing most of
Fri Sep 18, 2020, 09:34 PM
Sep 2020

them anyway. (I just watched Ken Burns: The Roosevelts on PBS).

Travel Hat

(116 posts)
15. be careful here
Fri Sep 18, 2020, 09:17 PM
Sep 2020

Trump can try and but more than one new justice on the court. If I'm correct he could try and put four! A president can put as many as six justices at a time for every justice that is over 70 and 1/2 years of age. So he can replace RBG and add 3 more because that's how many that are over 70 1/2 years old. OK, tin foil hat off.

lastlib

(22,981 posts)
46. Takes an Act of Congress
Fri Sep 18, 2020, 11:13 PM
Sep 2020

Majority of both houses. Might take 60 in the Senate if the filibuster isn't eliminated. And president's signature.

Upthevibe

(7,884 posts)
32. Schmic3
Fri Sep 18, 2020, 10:20 PM
Sep 2020

I'm not familiar with what happened regarding Roosevelt. Would you provide a link or the name of a story that I can look up?

dpibel

(2,803 posts)
34. Different times
Fri Sep 18, 2020, 10:28 PM
Sep 2020

Roosevelt was facing a court that was blocking the New Deal. So the situation was similar in that it was a reactionary court.

But back then, there had been no theft of a Supreme Court seat. There was not the gross politicization of the court.

And, back then, I don't believe the general public believed that the Supreme Court was a totally political animal.

Things are different now.

dpibel

(2,803 posts)
40. No number in the Constitution
Fri Sep 18, 2020, 10:56 PM
Sep 2020

Just creates a Supreme Court.

The number has varied over the years. Started out at 6, was 10 at maximum.

Nothing holy about nine.

wnylib

(21,146 posts)
44. This would be a bad precedent.
Fri Sep 18, 2020, 11:07 PM
Sep 2020

Talk about politicizing the court even further! Every president afterward would consider chsnging the number of justices in his/her favor.

A better option is to impeach present justices, like Kavanaugh, for lying to Congress.

Get and hold the Senate. It's crucial.

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(107,112 posts)
47. Precedent has already been set
Fri Sep 18, 2020, 11:15 PM
Sep 2020

Republicans have always politicized the courts.

Democrats by comparison not so much,

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(107,112 posts)
59. Really?
Fri Sep 18, 2020, 11:29 PM
Sep 2020

You want to being the purist, the beautiful loser?

Yeah Roe v Wade, Obamacare, pre-existing conditions, civil rights and so on may be overturned but by God we'll stayed true to our principles.

wnylib

(21,146 posts)
61. I'm far from being a purist. But I also
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 12:09 AM
Sep 2020

don't think R's need or should have our help in destroying the system of checks and balances. They're doing well enough on that on their own.

I am, like everyone else here, still angry over the blatant stunt Moscow Mitch pulled in refusing to allow Garland s hearing. I am doubly furious over his predictable hypocrisy on the issue now.

The majority of Americans are not aware that the number of justices is flexible. The threat of expansion would provide R's with more talking points about Dems trying to pull a coup in the election. It would backfire on Biden.

I'm all for fighting another McConnell stunt. Call out his hypocrisy publicly, loudly, and often. Attack McConnell viciously and ramp up a nationwide donation to defeat him. Have massive peaceful rallies in DC and across the nation. Make McConnell feel really threatened if he goes through with a nomination. Make this a rallying cry to defeat every R candidate in the country. Focus on weak Senators in the election. Repeat McConnell's words over and over about refusing Garland a hearing. Smear R's with their own s#@t.

But don't make threats that could hurt us politically and escalate the already extreme politicization of SCOTUS.

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(107,112 posts)
66. Losing healthcare, civil rights etc is what we're facing.
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 01:06 AM
Sep 2020

You haven't offered a solution. Just the same namby pamby "We shouldn't stoop to their level"

I will not unilaterally disarm. When they go low don't go high. Kick them in the fucking teeth.

wnylib

(21,146 posts)
73. First get Biden into the WH and
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 09:02 AM
Sep 2020

take the Senate. THEN, if we must, pack the court after the fact, without announcing the intention during the election. Don't show our cards before playing them.

