General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs it time to expand the Supreme Court once again?
When one political Party uses hook or crook to get an advantage on the Court, then perhaps it is time to balance it out? Since Kavanaugh is not going to be accepted as a legitimate Justice, then maybe we should add one more Justice to the Court? But who will break the tie! The Justices should have to reach a majority opinion in order to change the laws of this country. A 5-4 majority cannot be accepted if their intent is to change this country with 5-4 decisions. Adding one more Justice would force them to get a 6-4 majority amongst themselves. That's my suggestion for today.
TheRealNorth
(9,500 posts)Some right-wing hack group will challenge it in court and any expansion would then be shot down by the RW hacks in the Supreme Court.
dalton99a
(81,599 posts)NEOBuckeye
(2,781 posts)A new Democratic majority and president could indeed make it happen.
The added bonus would be that it would erase Mitch McConnell's work and legacy.
Constitution doesnt mention a number for SCOTUS. Leaves the details to Congress, and it has varied over the years.
onenote
(42,768 posts)Despite having Democratic majorities that dwarfed anything we are like to see in our lifetimes.
Soxfan58
(3,479 posts)kentuck
(111,110 posts)He's happy with where it is now.
Meadowoak
(5,560 posts)MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)A single mom, LGBTQ individual, or non-Christian would bring way more of a unique perspective than someone who just brings something different between their legs or a slightly different shade of skin.
spooky3
(34,483 posts)of the population.
LiberalFighter
(51,104 posts)brooklynite
(94,745 posts)LiberalFighter
(51,104 posts)SCantiGOP
(13,874 posts)But Ive always thought of an odd number as being some kind of natural law. The 6-4 requirement you describe might be a good idea. Dilutes the five Koch Brothers on the current Court, and you can push it to conservatives as being a hedge against activist judges changing laws.
Now, we just need a POTUS and both chambers of Congress to make it happen.
dalton99a
(81,599 posts)then do it.
Just fucking do it.
onenote
(42,768 posts)The same thing?
dalton99a
(81,599 posts)onenote
(42,768 posts)And confirm new justices before New Years
dalton99a
(81,599 posts)This is 2018, not 1937
onenote
(42,768 posts)kcr
(15,320 posts)Imagine a radio with moving pictures. It just might work, too. Crazy...
Adenoid_Hynkel
(14,093 posts)Whether this year or, all but assured in 2020
As soon as McConnell is ousted, Dems should run on this, citing the issues of these last two seats
brokephibroke
(1,883 posts)But first we need to win the congress and the WH. We have much to do to make America great again.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Democrats engage in policy war.
I will once again point to this article: https://www.vox.com/2018/5/1/17258866/democratic-party-republicans-trump-election
...my point is that no policy platform is going to win three or four consecutive national elections for Democrats because we know policy isnt what decides elections; thats not how most voters make decisions.
So there are no policy changes that are going to reverse the overall trajectory that this society is on right now. We have to address some of the structural barriers to progressive power in this country, and we need to take those things as seriously as we do the policy fights within the party.
Sean Illing
I definitely want to get into some of these structural barriers, but lets be clear about this point youre making. A lot of people still think theres some meaningful connection between policy outcomes and voter decisions, but theres a good bit of political science research to suggest thats just a fantasy.
David Faris
Right. People just dont seem to make the connection between policies and the party in power.
So, for example, the Democrats passed Obamacare and gave millions of people heath care, and yet tons of people who benefited from it have no idea what it is or how they benefited. And its like that with a lot of policies voters simply dont connect the dots, and so they reward or punish the wrong party.
I think the idea that were going to deliver these benefits to people and theyre going to be like, Thank you Jesus, thank you for everything that youve done, let me return you with a larger majority next time, is just nonsense. Its the wrong way to think about politics.
That doesnt mean we shouldnt do things for people, but weve got to be serious about how elections are won. And theyre not being won on the basis of policy proposals or policy wins.
Sean Illing
In the book, you say that Democrats are engaged in policy fights and Republicans are waging a procedural war. What does that mean?
David Faris
The Constitution is a shockingly short document, and it turns out that its extremely vague on some key procedures that we rely on to help government function at a basic level. For the government to work, cooperation between parties is needed. But when that cooperation is withdrawn, it creates chaos.
Since the 90s, when Newt Gingrich took over Congress, weve seen a one-sided escalation in which Republicans exploit the vagueness or lack of clarity in the Constitution in order to press their advantage in a variety of arenas from voter ID laws to gerrymandering to behavioral norms in the Congress and Senate.
Sean Illing
What the Republicans did to Merrick Garland was one of the most egregious examples Ive ever seen.
David Faris
Right. They essentially stole a seat on the Supreme Court a swing seat, no less. But they correctly argued that they had no clear constitutional obligation to consider the presidents nominee for the seat. They didnt violate the Constitution. They violated the spirit of the Constitution. They violated the norms that have allowed these institutions to function normally for years and years.
This is the sort of maneuvering and procedural warfare Im talking about, and the Republicans have been escalating it for two decades. And theyve managed to entrench their power through these dubious procedures.
The result is that the structural environment is biased against Democrats and the Republicans have engineered it that way.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)It didnt give anyone healthcare. It gave many people INSURANCE that didnt have it before, but in reality for the vast majority of people, healthcare is more expensive (and this less accessible) than its ever been.
Im one of those people. When you pay $7,000 in premiums followed by a $7,000 deductible, thats not healthcare.
Response to kentuck (Original post)
geralmar This message was self-deleted by its author.
Azathoth
(4,611 posts)McConnell going nuclear on the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees opened the door. Republicans are tossing out norms, so let's toss them all out.
Pack the court. The Republicans will scream and clutch their pearls, then will do the exact same thing when they regain power. Then we'll do the same thing again. Eventually, after the court ends up with dozens of justices, both sides will have to agree to a term limit amendment, and in the meantime, the court will be forced to issue only broad consensus decisions.
hardluck
(641 posts)Then we don't have to worry about the repubs raising the number when they get in power. We could have the cases be like reality tv and text our opinion like in America's Got Talent. Maybe we can get Appellant and Respondent to do a little routine. Ratings gold...
shanny
(6,709 posts)lest we upset the pukes and they retaliate.
fwiw, they ALREADY packed the Court.
greymattermom
(5,754 posts)And how many are opus dei? This will keep pedophile priests out of jail, will make abortion murder, perhaps with the death penalty for women, and then what???
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)a Democratic President, OK? Then it might be time. Right now, it's most definitely not the right time.
Response to kentuck (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed