The White House just came out against expanding the Supreme Court - BBC Live Blog

[NewsCenter28]

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-61709865

Biden doesn't agree with expanding top court - White House
President Biden will come under increasing pressure from Democrats to reform - especially to expand - the highest court in the US in the wake of Friday's historic abortion decision.

Biden launched a commission in April 2021 to explore possible reforms, but it avoided taking a position in its final report on so-called "court packing" by adding justices to the current nine on the bench - though it said it there was no legal obstacle in doing so.

Adding more justices to the court could shift the ideological balance of the bench, which currently leans conservative.

On Saturday, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre threw cold water on the possibility.

She told journalists travelling with the president to a G7 meeting in Europe that expanding the court "is something that the president does not agree with".

"That is not something that he wants to do."

She said there was "no final decision" she could share on any other proposed reforms, which include possible term limits for justices.

[JCMach1]

1. Biden doesn't recognize the existential threat to democracy... He's an institutionalist

[Amishman]

26. I think he absolutely does and is taking a long view.

Let's say we pack the court next month and we spiral further into a hard recession. The Pubs retake Congress in Nov, and the White House in 2024. There would be backlash against ending the legislative filibuster, so going that route adds to our chances of losing control

We've already crossed that bridge for them and taken the public backlash.

What then?

[GoCubsGo]

46. Yep, being an "institutionalist," he also knows the pitfalls involved.

I'm disappointed, but he has shown that he knows what he's doing, even when the rest of us don't immediately realize it. I don't see this being an exception to that.

[Fiendish Thingy]

64. We won't have the votes to expand the court until next year at the earliest

To unilaterally rule out expansion is just another symptom of the gerontocracy currently leading the party and the government.

[choie]

27. He's an institutionalist

who doesn't realize that our institutions have failed us over and over again.

[BootinUp]

2. I dont think his party will want him to have a second term. nt

[Me.]

7. Despite All THe Good He Has Done?

and the massive challenges he has faced?

[MFM008]

29. If he cant beat

Rump or. De santis. Why?

[Me.]

37. Who Says He Can't

and boy, with all the naysayers for their own DEm Pres, what hope is there?

[NJCher]

47. why can't we have

Adam Schiff for president.

Personally, I really like Biden and feel quite comfortable with him as president right now. If he stopped aging right- now-right-this-very-minute I would say go for it. But that is not the universe we live in.

That card thing that told him exactly what to do the other day does not look good.

And let's face it, we have some really good options.

Schiff has all the steadiness and evenness that Biden offers but he's young. He has name recognition because of his Jan 6 Senate committee work.

He hasn't said he'd run, but he would be my choice.

[Demsrule86]

54. It is him or a Republican. There is no one else who can win the rustbelt. Incumbents have

an advantage as well...and we support Democrats...especially the president.

[onecaliberal]

3. Every law passed will be struck down. How long do we need to be oppressed.

[Turbineguy]

4. This is the result of not voting.

These people never hid their intentions. Whether they are useful idiots for Putin or whatever.

You want to make the country worse? Don't vote. For whatever reason.

And we are now in the latency period from the trump era. This may last another 40 or 50 years.

Think of how long Germany was effected by having Hitler in change. And this was offset by the Marshall plan which probably took 50 years off.

[2naSalit]

17. +1

[Demsrule86]

55. Who else could win...the answer is no one...you primary a sitting president and kiss the office

goodbye. There is no Democrat who has survived this. And honestly, the lack of support for Democratic presidents and other Democratic elected is why we find ourselves here today.

[Fiendish Thingy]

61. Without expanding and neutering the illegitimate SCOTUS, democracy ends

So sure, give Joe a second term, it was fun while it lasted.

[Cha]

99. YES WE WILL GIVE PRES BIDEN a

SECOND TEMM, Fiendish Thiong.

💙💛

[Me.]

103. You Are Quite Right

and shouldn't we all be supporting our president at this time. And what is the alternative...?

[JohnSJ]

104. +++

[Me.]

90. Right On THe Money

[WhiskeyGrinder]

6. Utterly unsurprising.

[Lars39]

8. Disappointing

[questionseverything]

9. Good bye freedom, 'twas grand while it lasted

[superpatriotman]

10. We'll just let McConnell do it

That will be good for everybody.

[TwilightZone]

21. Roosevelt failed.

You know that, right?

