Justice Breyer issues warning on remaking Supreme Court: 'What goes around comes around'

[Jose Garcia]

Source: The Hill

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer issued a warning on remaking the Supreme Court, stating "what goes around comes around."

Breyer made the remark in an interview with NPR published Friday to promote his book "The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics."

"What goes around comes around. And if the Democrats can do it, the Republicans can do it," Breyer told the news outlet.

Conservatives currently hold a 6-3 majority on the high court, leading to some progressives to call for its expansion.

Read more: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/571636-justice-breyer-issues-warning-on-remaking-supreme-court-what-goes?amp&__twitter_impression=true

[ColinC]

1. If the democrats can do it, the republicans WILL do it

No matter what. Best to beat em to it from now on.

[Mr.Bill]

32. More like the republicans have done it.

Has any Democrat ever pulled a stunt like the ones Mithch McConnell pulled?

[ColinC]

36. Truth

[LakeArenal]

54. Exactly. Not just a packed SC but lower court judges too.

[Me.]

2. What A Stupid Remark For Him To Make

or is he unaware of the harm the court is doing?

[totodeinhere]

31. Not stupid at all.

The best way to remake the Court and dilute the conservative majority is for the Democrats to keep winning presidential elections so that as future vacancies occur a Democratic president will be in a positions to nominate replacements. If the Democrats pack the court now while they are in power, the Republicans will surely do it when they regain power. Does any one actually not believe that the Republicans will not do it the next time they get in power if the Democrats do it now? Of course they will. And under our two party system no one party will stay in power forever. The Republicans will surely regain power at some time in the future. We just don't know exactly when.

Justice Breyer has been a great progressive voice on the Court since President Clinton nominated him. I think it would behest us to listen to him.

[Mr.Bill]

43. The republicans will do it later

whether we do it now or not.

[totodeinhere]

45. Do you have a source for that? Or is that just your opinion?

You state that like it is a fact. The Republicans went nuclear on Supreme Court nominations only after Harry Red did the same for most presidential appointments. Don't you see a pattern here?

[Mr.Bill]

46. If there is a pattern to be seen

maybe look at republicans blocking presidential appointments to begin with.

And it's kind of ridiculous to ask someone for a source for something that's going to happen in the future.

[totodeinhere]

48. Blocking presidential appointments was why Harry Reid went

Last edited Fri Sep 10, 2021, 07:05 PM - Edit history (1)

nuclear on most presidential appointments in the first place. Yes, and I sympathize with that dilemma. But that gave McConnell cover to extend it to Supreme Court nominations as well. I think that is partly why we are in this predicament now. If the Democrats had been able to filibuster the three Trump nominations we would be in a much better place now. At the very least, Trump would have been forced to nominate more moderate candidates to the Court.

[Igel]

52. Things under Bush II were different.

A number of nominees were blocked and things weren't going to change.

Bush II's response wasn't to call for an end to the filibuster or something like that. It was to give lists of possible nominees to (D) and (R) powerbrokers in the Senate and see which ones could find a consensus. Bush II appointees got appointed--but they weren't as far right as they would have been and some turned out to be not to the right of center at all. We notice when one is right of center not because that's the pattern overall but because that's the pattern of what we notice.

The 4-letter word for what happened then is "compromise."

[Calista241]

55. While i generally agree with you

Most circuits courts had a a significant number of vacancies. The Chief Justice would publish yearly pleas for the Senate to confirm judges to fill those vacancies and lighten the caseload on the others.

[Polybius]

59. I agree except for Alito

He is as right-wing as it gets.

[totodeinhere]

68. And some people point to Roberts as an example of that.

But actually Roberts votes with the other conservatives most of the time. He has sided with the liberals on a few high profile cases. But I wonder if that is just for show so that he can continue claim that he is a moderating influence on the Court. And of course now he can afford to appear more moderate since the conservative block doesn't need his vote anymore.

[Steelrolled]

72. "But I wonder if that is just for show..."

Siding with the liberals "just for show" on high profile cases seems mighty fine to me. I think Roberts is the least predictable judge, which I view as a good thing.

[totodeinhere]

73. If Roberts votes with the liberals but the conservatives win 5-4 anyway what difference

does it make? I guess you can have the satisfaction that Roberts voted the right way but the bottom line is that the liberals lost the vote anyway. And when I call them conservatives I am being kind. I think a more accurate label would be "reactionaries."

[Polybius]

77. He voted with the liberals in quite a few deciding cases where the liberals won 5-4

For that, he has made a difference.

