• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

Wakeforest22890 said:
When ACB is confirmed and Democrats + Biden take back the White House and Senate:

1. Expand the court to 11
2. Confirm 2 young jurists to the court (lifetime appointment) with Appeals Court experience
3. Pass a law restricting SCOTUS appointments to an 18 year term (11 existing justices grandfathered in for lifetime) with an effort to enshrine this through a constitutional amendment related to Congress' ability to expand/reduce the size of the court (very difficult for the latter part but worth a try from everyone involved).

This leaves the conservatives with a one justice majority, balances out the last two appointments (Kavanaugh and ACB) which were "constitutionally permissible and legal" yet entirely political with a response that is "constitutionally permissible and legal" yet also entirely political, and also addresses an institutional gap where Congress has the ability to constantly change the size of the Supreme Court and play politics with the confirmation timing associated with the random temporal nature of deaths (by removing lifetime appointments).

We've relied on good faith actors far too much without addressing obvious constitutional and structural issues and we're staring down the barrel of the last four years of no good faith actors whatsoever from one major party. It's time to stop relying on any conservatives to do what is right rather than politically beneficial or expedient. That ship has sailed.
Click to expand...

co-sign
 
If you’re going to expand the court then you need to set the new number higher than 11. You’ll pay the same political price if you raise it to 15, so make it worthwhile.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
If you’re going to expand the court then you need to set the new number higher than 11. You’ll pay the same political price if you raise it to 15, so make it worthwhile.
Click to expand...

I understand this argument and perhaps I'm buying into the same naivete that got Democrats to this point in the first place, but I picked 11 as a compromise for the politicking the GOP did for the last two justices. This should be more palatable because it leaves the conservative majority in place and is followed immediately by the Democrats changing the system overall for the confirmation process/court size.

Politically speaking, sure Democrats could just go to 15 and hope that they retain power forever. Republicans probably would just create a 101 person court and put 92 conservatives on the bench.
 
Yes, that’s naive. There hasn’t been a Democratic Supreme Court since 1970 use this opportunity to correct that. Republicans will throw any compromise position in our face regardless.
 
Also, I am well aware Republicans will just expand the court to whatever gives them a majority the next time they take power. The quicker we make that one-upsmanship unsustainable, the sooner we’ll get a constitutional amendment to fix the court’s problems.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Politically speaking, sure Democrats could just go to 15 and hope that they retain power forever. Republicans probably would just create a 101 person court and put 92 conservatives on the bench.
Click to expand...

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The Republicans are already using rules in bad faith and putting 48 year-olds on the court.
 
PhDeac said:
They shouldn't bother with her religion. They should make it clear that she's being brought in to gut ACA, end abortion, and hand Trump the election.

I still like the idea of letting Kamala prosecute the case against Trump to Barrett.
Click to expand...

Make sure you add that she possesses no qualifications to serve on the highest Court of the Land.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
If you’re going to expand the court then you need to set the new number higher than 11. You’ll pay the same political price if you raise it to 15, so make it worthwhile.
Click to expand...

Expanding the court is a way to guaranty a complete blood bath in the mid-terms. Biden would be wise to pledge not to expand the court. That gives a host of voters who don't like Trump and now have gotten all they wanted from him a reason to dump him.
 
bym051d said:
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The Republicans are already using rules in bad faith and putting 48 year-olds on the court.
Click to expand...

TITCR. It's just like with the conservative ACA. You're going to get painted as a radical leftist anyway. Might as well do something to improve people's lives along the way. You can't compromise with bad faith actors. I wish moderate democrats would learn that lesson eventually.
 
DeacMan said:
Expanding the court is a way to guaranty a complete blood bath in the mid-terms. Biden would be wise to pledge not to expand the court. That gives a host of voters who don't like Trump and now have gotten all they wanted from him a reason to dump him.
Click to expand...

I think public opinion might change on court packing if the new conservative court kills coverage of pre-existing conditions and revokes Roe vs. Wade, or at least looks like they might try
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
I think public opinion might change on court packing if the new conservative court kills coverage of pre-existing conditions and revokes Roe vs. Wade, or at least looks like they might try
Click to expand...

Either of those would suck to be overturned, but my biggest concern is overturning Obergefell and invalidating man 500k same-sex marriages.

Especially with a Democratic Senate, pre-existing conditions can be fixed.
 
Last edited:
The way the question is framed likely changes opinion too. "Court packing" is a term coined by oppositions to FDR's expansion plan in the 30's. If you use the phrase "expansion" I'd imagine it polls a little bit better.

That said, I do think support is below 50% at this point but will only increase as we get closer to and past the election.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
The way the question is framed likely changes opinion too. "Court packing" is a term coined by oppositions to FDR's expansion plan in the 30's. If you use the phrase "expansion" I'd imagine it polls a little bit better.

That said, I do think support is below 50% at this point but will only increase as we get closer to and past the election.
Click to expand...

I like the term "right-sizing" and with the current federal backlog, I would like to do it to all levels of the judiciary.
 
All this is why the issue should about reforming the courts and how justices and judges are nominated and confirmed. It shouldn’t be about packing.
 
bym051d said:
Either of those would suck to be overturned, but my biggest concern is overturning Obergefell and invalidating man 500k same-sex marriages.

Especially with a Democratic Senate, pre-existing conditions can be fixed.
Click to expand...

overturning Obergefell would be the dumbest use of whatever political capital the GOP would have left at that time

nobody really gives a fuck
 
If you get rid of the filibuster to expand the court then you are free to also pass a bunch of laws that will make voting and elections more fair. Campaign finance, law against gerrymandering, voting rights act, automatic voter registration, mail in voting, ranked choice, etc... you would need to do it rapidly and all together but that really would put a huge dent into any negative pushback for expanding the court. There is a reason why Republicans don't want people to vote.
 
DeacMan said:
Expanding the court is a way to guaranty a complete blood bath in the mid-terms. Biden would be wise to pledge not to expand the court. That gives a host of voters who don't like Trump and now have gotten all they wanted from him a reason to dump him.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see Biden say something like "I am not going to commit to anything with respect to the Supreme Court except that we need to restore principle and process to the way justices are appointed and the way politics has biased the court's representativeness. I will commit to working with congress to implement some reforms to the Judiciary because the way Mitch McConnell has managed nominations of the last 2 presidents has been a massive departure from precedent and norms in our government."
 
The republicans asked for this by rubbing democratic noses in this horseshit. Court goes to 13, and Biden immediately appoints 4. Case closed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top