On the off chance that you don't, here's a good article about it:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-franklin-roosevelt-clashed-with-the-supreme-court-and-lost-78497994/

[Fullduplexxx]

45. Congress, however, does have the prerogative to change the make-up of the Court, Woolner points out,

Congress, however, does have the prerogative to change the make-up of the Court, Woolner points out, and past leaders have called for similar actions, including President Theodore Roosevelt, in his famous 1910 “New Nationalism” speech. “So for Roosevelt to engage in court reform is not unprecedented,” Woolner says. “But what is unprecedented is the way he went about it.”

Times have changed

[TwilightZone]

50. Yes, it's in the Senate's discretion.

Find them 60 votes and I'm sure they'll get right on that.

[Fiendish Thingy]

67. Only need 52 senators presently. Nt

[LeftInTX]

30. Roosevelt did not have the votes with 68 Democratic Senators!

We need 60 to push this. You think any Republican is gonna vote for this?

[onenote]

94. Actually, FDR had 75 Democratic Senators

And the idea still couldn't get out of committee.

[musette_sf]

12. I hope this is just

a planned stopgap - to be gradually escalated to “well, we didn’t want to have to do it, but the clear and present dangers left us no other option but to expand the court, for the protection of all of the American people.”

[JohnSJ]

14. I cannot find in the link supplied where Biden has said that AFTER the SC decision

Yes, Biden has previously indicated that he did not favor that, but if we win enough of a majority I believe that view will change

[MontanaFarmer]

15. Expanding the court is not going to happen.

It's a distraction. Zero chance, never was, probably never will. Biden is a realist, as much as he's an institutionalist. He knows he's way more than 2 senators short on such a move, so no need to have the fight. The more realistic path to fixing this anti-woman, anti-democratic failure of a decision is through 52 states IMO. One man's opinion, fire away as you will, but I've seen no evidence that there is any real will to pack the court in any circles of the center-left, which is where the battle would be fought.

[questionseverything]

18. If the justice department did its job and arrested the 8 senators that were involved in 1-6

We would have enough votes in the senate

[LeftInTX]

33. Only if they are convicted of felonies. They can still serve:

If they are arrested, under trial, guilty and are out on appeals.

They only way they are kicked out, is if they have a final conviction.

[questionseverything]

40. Remind me where in the constitution seditious senators are guaranteed bail?

[LeftInTX]

41. Remind me where they aren't?

[onenote]

95. Remind where folks accused of sedition don't have the same presumption of innocence.

I'm curious which eight Senators you think could be charged with seditious conspiracy and the evidence supporting that charge.

[Me.]

39. And What If

the extra justices turn out to be conservatives. How does that help, as there is no guarantee? Some think he can do it tomorrow and bing bam it's done. There is the approval process and then a votes needed both of which can be stalled over and over.

[questionseverything]

56. Are you saying the president can't be counted on to nominate good justices?

[Me.]

59. Don't Be Silly

By the time his choices would make it through the approval process, which, by the way, would be delayed every which way by the cons, his term/s might have ended. That is if he could get his nominees approved without first getting rid of the filibuster.

[questionseverything]

62. You said they might be conservatives ...

Now you are changing the conversation

[Me.]

65. Honestly

a. if a dem like PJB, for whatever reason, doesn't get to make the appointments aka choices.

b. who does?

[questionseverything]

74. Post # 39 , you said, " they might be conservative "

[Me.]

79. Do Try To Figure It Out

it's been made clear enough in this thread

[Fiendish Thingy]

68. There is no filibuster to approve SC nominees.

If we have the votes to expand the court, then we would have the votes to ram through the nominees for the new seats.

[Me.]

72. And If We Don't

or some DEms don't want to vote in favor of what the president wants (where has that happened before?) then where are we?

[NickB79]

60. Obama nominated a good justice

The GOP stonewalled until Trump was elected 🤬

[questionseverything]

63. Hind sight being 20/20

He should of fought harder for that appointment

[Me.]

66. THank You

[MontanaFarmer]

86. To build on that... it could be expanded again by a conservative triumvirate, no?

Not so simple imo.

[Me.]

88. Exactly

As i keep saying, there are no guarantees

[NewHendoLib]

16. Short sighted. Sad

[dalton99a]

36. Peace for our time, through preemptive surrender and unilateral disarmament

[Zeitghost]

49. Being shortsighted

Is wanting to pack the court and then assuming it won't be re-packed when the pendulum of American politics swings back the other way, which would be sooner than later if you pack the court the first time.