[Polybius]

58. Then how come they haven't done it in the past 150 years?

They've had opportunities to do it over the past 20 years even.

[Mr.Bill]

60. They changed the rules so they could approve a

Supreme Court Justice with only 51 votes. They refused to even consider Obama's choice of Merrick Garland for almost a year. They blocked almost every Obama pick for any courts. They did lots of things no one had ever done before. Now it's our turn to do so, or they will next time they are in power. We'll wake up one day and find the Court with lots more members and we will only control three votes. And people will say "Why didn't we do that?"

If we lose the Senate in 2022, Joe Biden will not get to appoint anyone to the Supreme Court no matter how many die or retire. I guarantee it. It's time to play hardball with these assholes.

[Polybius]

61. I agree that if we lose in 2022, Biden won't get to appoint anyone to the SC

As far as expanding the SC though, even if I could get behind it, it's too hard to do. Where are we going to get 60 votes for that?

[Mr.Bill]

62. I guess it would require eliminating the filibuster.

And even then, there are those several senators who like to play games and threaten to vote no on everything.

[Polybius]

63. We can eliminate the filibuster right after the 2022 election

All we need is a net gain of 2 Senators. We could do it today, but two Democrats oppose eliminating it.

[Mr.Bill]

64. Only problem is we also risk losing the Senate, and even the House in 2022.

Time will tell.

[totodeinhere]

69. It's too early to tell if we have a chance of picking up seats in the Senate or not.

But most observers don't give us much of a chance of retaining a House majority. Thinking about McCarthy as speaker and second in line in the presidential succession gives me nightmares.

[Steelrolled]

71. "The best way to remake the Court and dilute the conservative majority is for the Democrats to keep

winning presidential elections".

Exactly, this is what we got. BUT, if people like Breyer would retire at opportune times, like NOW, it would help a lot. RBG's legacy has been tainted by her refusal to retire, seemingly driven by ego, and it seems Breyer is headed down the same path.

[lapfog_1]

76. They will and have done it already

they stole outright 1 seat on SCOTUS. Either by holding up Obama's pick for ONE YEAR because an election was coming OR by giving Trump his third pick when early voting in the presidential election had already started.

Sorry, what goes around DOES come around... and it is time we Democrats deal out some "raw power" exercise of our own and remake the court to correct the over-reach by the repukes.

[totodeinhere]

80. No, Republicans have never tried to pack the Court. That is what we are talking about here.

What McConnell did to the Garland nomination was egregious and just plain wrong. But that was not court packing. The Republicans refused to allow a floor vote on the Garland nomination but they did not advocate adding extra justices. The Republicans have never made a serious attempt to pack the Court. But you better believe that if the Democrats do pack the Court the Republicans will do it also when they regain power. And we will be right back where we started.

[Casady1]

3. They already compromised the court

so this is a good thing?

[EarlG]

4. Gosh, yes, we wouldn't want Republicans throwing precedent out the window and

skewing the Supreme Court to the extreme right for decades, would we?!?!?

Oh, wait...

[MyOwnPeace]

19. DAMNED STRAIGHT!!!!

Let's see - he says that the 'Texas' decision is totally wrong - he believes the 'Bush-Gore' decision is totally wrong...........
but we shouldn't do anything?

[EYESORE 9001]

5. RepuQs have already packed the court

A larger number of SC justices will make it harder for either party to pack the court. Breyer talks like this will harm public perception of the SC. I got news for him: it’s not held in high esteem at the moment.

[totodeinhere]

47. No, packing the Supreme Court now will not make it harder for either court to do some more packing

later. The next time the Republicans gain power, and under our two party system that will almost surely happen at some point, the Republicans could easily pack the court again.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

6. Idiotic statement coming from a Supreme Court justice n/t

[FreepFryer]

7. Why on earth didn't he say this about the McConnell denial of consent and Trump S.C. appointments

Ummm

[Traildogbob]

16. Perfect

The ONLY response needed to be asked of him. To his damn face. Same damn argument about filibuster. Bow to the minority. Exactly what democracy is based on (sarcasm) Govern in fear of the minority. BS.

[Zen Democrat]

8. That's an ignorant comment. Time for him to go!

A man devoid of logic doesn't need to sit as a liberal court justice.

If the Court was now 6-3 Progressive, well, it would never have been. Before that happened, Conservatives would have expanded the Court as necessary.

These "trusting dolts" have tried my patience long enough. Enough!

[LenaBaby61]

14. THIS 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

[jrthin]

20. Agreed!

I wish he had the dignity and wisdom to leave, now!

