Will Trump be able to get a justice to replace RBG before the next inaguaration?

[Parasaurolophus]

Biden took a stand against it in the primary.

[Parasaurolophus]

Sure, you can rationalize it however you like. Short and medium term it might be a good idea. Long term, it will be a disastrous precedent.

The reality is that the current situation is already very bad in the long term. This is compounded by the fact that it's arisen out of bad-faith governance and undemocratic outcomes, and cannot be remedied through the usual democratic processes. There is zero hope of remedy without extraordinary action. That's very, very bad for the long term.

[ciao_yall]

If Biden comes out now with a court packing threat the Dems will lose the election.  It's that simple.

Why do you say that?

It might turn off moderate R's who aren't comfortable with McConnell's shennanigans, yet still aren't sure two wrongs make a right.

I'll go back to my earlier point... it drags down the conversation during the election. And it will be Biden trying to wrestle with Trump/McConnell in their own pigsty. T and C will have too much fun, and Biden will come out covered in sh*t.

[Sun_Worshiper]

If Biden comes out now with a court packing threat the Dems will lose the election.  It's that simple.

Is this based on anything aside from your own intuition?

[Treehugger]

Sure, you can rationalize it however you like. Short and medium term it might be a good idea. Long term, it will be a disastrous precedent.

The reality is that the current situation is already very bad in the long term. This is compounded by the fact that it's arisen out of bad-faith governance and undemocratic outcomes, and cannot be remedied through the usual democratic processes. There is zero hope of remedy without extraordinary action. That's very, very bad for the long term.

Ok, here's the difference. The Republicans have been playing power politics and acting in bad faith to politicize an institution that is not supposed to be politicized. The answer to that is not to throw away the framework and make it a permanently nakedly politicized institution. If you do that, you will have already lost, even though you have "won."  Do you see the difference?

[Treehugger]

Sure, you can rationalize it however you like. Short and medium term it might be a good idea. Long term, it will be a disastrous precedent.

The reality is that the current situation is already very bad in the long term. This is compounded by the fact that it's arisen out of bad-faith governance and undemocratic outcomes, and cannot be remedied through the usual democratic processes. There is zero hope of remedy without extraordinary action. That's very, very bad for the long term.

Ok, here's the difference. The Republicans have been playing power politics and acting in bad faith to politicize an institution that is not supposed to be politicized. The answer to that is not to throw away the framework and make it a permanently nakedly politicized institution and permanently do away with one of the checks and balances in the constitution.  If you do that, you will have already lost, even though you have "won."  Do you see the difference?

[jimbogumbo]

Sure, you can rationalize it however you like. Short and medium term it might be a good idea. Long term, it will be a disastrous precedent.

The reality is that the current situation is already very bad in the long term. This is compounded by the fact that it's arisen out of bad-faith governance and undemocratic outcomes, and cannot be remedied through the usual democratic processes. There is zero hope of remedy without extraordinary action. That's very, very bad for the long term.

Ok, here's the difference. The Republicans have been playing power politics and acting in bad faith to politicize an institution that is not supposed to be politicized. The answer to that is not to throw away the framework and make it a permanently nakedly politicized institution. If you do that, you will have already lost, even though you have "won."  Do you see the difference?

From an article by Elizabeth Nix: "The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since."

And, I'm going to suggest it might be a bad idea politically in the short term, but I in no way see this as "throwing away the framework".

[little bongo]

It's true that we often confuse "the framework" for "that's the way it's been for many years." As an article I just read pointed out, with McConnell and company, it's not even hypocrisy, really. It's just, "we do it because we can," complete with evil laugh and moustache-twirling. I'm inclined to agree that Dems can't beat that kind of thinking with misplaced worry about how history will view them later.

[Treehugger]

Sure, you can rationalize it however you like. Short and medium term it might be a good idea. Long term, it will be a disastrous precedent.

The reality is that the current situation is already very bad in the long term. This is compounded by the fact that it's arisen out of bad-faith governance and undemocratic outcomes, and cannot be remedied through the usual democratic processes. There is zero hope of remedy without extraordinary action. That's very, very bad for the long term.

Ok, here's the difference. The Republicans have been playing power politics and acting in bad faith to politicize an institution that is not supposed to be politicized. The answer to that is not to throw away the framework and make it a permanently nakedly politicized institution. If you do that, you will have already lost, even though you have "won."  Do you see the difference?

From an article by Elizabeth Nix: "The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since."