Biden is a wise politician and knows this would backfire.

[TwilightZone]

51. I don't understand why more people can't see this.

It's a bit mind-boggling, frankly.

[NewHendoLib]

75. It's because where we are now is abominable. Got to do something!

[Hav]

83. Thank you, it's the opposite of being shortsighted

and it's embarrassing that this has to be explained. It's laughable that some posters believe that Dems can change the rules arbitrarily and that it will somehow only be to the advantage of one party forever. That's such an unbelievably naive mindset.

The US is damn lucky that its institutions and to a large degree the judicial system acted as a barrier against a coup. Do we want to replay that game after Trump packed the courts?

[Cha]

100. Thank You!!

💙💛

[chowder66]

19. Article from ABC News

snip...
The commission unanimously adopted a report late last year, in which they warned that excessive change to the institution could cause democracy to regress in the future.

The panel found "considerable" support for 18-year term limits for justices, but the issue of expanding the court beyond nine seats was met with "profound disagreement."


https://abcnews.go.com/US/biden-support-expanding-supreme-court-white-house/story?id=85703773

[questionseverything]

24. The constitution has to be changed to change the time on the court

Nothing is stopping the number from being changed

[chowder66]

28. The commission seems to think differently. That doesn't mean there

aren't other remedies or that their thinking could change but that is where they seem to stand at the moment.

[questionseverything]

35. I doubt any of the "bi partisan commission "

Is being forced to have their rapist’s baby


Enlarging the Supreme Court is our only hope

[Fiendish Thingy]

69. The commission took no position, pro or con re: expansion

It was a waste of time,

[chowder66]

76. Correct but the report concludes profound disagreement on expansion based on the study

and it being unpopular with the public. They feel term limits tracks better with the public.

Maybe that is changing and the public will come around... but on the face of it, it doesn't seem to have enough support to move forward at this time.

"The second chapter covers court expansion. Supporters, the report says, argue that expansion is necessary to address “serious violations of norms governing the confirmation process and troubling developments in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence that they see as undermining the democratic system.” Opponents, the report says, argue the move would “diminish [the court’s] independence and legitimacy” and may be used by “any future political force as a means of pressuring or intimidating the Court.” The report concludes that, like the commission’s own members (who are mostly law professors), the broader public is in “profound disagreement” on expansion."

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/12/presidential-court-commission-approves-final-report-identifying-disagreement-on-expansion/

[Me.]

42. Term Limits Is A Great Idea

[Fiendish Thingy]

71. False- not true

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/06/1061959400/bidens-supreme-court-commission-releases-draft-report

Still, the report states pretty unequivocally that Congress does have the power to enlarge the court, but it takes no position on doing so. On term limits, it seems to suggest that a constitutional amendment is likely necessary, and it points to the practical difficulties of implementing term limits at the same time that there are sitting justices with life terms on the court.

[Afrocat]

20. I shake my head at this

One one hand I understand not tipping the cards and then running dropping a "surprise motherfucker" on them after the elections. On the other hand we need our leaders to show us they are ready to go to the mat for us. This being concerned about the ideological tilt of the court is insane after the bullshit they've pulled. I know I'm not the brightest bulb in the room, but this whole slate of decision is the right wing wish list of crazy.

- Can't put somebody on in an election year
*Unless it's about a month before the election

- Rapists are ok

- Sexual harassers and molesters are ok

- Liars are ok

- Brainwashed theologically driven cultists are ok

- Ideologically driven decisions that are 100% going to make shit worse is ok

- Packing the court not ok

- Calling them on the hypocrisy and the shit they are doing not ok


We're going to keep on trying to do this the nice way right on into fanatical dystopia where blue run states are taking political refugees from the red.

[Paladin]

22. We're going to have to fix things ourselves. Our leaders aren't going to come through for us.

Get ready for a rumble, and a place in the history books.

[budkin]

23. Political suicide tbh

We need someone bold.

[Magoo48]

25. That's really fucking sad to simply sweep something off the table like that.

While we’re at it: nuke the filibuster.

[Magoo48]

31. We need our leaders strong and enthusiastic right now. The must put themselves out front.

Be creative, be courageous. Now’s not the time to retire any weapons from the arsenal. Now is the time to do things forgotten and things never done.