[COL Mustard]

30. He Does Need To Go No Later Than The End Of The Next Term

And give Biden a chance to nominate his successor and have that person confirmed before the midterms....y'know, just in case......

[Mr.Bill]

34. I'm afraid Manchin/Sinema

would try to sabotage that, too.

[SunSeeker]

65. Yup. It's way past his expiration date. nt

[Layzeebeaver]

9. Expansion of the court can only be effective if there are a range of measures to go with it.

Control Dark money
Eliminate special interest pressure lobby influence
Full disclosure of financial links
Etc.

As long as there are levels of undue influence then restructuring the court is only a bandage on a severed aorta.

I’m sure everyone has an opinion on this and that mine is likely faulty and subject to critique.

[Corgigal]

10. I guess he's not a poor woman in Texas,

surprise. He’s not, he’s good.

[enki23]

11. "What goes around comes around" is, in fact, the justification for remaking the Supreme Court

The barn door is swinging in the breeze, and the horse is not in fucking evidence.

[bucolic_frolic]

17. THIS +10x

Seats and probably elections were stolen and we have fewer liberals on the Court as a result.

I don't want to rehash it, and doubt it could have been done fully and fairly, but they never did count the votes in Florida. They never made an effort. They squashed it.

[dalton99a]

12. "The court is full of GOP stooges, but I'm ok with it"

[bucolic_frolic]

13. Okay, agreed, but then why hasn't it ever come around for us? /nt

[LenaBaby61]

15. THIS 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

[Fiendish Thingy]

18. I say the more the merrier

The bigger the court, the less influence of any single Justice.

Think about this scenario:

Democrats shy away from expanding the court, and in 2024, the GOP takes back the White House and controls both chambers of congress. Then, they abolish the filibuster and add another six conservative justices to SCOTUS.

THEN WHAT?

[MyOwnPeace]

21. "the less influence of any single Justice."

Just think - they could let 'Sleepy Clarence' sleep away the rest of his time on the bench - and nobody would care!

[TiberiusB]

40. I've raised that scenario in multiple conversations

And no one seems to address it. Justice Breyer is 1,000% wrong.

The game plan for the GOP seems obvious.

1.) Take over the Courts and especially the SCOTUS.

-Corporate friendly radical evangelical conservatism and a blind eye to precedent and the Constitution

2.)Seize control of the vote by taking over local election boards

-Don't like an election outcome? Change it! Don't worry about the courts, that was handled in step 1.

3.)Take back Congress

-This ends any hope for Biden's administration passing anything truly worthwhile

-It could even open the door to impeachment and removal from office (why run against Biden when you can run against a much less popular woman of color?)

-Breyer gets sick or dies and Biden can't replace him...deja vu...


4.)Take back White House

-abolish the filibuster

-continue to pack all federal courts

-push voter suppression and anti abortion laws onto the blue states by making them federal law

-Pardons, pardons, pardons

-Goodbye environmental regulations, hello drilling and mining

-corporate tax cuts as far as the eye can see

The door to authoritarianism is nearly wide open and there's no reason to think the GOP is prepared to accept any other outcome. The insurrection should have cemented that fact.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

51. Your reasoning is both frightening and likely prescient (nt)

[Jon King]

22. What a bizarre argument, it will stay right wing for decades anyway.

So the Dems should not do it because some day the Repugs might make it right wing again? Makes no sense. Its current construction means it will stay right wing for decades anyway.

[no_hypocrisy]

23. Republicans WILL expand the Court if

1. The Court is either 5-4 non-conservative or 4-4 with a swing vote
and
2. There are 51 Republicans in the Senate or 50 and a republican VP.

[Calista241]

56. They don't have to do it anytime soon. The conservative court is here for the next 20 years.

[chowder66]

24. I think the # of Justices should match the number of Federal Circuit Courts but

I doubt we can get enough votes to expand the court. Impeachment might be the only way if there are grounds for it, but even so, they can be acquitted.

[LiberalFighter]

35. Exactly on number. Should be 13.

More than likely they can get at least one of them impeached if not two. Primarily Thomas and the beer guy.

[PSPS]

25. Gee, it's like he's pimping a book or something. Oh, wait...

[Alpeduez21]

26. I wish 'democrats' would stop acting scared

of what repukes will do. They stole the 2000 election, they've packed the courts, they are racist beyond compare, they are killing thousands of americans a week, they stormed the capital to to steal the 2020 election.

