"packing" the court doesn't poll well

[Proud liberal 80]

Or so I keep hearing. Guess what else didn't poll well (holding up the Garland nomination and now rushing Barrett through). But Republicans in the Senate have the right attitude in "We know it isn't popular, but Fuck it, we are going to do it any way while we have the power" And that is the difference between Dems and Reps. When we are power we are scared to take action because of what the public thinks. That why we had a watered down stimulus bill in 2009 and a watered down ACA in 2010. The point is, parties are always going to pay a political price for decisions, but you have to do all you can when you are in the majority.

[Marie Marie]

1. Something tells me that even if we control the House, the Senate and the WH,

the Democrats won't do this. I hope that I am wrong. And, it is not "packing the courts" it is balancing them,

[Proud liberal 80]

3. you are right

it will be 2009 all over again when Dems were fighting amongst themselves (Blanche Lincoln, that Senator from Nebraska, Lieberman, etc...) It was nauseating.

and yes, I hate that term "packing"....

[WSHazel]

2. There are not enough single issue "anti-court packing" voters to make a difference

people care about outcomes, not process.

[Proud liberal 80]

4. yes you right

I like that phrase...something the Dems should understand.

[RockRaven]

5. "We must fix McConnell's blocking and Trump's packing to protect the will of the people"

There. Quick sound bite with no fancy words.

You can add all the caveats and details after the first sentence, or when argued with. But make the first sentence short and simple.

[JI7]

6. Becsuse of the way the media reports it

[no_hypocrisy]

7. How about Republicans "packing the Court"? How does THAT poll?

[Statistical]

8. Yes you are right. The only thing that matters is the exact letter of the law.

Is increasing the size of the courts legal? Then do it. However my guess is it won't happen. Eventually the pendulum will swing the other way and when Republicans are in power they will say fuck the polls and do everything to the limits of their power.

I don't know what it will take to change that. One would think losing the Supreme Court permanently for 20 years would but I wonder.

[LakeArenal]

9. If we win three branches then we can do it. Public opinion will be different then.

The Constitution does not stipulate the number of Supreme Court Justices; the number is set instead by Congress. There have been as few as six, but since 1869 there have been nine Justices, including one Chief Justice.

www.whitehouse.gov › the-judicial-...
The Judicial Branch | The White House

Except when Obama went almost a year when 8 was enough for Pukes.

[MFM008]

10. who cares

it has to happen.

[StClone]

14. Exactly-If the Repiggies for their Oligarch backers...

can destroy the system for evil, we can restore it for good. Democrats not tackling this immediately will condemn our children, Grandchildren to enslavement by the super wealthy.

[Proud liberal 80]

15. I completely agree

My point is that next year when we have the House, Senate, and WH there is going to be a lot of in-fighting between Dems, of course the Reps will be crying that we are "packing the court", the MSM is going to beat the Dems up, the polls will say that we shouldn't do it...and guess what, the Dems won't do it. And I think regardless of all that, their attitude should be "Fuck it, we are doing it"...That has been the Republicans attitude for the last 20 years when they have the power, while ours has been "oh wait, we need bipartisanship" or "lets get a better consensus" or "oh, we cannot advance this nominee because this Republican Senator used his blue slip, and we have to honor that"

[Takket]

11. it is all how you frame it.......

as a candidate it sounds bad, and there is frankly no reason to commit to doing it. the people already in your corner know you were going to do it so the only thing talking about it could possibly do is alienate some fence sitters.

as a president, with hopefully a landslide victory, NOW Biden has a mandate and can firmly claim that the people have spoke out on the stolen SCOTUS seats and want justice (pun intended). Seat 4 justices in the first term and by the time 2024 rolls around, it will have faded from people's minds and we'll be pleased that the left leaning court has protected that programs the majority wants.

[Proud liberal 80]

19. I agree

But I am about to break the DU rules.....................Democrats are weak and don't play hardball!

[VOX]

12. If the situation was reversed, Republicans would add as many judges as possible.

They wouldn’t hesitate one hot second.

[Proud liberal 80]

16. yep

[StClone]

18. As noted by several the Rs did reset the SCOTUS to Eight seats

When they saw it as an advantage to hold out Garland for many months.

[Liberal In Texas]

13. We need to call it Court Reorganization.

Which is what it is and allowed by the Constitution.

"Packing" IIRC was invented to describe adding seats by repubs when Franklin Roosevelt was wanting to do it. They do have a talent of branding things negatively or to be completely misleading.

