Jump to content
270soft Forum

Democrats attempting to add 4 seats to Supreme Court


Recommended Posts

Absolute insanity. It’s one thing to pass through a fake infrastructure bill, but we’re getting to an absolute insane level of overstepping. Good luck trying to sell the public on this. 
 

playing right into Republicans hands for 2022

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PoliticalPundit said:

Absolute insanity. It’s one thing to pass through a fake infrastructure bill, but we’re getting to an absolute insane level of overstepping. Good luck trying to sell the public on this. 
 

playing right into Republicans hands for 2022

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am crying right now for future generations, gone are the days of the court being apolitical and just calling balls or strikes, this is just a bonehead idea! (see what I did there XD)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anthony_270 said:

If it passed, would enrage Republican supporters.

So emoticons are back to being fine to use? 

 

And I highly doubt it gets passed. If the Democrats are really thinking long term, they would be focused on winning in 2022 and if all goes well post covid they'd be in a great position to continue to win ongoing elections. This just continues the narrative of how far radicalized they are with actually legitimate reason. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, PoliticalPundit said:

Absolute insanity. It’s one thing to pass through a fake infrastructure bill, but we’re getting to an absolute insane level of overstepping. Good luck trying to sell the public on this. 
 

playing right into Republicans hands for 2022

Well, I hope the Democrats succeed in this. I would recommend a different reform, however. 

1. Term limits, so we don't have justices serving for several decades. When the court was created, people died between the ages of 45-65 frequently. 

2. Allow every president to make one SC justice appointment following a general election and to fill any vacancies if the number of justices ever falls below 9. 

3. All SC nominees must come from a lower federal court. They must not only pass a Senate Judiciary committee, but they must pass a review from the sitting SC justices. 

4. The nuclear option is only allowed if the SC nominee passes the Senate judiciary committee and unanimously passes the SC Justice committee. In all other cases, 60 votes are needed. 

To point number #3, if there are term limits, then the justices would rarely go over 9.

An alternate to #2 and #3 is that justices serve a 20 year term limit, which is stacked, so that there will be a new nominee every 2 years. In the event someone dies/retires before the 20-year-term limit, an acting justice would fill the remainder of the term, selecting from among one of the lower court Federal Chief Justices.  This means every president will get an appointment before and after midterms, for a total of 4 justices for a two-term president. The oldest active SC justice is always Chief Justice. If this rule was in place we'd currently have:

2020-2022 - Biden Justice 1

2018-2020 - Trump Justice 2

2016-2019 - Trump Justice 1

2014-2016 - Obama Justice 4

2012-2014 - Obama Justice 3

2010-2012 - Obama Justice 2

2008-2010 - Obama Justice 1

2006-2008 - GW Bush Justice 4

2004-2008 - GW Bush Justice 3 (will be retired at 2022 Midterm elections)

This court is 5 Dem justices to 4 Rep justices -- had Trump won, it would be 5-4 Republicans.

@Anthony_270 @Berg2036 @IndependentPerson @PoliticalPundit

The only thing I don't like about the packing of the Supreme Court is that it is ideologically-driven when there could be sound non-partisan reform, such as the one I'm suggesting. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Well, I hope the Democrats succeed in this. I would recommend a different reform, however. 

1. Term limits, so we don't have justices serving for several decades. When the court was created, people died between the ages of 45-65 frequently. 

2. Allow every president to make one SC justice appointment following a general election and to fill any vacancies if the number of justices ever falls below 9. 

3. All SC nominees must come from a lower federal court. They must not only pass a Senate Judiciary committee, but they must pass a review from the sitting SC justices. 

4. The nuclear option is only allowed if the SC nominee passes the Senate judiciary committee and unanimously passes the SC Justice committee. In all other cases, 60 votes are needed. 

To point number #3, if there are term limits, then the justices would rarely go over 9.

An alternate to #2 and #3 is that justices serve a 20 year term limit, which is stacked, so that there will be a new nominee every 2 years. In the event someone dies/retires before the 20-year-term limit, an acting justice would fill the remainder of the term, selecting from among one of the lower court Federal Chief Justices.  This means every president will get an appointment before and after midterms, for a total of 4 justices for a two-term president. The oldest active SC justice is always Chief Justice. If this rule was in place we'd currently have:

2020-2022 - Biden Justice 1

2018-2020 - Trump Justice 2

2016-2019 - Trump Justice 1

2014-2016 - Obama Justice 4

2012-2014 - Obama Justice 3

2010-2012 - Obama Justice 2

2008-2010 - Obama Justice 1

2006-2008 - GW Bush Justice 4

2004-2008 - GW Bush Justice 3 (will be retired at 2022 Midterm elections)

This court is 5 Dem justices to 4 Rep justices -- had Trump won, it would be 5-4 Republicans.