I fully agree that we are at political war with R's of immense consequences to the nation's future. You think I am being a wishy-washy purist and idealist. I am being pragmatic. Do you seriously believe that threatening to pack the court will stop McConnell and the Senate? After what they did with the Garland nomination and after they refused to try, let alone convict, the impeached traitor? I think that is a naive belief. It will not stop them, but it will give fuel to R's in their campaign to convince the public that Dems are subversive and dangerous.

lastlib

(22,981 posts)
54. Impeachment ain't gonna happen.
Fri Sep 18, 2020, 11:20 PM
Sep 2020

Another tool at Congress' disposal is limiting the Court's jurisdiction. The Court has been politicized since the days of Marbury v. Madison. Nothing new there. It's just noticed more now because of media attention. Every president since Lincoln has probably wished they could expand the Court, but really only FDR discussed it so openly that it got public attention. But enlarging or shrinking the number of seats has always been a prerogative of Congress.

wnylib

(21,146 posts)
58. So, politicing the court even further
Fri Sep 18, 2020, 11:29 PM
Sep 2020

and constantly changing its size is a good idea?

Kinda makes a mockery of the balance of power, doesn't it?

Of course politics influence court appointees. It's not possible to completely avoid that. But why ramp it up even higher?

NewJeffCT

(56,827 posts)
74. There was a law passed not long after Lincoln
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 09:04 AM
Sep 2020

that set the number of SCOTUS justices at 9. Before that, it had changed several times. That law would need to be repealed, I believe, before they could add justices.

Expanding the lower courts is definitely a good idea, however.

lastlib

(22,981 posts)
78. It wouldn't have to be repealed, just amended.
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 10:35 AM
Sep 2020

From 1789 to 1807 the court comprised six justices. In 1807 a seventh justice was added, followed by an eighth and a ninth in 1837 and a tenth in 1863.

The idea has occurred to me that enlarging the Court would actually DE-politicize it. If enlarged, the change of one justice would be less likely to change the ideological balance, and we wouldn't have the brutal political fights over vacancies that we have now. I'd like to see that idea tested.

wnylib

(21,146 posts)
62. How would a threat to expand the court
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 12:23 AM
Sep 2020

save the Republic? R's are already claiming that Dems are subversive and planning a coup in this election. The majority of Americans don't know that expanding the court is an option and is not unconstitutional. R's would put Biden on the defensive by attacking a court-packing threat as proof of the dangers of a Dem coup. It would backfire on Biden. The campaign would become all about "protecting the sacred SC from a Dem coup" forcing Biden to address that instead of the issues he wants to emphasize.

We should fight, yes. We should make R candidates feel very threatened in the election if they follow McConnell on a nomination. We should attack his hypocrisy regarding the Garland nomination vs a replacement for RBG. We should hold massive PEACEFUL protests in DC and across the nation.

But don't endanger the Trump/Harris lead with a threat to expand the court and thereby give R's fuel about them protecting American institutions from Dems.

Warpy

(110,913 posts)
48. They also need to take the cap off the House membership
Fri Sep 18, 2020, 11:15 PM
Sep 2020

so that high population states get adequate representation and along with that, more electors. That way, low population states will no longer be able to dominate elections. Dirt should never have been allowed to outvote citizens.

Things have been UNFAIR for too damned long. Fuck the crooked Republican Party. Fuck McConnell. And fuck all the diseased billionaire horses' asses they rode in on.

Wounded Bear

(58,440 posts)
49. Kill the fillibuster...without that nothing else gets done...
Fri Sep 18, 2020, 11:17 PM
Sep 2020

Expanding the lower courts is a necessary option. Repubs have been starving them for years, waiting for the perfect storm of Trump/McConnell to take advantage of the situation.