And, I'm going to suggest it might be a bad idea politically in the short term, but I in no way see this as "throwing away the framework".

I am more interested in knowing the reasons behind the changing number of justices and whether or not it was a question of a political power grab. I can definitely see perfectly legit reasons for changes the number. I can see an even number as being less than ideal, unless one justice has the deciding vote in case of a tie.

[jimbogumbo]

Sure, you can rationalize it however you like. Short and medium term it might be a good idea. Long term, it will be a disastrous precedent.

The reality is that the current situation is already very bad in the long term. This is compounded by the fact that it's arisen out of bad-faith governance and undemocratic outcomes, and cannot be remedied through the usual democratic processes. There is zero hope of remedy without extraordinary action. That's very, very bad for the long term.

Ok, here's the difference. The Republicans have been playing power politics and acting in bad faith to politicize an institution that is not supposed to be politicized. The answer to that is not to throw away the framework and make it a permanently nakedly politicized institution. If you do that, you will have already lost, even though you have "won."  Do you see the difference?

From an article by Elizabeth Nix: "The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since."

And, I'm going to suggest it might be a bad idea politically in the short term, but I in no way see this as "throwing away the framework".

I am more interested in knowing the reasons behind the changing number of justices and whether or not it was a question of a political power grab. I can definitely see perfectly legit reasons for changes the number. I can see an even number as being less than ideal, unless one justice has the deciding vote in case of a tie.

One of the changes (a reduction) was to prevent Andrew Johnson from nominating any Justices. That is the one I remembered, and I'd say it was blatantly political.

[Parasaurolophus]

Ok, here's the difference. The Republicans have been playing power politics and acting in bad faith to politicize an institution that is not supposed to be politicized. The answer to that is not to throw away the framework and make it a permanently nakedly politicized institution and permanently do away with one of the checks and balances in the constitution.  If you do that, you will have already lost, even though you have "won."  Do you see the difference?

It's hardly throwing away the framework. And while I agree that Republicans are unlikely not to pack themselves when they have the chance, the idea is not to just pack because Democrats can, but to use packing to shore up the institution Republicans are actively undermining. When they stop undermining, the packing would stop. That's the idea.

The alternative is to sit there and accept what they're doing, which is to "permanently nakedly [politicize the] institution and permanently do away with one of the checks and balances in the constitution." If they do that, it's all lost. Do you see the difference?

The alternative to the court-packing bandaid solution is going to be a major upheaval. And that seems like a bad thing to me, in amongst all the other things.

[financeguy]

Think of the upside to this. The right will lose a talking point that the left can't win at the voting booth so they have to either go to the courts or bring in ringers from other countries to tilt the vote toward the type of governments that they had to escape. A right leaning court solves both of those issues simultaneously and makes the left more accountable to actual voters rather than the loudest communist with a social media platform.

[writingprof]

My conservative take again:

I'm dying for Democrats to try to pack the Court.  It will be about as successful as that time I stepped on a rake.  Yet even if it succeeds, I'll be glad they did it, as the ultimate result would be the (greatly needed) diminishment of the Supreme Court's power and prestige.

[dismalist]

Ah, people: The difficulty lies not in our stars; it lies in us!

For reasons rooted in the 1968 so-called democratization of the presidential nominating process [primaries] and the subsequent polarization, not of overall opinion, but of electoral means and results predicated on those few believers voting in primaries, the Supreme Court had become confirmed as the go-to-guy to get the stuff you wanted, avoiding the messy process of convincing one's fellows in States and in the nation. The Supreme Court was never intended to do this or be this.

Scalia put all this most directly, and said words to the effect of

Hell, if we all wanna' go that way, let's have direct elections of justices!

Otherwise, not Scalia, but I, would say, forever hold your peace. :-)

[Parasaurolophus]

Think of the upside to this. The right will lose a talking point that the left can't win at the voting booth so they have to either go to the courts or bring in ringers from other countries to tilt the vote toward the type of governments that they had to escape. A right leaning court solves both of those issues simultaneously and makes the left more accountable to actual voters rather than the loudest communist with a social media platform.

And who, in this utopia of yours, holds the right to account when it oversteps its legal bounds?

Hell, who holds them to account politically when the electoral maps for the EC, Senate, and House are all so significantly tilted in one direction that defeating a Republican requires a surplus of millions each time? (Millions for the EC; proportionally more but numerically less for the others.)


Herrenvolk democracy, indeed.