Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Celerity

(42,666 posts)
Sat Sep 18, 2021, 03:01 AM Sep 2021

Dems are coming around to the idea of adding 4 more justices, to correct for Trump's 2 'extra' picks

‘Court-Packing’ Doesn’t Seem So Radical After TX Abortion Law

https://www.thedailybeast.com/court-packing-doesnt-seem-so-radical-after-tx-abortion-law



Supreme Court expansion is no longer dismissed as a crazy idea, not after six conservative justices hijacked a Texas case to ban almost all abortions in the state, issuing their opinion on a shadow docket in the dead of night without so much as signing their names. Even the chief justice, John Roberts, who wrote a dissent, is powerless to stop the slide. The stunning ruling, designed to advance an ideological agenda, adds urgency and credibility to efforts to overhaul the Supreme Court, knowing more such lopsided decisions are surely on the way. “How can you see this happen and ignore the reality that this court has been captured by the Federalist Society and by right-wing elements of the Republican Party,” Minnesota Senator Tina Smith told The Daily Beast. “Instead of sitting and whining, I want to do something,” she said. And for Smith that meant signing on to the Judiciary Act of 2021, which would add four seats to the nine-member Supreme Court, making up for “two appointments that should have been made by other presidents,” she said, referring to Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, Trump appointees confirmed only because of Mitch McConnell’s sleight of hand in changing Senate rules.

Smith is the second Senate Democrat to support the legislation sponsored by Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey. Sen. Alex Padilla of California has also said he supports court-packing, though he hasn't yet signed on to the measure. The House bill has 31 cosponsors, mainly progressives. It’s not a stampede, but Supreme Court expansion is gaining traction like a slow-moving freight train bearing down on the political process. Former California Senator Barbara Boxer, once opposed to filibuster reform, a prerequisite to Supreme Court reform, now favors court expansion and other changes, including an age limit, and she is blunt in declaring Justice Stephen Breyer, 83, should step down while Democrats have the power to confirm his replacement. “He’s had a wonderful career,” she told the Los Angeles Times. “Look, I had a wonderful career and people said, ‘How could you walk away?’ There’s a time to do it. There’s a season for everything.” Breyer isn’t taking the hint, at least not yet. He’s out and about promoting his new book, The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics, which is based on a high-minded lecture he gave at Harvard declaring that the Supreme Court must be seen as above politics, and he and his colleagues all get along just fine. The notion that collegiality trumps partisan politics was perhaps truer than it is today when Breyer joined the Supreme Court, almost 30 years ago.

“I agree with Justice Breyer that the legitimacy of the court depends on it being seen as above politics—but it’s not being seen that way, and I’m willing to say the Supreme Court is not legitimate anymore,” said Chris Kang with Demand Justice. “What the court did in the Texas case is so extreme, middle of the night, an unsigned opinion, no oral arguments,” that there is no turning back. “The court can’t help itself but rule in ways that hinder its own legacy—and the rule of law,” Kang continued. To educate voters about the need for Supreme Court expansion, Demand Justice is mounting a $1.5 million grassroots campaign. The advocacy group ran ads in Minnesota to thank Smith for her support. “Legislation is the only solution that is both long lasting and immediate,” said Kang. Polling has shown Democrats support Supreme Court expansion by a wide margin, and the abortion issue unleashed by the Texas ruling could prove galvanizing for Democrats in next year’s midterms. After the Supreme Court announced in May that it would take a Mississippi case challenging Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion, Sarah Lipton-Lubet switched careers from abortion rights advocacy to become executive director of Take Back the Court, a Supreme Court reform group that was founded in 2018. “It was a clearly significant moment for me that this is the work I should be doing,” she said. “It’s a newer issue so it takes time for people to understand it. But once they do, they see it’s essential to preserving the core of our democracy.”