[dalton99a]

32. The arsonist is busy burning down the house

but the homeowner refuses to pick up the fire extinguisher

because they're afraid the arsonist might not approve

[Cha]

101. That's NOT True.

💙💛

[treestar]

34. Why would this help?

There can still be a majority conservative court. a 7-6 decision rather than a 5-4 decision does what?

[Me.]

44. Exactly

there is no guarantee and then it would be even harder. The term limits idea from a post above might be the best solution plus voting the cons out of office.

[Hav]

84. It doesn't help and it doesn't solve anything, it's just a fantasy

that people laugh to scream about. The only purpose is to blame Dems.
Some might believe that the future decisions would be 10:6 in favor of Dems when it's just as likely that it would be 100:20 in favor of repubs once they are done doing the same. Ivanka and Donald being SC justices among other deplorable clowns will be fun I guess.

[ecstatic]

38. Biden is wrong here. He needs to let go of the past

and see the present for what it really is. Anyway, I don't think he is really needed to change this. Isn't it up to congress?

[Autumn]

43. Sooner or later the conservative and Pukes will work with us to save our democracy?

[867-5309.]

48. Dammit, Joe

You're a helluva good man whose heart is in the right place. But you're playing by Marquess of Queensberry rules while they kick us in the groin.

[AkFemDem]

52. What? No way! Impossible!

Because when I said for some reason despite having a majority that democrats were loathe to do this yesterday, so many people told me I was wrong. 🤔

[Demsrule86]

53. He will certainly deny it before the midterms...and it is a sword over the head of SCOTUS.

Say we codify Roe and SCOTUS gets involved...we can enlarge the court then. Why give them an issue before the midterms? We have no way of doing it until we have more Democrats.

[NewsCenter28]

97. That I can buy

Thanks for the post, Demsrule. That is very plausible!

[questionseverything]

98. It's exactly backwards

We need some hope before the midterms, the idea of adding to the sc to make the repubs ineffective would generate some excitement on our side…. As it is right now democratic women feel abandoned

[Etherealoc1]

57. Utter BULL SH*T

We have a host of issues hanging in the balance that SCOTUS is messing with.

Pack the F*CKIN courts and use every available tool to right this ship.

Having our ass kicked in spite of holding all levels of GOV'T is demoralizing.

We need folks to come out in droves to vote for Democrats to add at least 2 more Senators and hold the house.

They need to know that their President will come out fighting tooth and nail for them.

[bdamomma]

89. that is

it vote in 2 Senators from Ohio/Pennsylvania (Tim Ryan and Fetterman) to stop Manchin and Sinema.

[Buckeyeblue]

58. I think Thomas needs to be investigated and probably impeached

I think Brett K needs to be investigated to determine how his bills were paid. Who does he owe for the financial help.

I think the entire court needs to be put on notice that they are being watched for corruption. That extends to all federal judges too.

I think the court should be dramatically expanded. But I think the lifetime appointments need to be changed (I know it takes a constitutional amendment). I think expansion without reform is only a short term solution.

[questionseverything]

70. It's way past time for those investigations

Makes me wonder why the justice department can’t see it?

[Buckeyeblue]

77. I think SC justices have always been off limits.

It's a tough seal to pop. But they need to do it.

[questionseverything]

78. No one is supposed to be above the law

[brooklynite]

80. He won't and he won't...

Next idea?

[Buckeyeblue]

81. I know. But he (especially Thomas) should

[doc03]

73. Get real the Republicans are just going let Biden

appoint liberal judges. He doesn't have the votes.

[brooklynite]

82. Just to add a touch of reality to this discussion...there are no quick fixes

We won't be expanding the Court.

We won't be imposing term limits.

We won't be Impeaching any of the conservative Justices.

[sl8]

85. Link to the report (pdf)

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/SCOTUS-Report-Final-12.8.21-1.pdf

Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States
FINAL REPORT

[bdamomma]

87. what about

term limits???? McConnell apparently doesn't give a shit, he increased from 8 to 9 justices.

[JoanofArgh]

91. We don't have the votes. Period.

[AntivaxHunters]

92. Joe Biden also come out against ending the filibuster

I am absolutely furious right now.
I know were not supposed to criticize Democrats on here but................UGH!!!!!!!!!!

This is NOT good!!

[AntiFascist]

93. -1 n/t

[Cha]

102. KEEP OUR EYES ON THE PRIZE!! MIDTERMS!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216848250

💙💛