Not court packing...state packing (Congress, generation, highway, conspiracy)

[GeorgiaTransplant]

It seems obvious that President Trump's pick for the Supreme Court will be confirmed.

So bear with me. This is ALL conditioned on the Democrats holding the Presidency, Senate, and House-which actually may happen.

The Supreme Court will be 6-3 conservative-appointed after this confirmation, unless the numbers are increased. That's likely to be generational. Democrats and liberals (including me) have been astounded by the hypocrisy but seem to be generally accepting it's going to happen. A lot of the comments from the Republicans and conservatives (and, you know, some minority of conspiracy-theory whackos) have been along the lines of "boo hoo, we [Republicans/right wing] can do it, so we will".

There's enough concern about the precedent of packing the Court by the Democrats that I hope it doesn't happen. That's an arms race that has no good end.

Everyone's been talking about packing the court as a response, but is there some other bare knuckle, full-on power move-you know, the kind of thing we're told that we should just get used to from the Republicans-that the Democrats could do if they take the Presidency and Senate and retain the House? I think there is, and I'm honestly asking: is there anything that could stop this? Adding a state or states.

DC has, recently, voted that it wants to be a state. Puerto Rico has a strong statehood movement. Both have a larger population than Wyoming and are obvious candidates if they clearly ask and the government is willing. Guam and the US Virgin Islands and American Samoa have some thoughts of statehood (but very small populations). All of them lean Democratic.

I have read and reread some general articles and it appears that adding states isn't a Constitutional change, it's just legislative.

What prevents a Democratically-held government from approving statehood for one or more of these entities and increasing the likelihood of a generational Democratic hold on Congress?

Fully Constitutional, a power move, and one the Republicans can't obviously or easily match?

[michiganmoon]

You talk about an arms race of packing the Supreme Court being bad, don't you think that you could also have an arm's race of new states for the GOP? Break the Upper Peninsula off of Michigan and etc.

Democrats use to stand for law and order. Republicans are less likely to be lawless in the streets, but what if Red States have a "summer of love" policy to any blue laws coming down the pike.

"Sanctuary State" and "Sanctuary Counties/Cities" where blue laws aren't enforced?

[FatBob96]

Funny how Dem's response to everything is throwing a temper tantrum and wanting to change the rules when they don't get what they want.

[Aussiehoff]

Originally Posted by GeorgiaTransplant

Fully Constitutional, a power move, and one the Republicans can't obviously or easily match?

The same law that allows for creation of new States allows for the splitting of States. The Republicans could easily match such a silly game.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by michiganmoon

You talk about an arms race of packing the Supreme Court being bad, don't you think that you could also have an arm's race of new states for the GOP? Break the Upper Peninsula off of Michigan and etc.

Democrats use to stand for law and order. Republicans are less likely to be lawless in the streets, but what if Red States have a "summer of love" policy to any blue laws coming down the pike.

"Sanctuary State" and "Sanctuary Counties/Cities" where blue laws aren't enforced?

Beat me to it!

At two Senators each, there would be no end to the dividing and sub-dividing of states.

The new state of Superior (Michigan's upper peninsula plus parts of Minnesota and Wisconsin) might be joined by new states Eureka, Baja, North Colorado, South Georgia, Lincoln, Jefferson, West Kansas, et. al.

[Oldhag1]

Originally Posted by Aussiehoff

The same law that allows for creation of new States allows for the splitting of States. The Republicans could easily match such a silly game.

This could be especially painful in California where the conservative part of California provides all the water to highly liberal Southern California. Water rights agreements across state lines are much more difficult and expensive than within state lines.

[GeorgiaTransplant]

Originally Posted by Aussiehoff

The same law that allows for creation of new States allows for the splitting of States. The Republicans could easily match such a silly game.

Doesn't that require both the losing state, and the US government, to approve? I'm not sure it's "easily matched".

[Aussiehoff]

Originally Posted by GeorgiaTransplant

Doesn't that require both the losing state, and the US government, to approve? I'm not sure it's "easily matched".

Yes, both States plus the congress. A situation that would most certainly arise.

[phma]

Originally Posted by GeorgiaTransplant

Doesn't that require both the losing state, and the US government, to approve? I'm not sure it's "easily matched".

Its like an arms race !!!

I don't believe a red state would mind being split to maintain a political balance in the Senate !!!

After all its just borders within the country and don't work any harm !!!
Its more a sign on the highway for most travelers !!!
Most don't know the laws that are different in all 50 states !!!

A big state like Florida could split into three states !!! Its the ultimate in gerrymandering !!!

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by GeorgiaTransplant

Doesn't that require both the losing state, and the US government, to approve? I'm not sure it's "easily matched".

Relax, we're just pretending this might happen.

The Senate isn't about to flip and the House will probably stay in Democrat's hands, at least for now.

The jury is still out on the effect replacing Ginsberg will have on the presidential race.

Lots of hard-core leftists will be pissed-off, but they were going to vote for whichever Democrat ran anyway.

Trump supporters have been chomping at the bit for three and a half years, so they'll show up to vote regardless.

The non-political types, the people that actually decide elections, may not be as motivated to vote for president if the future of the court is seen as already settled.