[Proud liberal 80]

21. yes

They do have a talent of branding things negatively or to be completely misleading.

Yes, they are good at branding things while we suck at it.

'Pro Life'
'Values Voters'
'Right to Work'
'Freedom Conference'

[MFGsunny]

30. This! a 1,000,000 times this. MESSAGE CONTENT MATTERS. n/t

[Liberty Belle]

17. Reframe it as "balancing the courts" not packing the courts.

The Republicans have blocked Obama from appointing anyone for an entire year; Trump got 3 nominations in a single term, more than some get in 8 yeasr, and most of the court is already conservative even before Coney Barrett.

It would be different if the majority of Americans agreed with what conservatives want to do, but polls repeatedly show that they don't. Most support Roe and the ACA.

So balancing the courts, if need be with a modest expansion would help bring the pendulum back to the middle, where most Americans are politically.

This could also be argued to be a good idea because with a couple of extra justices, it would be easier for one or more justices to recuse themselves if they have conflicts of interest, and also arguably in the era of COVID if heaven forbid a couple of older justices were to become debilitated or die, say in a case where another was recused, this would assure that there are still enough justices who heard all the arguments left to decide, and not leave themselves too short on members if there were a prolonged confirmation battle for a replacement.

[Proud liberal 80]

20. I agree

Reframe it as "balancing the courts" not packing the courts.

I agree, but we Democrats have sucked at messaging and slogans while the Republicans are good at it.

[Liberal In Texas]

35. "Balancing" is a good description too.

I like "Reorganization" as it is a bit more oblique.

Dems need to NEVER say "packing" again.

[Poiuyt]

22. 16 of the last 20 SC justices (if you include Barrett) have been appointed by GOP presidents

That despite the fact that in the last 30 years, Republican presidential candidates have won the popular vote just ONCE!

Let's restore the SC to reflect the American population.

[Groundhawg]

23. What happens when the rethugs rebalance the court back the other way again when they regain power?

[Proud liberal 80]

26. of course they will

that is a given, but who cares....maybe that is needed, make the SCOTUS so watered down where #1 it isn't as partisan, #2 there are less 5-4 or whatever the number splits, #3 we aren't on pins and needles hoping that an 89 year can stay alive

[NYC Liberal]

32. That's my thinking. If everyone keeps adding seats, then it'll become a joke and force real reform.

[SoonerPride]

24. If we win an overwhelming majority then we have a mandate

Republicans always act as if they have a mandate and they don’t even have a majority

If we take back the senate and Biden wins big then that is a mandate and we had better deliver on it

[Proud liberal 80]

27. yep

Republicans always act as if they have a mandate and they don’t even have a majority

Why is that always the case. The Republicans barely win ('00, '04, '16) and do whatever the fuck they want. But when the Democrats win big '08 and '12 we act like wimps.....Especially '08, I will never forget how we blew our chance right there.

[C_U_L8R]

25. Anti Republican Court Packing.

Rebalance the courts and weed out corrupt or unqualified judges. Law and order, baby.

[BlueWavePsych]

28. Packing the courts? What packing? Who said anything about packing? We just want a Senate Majority!

[TheRealNorth]

29. Pack the courts? We'll see what happens.....

[Iggo]

31. Oh.

Well then.

[Crunchy Frog]

33. Not packing, expanding.

Maybe if we took the bull by the horns more frequently, people would be more enthusiastic about voting for Dems even in years when the republic isn't at stake.

[Dave Starsky]

34. I'm guessing that taking away healthcare and women's rights...

Polls even less well, but let's just not talk about that. Guess we'll find out, won't we?

[myccrider]

36. Call it rebalance the courts...

and/or depoliticize the courts.

I flipping hope Dems do something substantive to greatly reduce the politicization of the fed courts, especially the SC. Just like we need to get rid of the stupid requirement for approval to raise the debt ceiling to remove that political football, too.

How about having a pool of 21 or 23 pre-approved SC justices who rotate into and out of sitting on the 11 seat SC in staggered 3 or 5 or 7 year terms, just to assure that not all are replaced at once. The ones not on the current SC bench serve on the expanded circuit courts* until it’s their turn, when they change places with the justice whose term is over. Death/retirement is filled by whoever is next up and is never decided by the Pres or Congress. Those branches of the gov would nominate and approve the new judge who would go to the bottom of the list of 21/23 rotating justices.

*We need expanded courts, it takes too long to get decisions now.