Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the D's have the ability to do it next year, on SCOTUS, by adding seats, should they?
Much though I despise Mitch, my instinct was don't do it, it'll rebound.
Then I read this:
and felt that horse*had already bolted, and for better or worse it will be open season.
As long as they do it within the constraints of the law, I will be OK with it. The good news is that the folks who crafted the Constitution had the foresight to make SCOTUS court packing very difficult.
If the D's have the ability to do it next year, on SCOTUS, by adding seats, should they?
Much though I despise Mitch, my instinct was don't do it, it'll rebound.
Then I read this:
Why ten years? Is it because of who controls apportionment after the census?
That's my guess.
That said, it looks like court packing is DOA for at least 2 years. The House can still flip back and forth despite redistricting efforts. But the Senate looks like it'll be in GOP hands for the next two years. Even if Dems pull off an unlikely victory in the two Georgia Senate runoffs, they'd have a bare majority of one thanks to Kamala Harris serving as the tiebreaking vote. But they would need a majority of multiple seats to realistically pack the courts given that key Dem senators or senators to be, to include Joe Manchin, Kristen Sinema, and Mark Kelly, have all come out against court packing.
Note, I actually think that calls for court packing backfired against Dems in key Senate races that could have been winnable for them.
If the D's have the ability to do it next year, on SCOTUS, by adding seats, should they?
Much though I despise Mitch, my instinct was don't do it, it'll rebound.
Then I read this:
and felt that horse*had already bolted, and for better or worse it will be open season.
If you have concerns about court packing, look no further than Mitch... ugh.
I can’t stand that term “packing.” It sounds like something untoward. There is no set number of justices, so adding - is not odd or radical. But “packing” is a conveniently political term. And it’s been adopted as something unsavory.
I think a huge flaw in the current arrangements is that a death or retirement or two can completely upend the nature of the court - and the result has been that it’s a partisan tool. Supposedly it’s above politics... well, if partisan nominees are seated for partisan reasons, it sort of ruins that notion. There is a concerted effort to design the court. It’s silly for anyone to claim the court is somehow separate from the nonsense.
Personally (and I’m guessing few would agree with me) I think there should be more justices on the bench. It would eliminate the possible dramatic shift of the court should one Justice die or retire. With the number we have now, a vacancy is a political lever that can alter the manner of the court for decades. That this is a matter (someone dies) giving the Oval a random gift based on luck is problematic - because of the political weight it has in current times.
With more justices, the loss of one or two during one administration would be less unsettling. The whole process has become ugly.
The SCOTUS is a political branch. I don’t think it should be, and I find it annoying when anyone pretends it is. I would prefer a less partisan court - and I’m not sure what would solve this issue - other than having enough justices so no one administration could thumb the scale - regardless of party.
I don’t like the political tug of war. Nor do I like the “designer Justice Farm” that is the Federalist Society, that grooms them for years. That process is counteracted by a larger court. Possibly.
I guess it’s impossible to have an objective court, but we should. I find Barrett frightening. In Tuesdays oral arguments, she almost made Kavanaugh seem like something of a teddy bear. Yikes.
Just because something has been done one way for a while doesn’t mean it must stay that way for that reason. I think what we have now it too partisan and needs to be questioned.
Just my take.
Last edited by paperwing; 11-13-2020 at 04:57 AM..
If you have concerns about court packing, look no further than Mitch... ugh.
I can’t stand that term “packing.” It sounds like something untoward. There is no set number of justices, so adding - is not odd or radical. But “packing” is a conveniently political term. And it’s been adopted as something unsavory.
I think a huge flaw in the current arrangements is that a death or retirement or two can completely upend the nature of the court - and the result has been that it’s a partisan tool. Supposedly it’s above politics... well, if partisan nominees are seated for partisan reasons, it sort of ruins that notion. There is a concerted effort to design the court. It’s silly for anyone to claim the court is somehow separate from the nonsense.
Personally (and I’m guessing few would agree with me) I think there should be more justices on the bench. It would eliminate the possible dramatic shift of the court should one Justice die or retire. With the number we have now, a vacancy is a political lever that can alter the manner of the court for decades. That this is a matter (someone dies) giving the Oval a random gift based on luck is problematic - because of the political weight it has in current times.