There’s what she refers to as “an incorrect notion that the Supreme Court is untouchable, and you’re stuck with the court you found.” Nine is not a magic number. The size of the Supreme Court has varied from just six justices in 1789 when the Constitution took effect to a high of 10 during the Civil War. The number nine was established by law in 1869. The phrase “court packing” has a negative connotation going back to FDR’s attempt to add justices that would be friendly to his New Deal. FDR’s effort backfired when Congress wouldn’t go along with it, but the Supreme Court tempered its opposition to his agenda after he won reelection, negating the need for more justices. Today’s Supreme Court doesn’t appear to hold out any change in the tribal political stance of the three newest conservative justices—Neil Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett—and the two other longer-serving conservatives, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, have demonstrated a solid allegiance to the Republican right on social and cultural issues. Adding four justices, as the House and Senate propose, would bring the total to 13, identical to the number of circuit courts. “The Markey bill makes sense. Four members makes sense,” said Smith. “People tend to focus on one reform, but there is a portfolio of reforms that we can look at including a judicial code of ethics.”

snip
13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Dems are coming around to the idea of adding 4 more justices, to correct for Trump's 2 'extra' picks (Original Post) Celerity Sep 2021 OP
everything dems want needs to be done before midterms when we may lose senate nt msongs Sep 2021 #1
It's the House that is more likely to be lost. n/t PoliticAverse Sep 2021 #2
You don't think slightlv Sep 2021 #3
Get it done right now. You know they would. BSdetect Sep 2021 #4
I feel the same about this as I do about the filibuster: it's fine as long as we're in office. Vinca Sep 2021 #5
I think the court should be expanded because the country had expanded Buckeyeblue Sep 2021 #6
Quickly now... Blue Owl Sep 2021 #7
Adam Serwer expressed this very well on Twitter... bullwinkle428 Sep 2021 #8
I'm sick and tired of the term "packing the court" hvn_nbr_2 Sep 2021 #9
Supreme Court expansion/re-balancing Celerity Sep 2021 #10
How are we going to balance the court when Manchin and Sinema Marius25 Sep 2021 #11
Another way is 9 justices, 18 year term limits scipan Sep 2021 #12
Unlikely to be constitutional FBaggins Sep 2021 #13

slightlv

(2,635 posts)
3. You don't think
Sat Sep 18, 2021, 06:21 AM
Sep 2021

court reform of this import could be a vote driver? As a woman, whose rights as a first class citizen is at risk, I think it does. I would be sorely disappointed if my brothers and sisters didn't think our rights were important enough to get out and vote to support us.

Vinca

(50,170 posts)
5. I feel the same about this as I do about the filibuster: it's fine as long as we're in office.
Sat Sep 18, 2021, 06:48 AM
Sep 2021

If a right wing nut beats Biden, he or she will add another 2 seats to the court to tip the balance again. If Mitch is in charge of the Senate without a filibuster in place, those judges are rapidly installed and everything we stand for is immediately out. I don't know the solution, but it seems we need a supermajority in both the House and Senate to enact laws to counteract the right wing SCOTUS and make sure voting rights are protected so we don't have another right wing nut to contend with in the White House.

Buckeyeblue

(5,491 posts)
6. I think the court should be expanded because the country had expanded
Sat Sep 18, 2021, 09:05 AM
Sep 2021

It's been about 150 years since we decided on 9 justices. The country has expanded dramatically since then and so should the court. I think the number should be in the 20's. I also think that there should be a retirement age or a SC limit. Perhaps at the age of 75, a SC justice has the option of being reassigned to a federal appeals spot or retiring.

I know the court can be increased through legislation but I think some of the other limitations may need a constitutional amendment.

I think if Biden is going to expand he should really expand it. What about 25 justices? I think federal courts should be expanded as well. It shouldn't take years for a case to make its way through the process.

bullwinkle428

(20,626 posts)
8. Adam Serwer expressed this very well on Twitter...
Sat Sep 18, 2021, 09:25 AM
Sep 2021

This is in response to the right-wingers on the Court expressing their "SHOCK...SHOCK!!!" that the SC is "suddenly" being viewed as "political".

...the reason they're upset about this is because now that they have an ironclad majority, they don't want people to question the legitimacy of the agenda they are about to pursue

hvn_nbr_2

(6,481 posts)
9. I'm sick and tired of the term "packing the court"
Sat Sep 18, 2021, 11:02 AM
Sep 2021

The court was already packed by McConnell and Trump. What's being proposed is unpacking the court.

scipan

(2,296 posts)
12. Another way is 9 justices, 18 year term limits
Sat Sep 18, 2021, 04:42 PM
Sep 2021

Then they go to the lower courts to serve, to get around the lifetime term in the Constitution.

That would mean each President gets to appoint 2 justices in 4 years. Any justice who dies or resigns would be replaced by the president but the term limit date wouldn’t change.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Dems are coming around to...