Expanding the Supreme Court? I'm a little iffy on that, it's a pretty obvious political move, but after McConnell stole the Garland pick, we might just get away with it. And if we kill the fillibuster it could be done.

softydog88

(126 posts)
53. FDR tried that
Fri Sep 18, 2020, 11:20 PM
Sep 2020

and was lambasted for it because it was seen as a purely political move. Same thing will happen to Biden, I fear. I agree that it needs to be done, but I also agree that Biden won't even suggest it. At least as important is the dismantling of the electoral college, and I would argue that when two elections since 2000 have gone to the candidates with fewer votes, that simply is NOT democracy,

ecstatic

(32,567 posts)
64. That needs to be done regardless of what Moscow*itch does
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 12:30 AM
Sep 2020

We already had a seat stolen, not to mention the hundreds of judges that were held up during Pres Obama's term. I want to see action in that direction immediately after inauguration day.

lark

(23,006 posts)
80. Fucking A - this is perfect!
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 10:58 AM
Sep 2020

I was forgetting about the lower courts - yes, those absolutely have to be expanded as well and repugs won't be able to stop it if we take back the Senate and presidency.

gulliver

(13,142 posts)
81. I don't think that's a great idea.
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 11:01 AM
Sep 2020

Biden is running on uniting the country. We don't need to be advertising that we're going to break norms. That might just cost us the election.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
85. This is a good thing and not a breaking of norms
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 01:36 PM
Sep 2020

though. The Constitution gives Congress the power to decide and change the number, and it has done that a few times, just not for some while.

Expanding the number would help lessen two Very grave functional problems we currently have. One is the ability of a party that’s gone rotten to corrupt the high court with rotten and/or extremist justices within a couple presidencies held by them.

We are seeing the other right now: That the death of one justice can effect a catastrophic ideological shift. A larger bench of justices will provide greater stability and lessen that danger.

I think it’s very necessary. It’s just a shame that it wasn’t done before, but we’ve never had a political party taken over by this degree of corruption and determination to overthrow the sovereignty of the people.

malthaussen

(17,066 posts)
84. A good idea.
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 12:46 PM
Sep 2020

But expanding the Courts would be a good idea regardless. Their calendars are all pretty clogged.

But it's disingenuous to say that it would "depoliticize" the Courts. In fact, it would make them more political, and threatens to polarize them beyond all impartiality. It is, however, equally disingenuous to try to maintain that we haven't already reached that point. Given length of tenure of judges, the damage done to the Judiciary by polarization will take decades to eliminate. The good news is that that damage is not so severe as doom-sayers contend. There are only a few Justices who will let politics guide their decisions every time, even in the USSC.

-- Mal

W T F

(1,145 posts)
91. Biggest fear, Trump installs crony, and then challenges the election with his hand picked SCOTUS.
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 03:06 PM
Sep 2020

DonaldsRump

(7,715 posts)
96. Great idea, but propose and implement after November 3
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 06:01 PM
Sep 2020

I love John Dean, but Joe doesn't need to get bogged down in this right now during the last 40 days of the election. He needs to harp on the Merrick Garland hypocrisy and he needs to bash the hell out of whomever Trump picks. That's all I would do at this stage.

McConnell and the Reputincans will pay a brutal election price for this anyways.

Once (not if) Joe wins and the Ds take control of the Senate and expand in the House, then we do this with a vengeance on January 21, 2021, giving notice that this will be done once we win. And we investigate the hell out of any dodgy judicial appointee made by Trump who did not receive a meaningful vetting/confirmation process. I am SURE there are many. Lying during the confirmation process is a major biggie. Since there was no real investigation done for Kavanaugh, for example, there is no way to know what he testified to under oath was true.

This is not a Star Chamber; rather, it is doing what should have been done before mediocrities are put on the judiciary for life.

turbinetree

(24,632 posts)
97. I was listening to AM Joy and I heard 21 justices should be sitting on that bench
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 06:10 PM
Sep 2020

because of how the appeals court is based on population and expand the lower court like Dean said...........

garybeck

(9,932 posts)
98. "announce"?
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 06:25 PM
Sep 2020

dont the dems have to take back the senate before the could even dream of doing something like that?

not to mention, if they don't, the republicans could expand it on their own and put more assholes on there.

kimbutgar

(20,882 posts)
100. No more being nice the repukes need a big payback for what they did
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 08:28 PM
Sep 2020

McConnell broke the rules and were going to break them further. I wish every time McConnell speaks they play the recording of him saying no Supreme Court in an election year and put him on the spot to explain why he is allowing this 45 days before the election.

turbinetree

(24,632 posts)
103. I was listening to AM Joy and I heard 21 justices should be sitting on that bench
Sat Sep 19, 2020, 09:55 PM
Sep 2020

because of how the appeals court is based on population and expand the lower court like Dean said...........

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»John Dean has a great ide...