With more justices, the loss of one or two during one administration would be less unsettling. The whole process has become ugly.
The SCOTUS is a political branch. I don’t think it should be, and I find it annoying when anyone pretends it is. I would prefer a less partisan court - and I’m not sure what would solve this issue - other than having enough justices so no one administration could thumb the scale - regardless of party.
I don’t like the political tug of war. Nor do I like the “designer Justice Farm” that is the Federalist Society, that grooms them for years. That process is counteracted by a larger court. Possibly.
I guess it’s impossible to have an objective court, but we should. I find Barrett frightening. In Tuesdays oral arguments, she almost made Kavanaugh seem like something of a teddy bear. Yikes.
Just because something has been done one way for a while doesn’t mean it must stay that way for that reason. I think what we have now it too partisan and needs to be questioned.
Just my take.
Considering that the number of seats have been set at 9 for the past 150+ years and that the most recent efforts to change the composition of the Court to suit partisan needs have been rejected as an attack to the Court's independence, I would disagree. Would it be legal? Yes. But given the above, it certainly would be odd and radical. And, note, I bring up the point that Republicans have never seriously tried to pack the Court in recent times (in the past 150 years at least), not even to overturn Roe v. Wade, the ruling that conservatives hate possibly more than any other. No, they bid their time and appointed members to the bench when they held the White House, etc.
Considering that the number of seats have been set at 9 for the past 150+ years and that the most recent efforts to change the composition of the Court to suit partisan needs have been rejected as an attack to the Court's independence, I would disagree. Would it be legal? Yes. But given the above, it certainly would be odd and radical. And, note, I bring up the point that Republicans have never seriously tried to pack the Court in recent times (in the past 150 years at least), not even to overturn Roe v. Wade, the ruling that conservatives hate possibly more than any other. No, they bid their time and appointed members to the bench when they held the White House, etc.
Calling a proposed increase in membership an attack on the court's independence is a straw man. The court never got to decide how many members it had. That has been decided by Congress. Conflating increased numbers with less independence doesn't hold water. If it were true, a court with 7, or 5, or 3, or 1..........
Given the increase in the population over the last 150 years, and the concomitant increase in workload I see no reason why 9 should be set in stone.
Unless I missed I don't think it's accurate to say that packing has been rejected. Still under consideration, might be more accurate. I believe*Biden has said it wouldn't be his 1st choice as a solution, or words to that*effect. As I noted in the OP, I didn't think it was a great idea, but circumstances force politicians to make choices unpalatable to themselves and/or their electorate, so I'm keeping an open mind
If you have concerns about court packing, look no further than Mitch... ugh.
I can’t stand that term “packing.” It sounds like something untoward. There is no set number of justices, so adding - is not odd or radical. But “packing” is a conveniently political term. And it’s been adopted as something unsavory.
I think a huge flaw in the current arrangements is that a death or retirement or two can completely upend the nature of the court - and the result has been that it’s a partisan tool. Supposedly it’s above politics... well, if partisan nominees are seated for partisan reasons, it sort of ruins that notion. There is a concerted effort to design the court. It’s silly for anyone to claim the court is somehow separate from the nonsense.
Personally (and I’m guessing few would agree with me) I think there should be more justices on the bench. It would eliminate the possible dramatic shift of the court should one Justice die or retire. With the number we have now, a vacancy is a political lever that can alter the manner of the court for decades. That this is a matter (someone dies) giving the Oval a random gift based on luck is problematic - because of the political weight it has in current times.
With more justices, the loss of one or two during one administration would be less unsettling. The whole process has become ugly.
The SCOTUS is a political branch. I don’t think it should be, and I find it annoying when anyone pretends it is. I would prefer a less partisan court - and I’m not sure what would solve this issue - other than having enough justices so no one administration could thumb the scale - regardless of party.
I don’t like the political tug of war. Nor do I like the “designer Justice Farm” that is the Federalist Society, that grooms them for years. That process is counteracted by a larger court. Possibly.
I guess it’s impossible to have an objective court, but we should. I find Barrett frightening. In Tuesdays oral arguments, she almost made Kavanaugh seem like something of a teddy bear. Yikes.
Just because something has been done one way for a while doesn’t mean it must stay that way for that reason. I think what we have now it too partisan and needs to be questioned.
Just my take.
I'm open to agreeing with you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