Get off your asses and act like you're in charge. Bullies gonna bully till they get smacked.

[LiberalLovinLug]

38. I really think they miscalculate the political climate

Lets be real. They would lose some support from the nicey nice folks. The "when they go low we go high" crowd.

But IMO they would gain many more. I think they underestimate just how much, not only Democratic voters, but Independents, and even some small r Republicans, would like to see their tone rise more. Would actually be impressed if they'd show more backbone.

Look, no one WANTS to have to use aggressive and accusatory language, if that is going "low", but the game has changed. Even from only a few years ago when Obama was sworn in. Republicans just keep marching towards madness, worshipping a demagogue that still whines he won the last election. It does no good living in a dream world, like Manchin, that Repukes are just inches away from being cooperative and open to compromise.

Also, they must anticipate Republican and Fox News talking points before they use them. And get ahead of them. Stop assuming the best from them, and start assuming the worst. Each and every time. Have a PR plan in place, and come out with counter statements even before they throw out their poison. "They will try and frame it like this...and this is why they are wrong...."

[DBoon]

27. Republicans have ALREADY done it

[The Unmitigated Gall]

28. Nice cocoon you got there, Mr. Breyer.

Pukes have been sending a lot of fucking shit around, if you haven't noticed, Mr. Breyer. It's up to dems to make sure it COMES around, Mr. Breyer.

[madville]

29. He's correct and Republicans will regain control eventually

So you just have to accept going in that if we added 4 to make it 7-6, they would add 4 to make it 10-7, then we add 5 the next time and they add 5 their next time, etc, etc. It basically becomes a rubber stamp for whoever can control the White House and Senate at the same time and delegitimizes the court more than it already is.

With the 50-50 Senate nothing is happening before the 2022 election regardless and we have no idea how 2024 will turn out yet. I don't think you could increase the number of justices even if we had 60 Senators, I think many of them are just giving the issue lip service and don't really want to do it.

[Mr.Bill]

50. That's precisely why we should add ten right now.

I served two years on a County Civil Grand Jury in California. It had 19 members, A supermajority, which was required for certain procedural matters, was considered 12. I can tell you that if there had only been nine members it would have been a lot easier for a few assholes to take control. And believe me, those few assholes were there. They tried and failed to take control because the rest of us wouldn't let them.

[LiberalFighter]

33. He needs to shut his piehole.

[BlueIdaho]

37. I wish I had a dollar

For every time someone trying to defend the stinking status quo said that. Doesn’t matter if it’s the minimum wage, the electoral college, the Supreme Court, women’s rights, or a hundred other issues - this kind of “father knows best” finger wagging chaps my butt. Breyer is an invested member of the status quo with a lifetime gig - what the hell do we expect him to say?

[The Magistrate]

39. They Already Have Done It, Sir

This purblind fool wants to stop it 'coming round' to them in due turn.

I am so tired of people saying 'oh if we do this Republicans will do that'.

Do it to them first and make it stick.

[Sanity Claws]

41. Not enough has been coming around to the Repubs

They faced ZERO consequences for stealing RBG's seat and failing to vote on Merrick Garland's nomination. They faced ZERO consequences for ramming I LIKE BEER on the bench without investigation.

Enlarging the court could be a consequence, finally.

[Kid Berwyn]

42. We'll worry about that later.

Court’s now packed by extreme RWNJs.

[wryter2000]

44. It's already been remade

Moscow Mitch kept Garland off the Court. If he'd been on it, the Texas woman-hating law case would have been different.

[samsingh]

49. the repugs have already destroyed the legitimacy of the top court. What should the Democrats do?

the top court is not legitimate

[BaronChocula]

53. You're not helping, Steve

"Progressives" obsessed with dilly-dallying with tradition make Mitch McConnell laugh as he plans his next assault. There is no victory through being non-threatening. It's time to smack the crap out of Dems with this Stockholm syndrome just to wake them up.

[WhoWoodaKnew]

57. I agree with him

[SunSeeker]

66. The GOP already broke the rules to make the Court 6-3! It's time for us to fight back!

The REPUBLICANS have already turned the Court into a political body untethered by precedent.


So you want us to just sit back and take it, Justice Breyer?

I don't think so!

[Voltaire2]

67. it already came around. That's the point. They stole two seats.

Also, please retire now.

[Steelrolled]

70. I would like a supreme court reform amendment where we

set the number of justices (9 seems good), and tighten up the nomination and approval process, to prevent foul play.

[Polybius]

78. He makes it sound so easy

But all of which he speaks of would require 60 votes.