@Anthony_270 @Berg2036 @IndependentPerson @PoliticalPundit

The only thing I don't like about the packing of the Supreme Court is that it is ideologically-driven when there could be sound non-partisan reform, such as the one I'm suggesting. 

 

 

Will you feel the same way when the Republicans win in 4 years and add another 4 seats? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PoliticalPundit said:

Will you feel the same way when the Republicans win in 4 years and add another 4 seats? 

I don't think that will be the reaction. I think the reaction will be much stronger than that. Goodbye USA, IMHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, vcczar said:

Well, I hope the Democrats succeed in this. I would recommend a different reform, however. 

1. Term limits, so we don't have justices serving for several decades. When the court was created, people died between the ages of 45-65 frequently. 

2. Allow every president to make one SC justice appointment following a general election and to fill any vacancies if the number of justices ever falls below 9. 

3. All SC nominees must come from a lower federal court. They must not only pass a Senate Judiciary committee, but they must pass a review from the sitting SC justices. 

4. The nuclear option is only allowed if the SC nominee passes the Senate judiciary committee and unanimously passes the SC Justice committee. In all other cases, 60 votes are needed. 

To point number #3, if there are term limits, then the justices would rarely go over 9.

An alternate to #2 and #3 is that justices serve a 20 year term limit, which is stacked, so that there will be a new nominee every 2 years. In the event someone dies/retires before the 20-year-term limit, an acting justice would fill the remainder of the term, selecting from among one of the lower court Federal Chief Justices.  This means every president will get an appointment before and after midterms, for a total of 4 justices for a two-term president. The oldest active SC justice is always Chief Justice. If this rule was in place we'd currently have:

2020-2022 - Biden Justice 1

2018-2020 - Trump Justice 2

2016-2019 - Trump Justice 1

2014-2016 - Obama Justice 4

2012-2014 - Obama Justice 3

2010-2012 - Obama Justice 2

2008-2010 - Obama Justice 1

2006-2008 - GW Bush Justice 4

2004-2008 - GW Bush Justice 3 (will be retired at 2022 Midterm elections)

This court is 5 Dem justices to 4 Rep justices -- had Trump won, it would be 5-4 Republicans.

@Anthony_270 @Berg2036 @IndependentPerson @PoliticalPundit

The only thing I don't like about the packing of the Supreme Court is that it is ideologically-driven when there could be sound non-partisan reform, such as the one I'm suggesting. 

 

 

Due to politicization of the Supreme Court, I am somewhat sceptical of its use...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Anthony_270 said:

I don't think that will be the reaction. I think the reaction will be much stronger than that. Goodbye USA, IMHO.

You can tell by the reaction here that it's only an issue when it happens to the party you don't like.

 

If any party was doing this I'd be saying how ridiculous and harmful this could be not celebrating it.

 

Not surprised. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, vcczar said:

Well, I hope the Democrats succeed in this. I would recommend a different reform, however. 

1. Term limits, so we don't have justices serving for several decades. When the court was created, people died between the ages of 45-65 frequently. 

2. Allow every president to make one SC justice appointment following a general election and to fill any vacancies if the number of justices ever falls below 9. 

3. All SC nominees must come from a lower federal court. They must not only pass a Senate Judiciary committee, but they must pass a review from the sitting SC justices. 

4. The nuclear option is only allowed if the SC nominee passes the Senate judiciary committee and unanimously passes the SC Justice committee. In all other cases, 60 votes are needed. 

To point number #3, if there are term limits, then the justices would rarely go over 9.

An alternate to #2 and #3 is that justices serve a 20 year term limit, which is stacked, so that there will be a new nominee every 2 years. In the event someone dies/retires before the 20-year-term limit, an acting justice would fill the remainder of the term, selecting from among one of the lower court Federal Chief Justices.  This means every president will get an appointment before and after midterms, for a total of 4 justices for a two-term president. The oldest active SC justice is always Chief Justice. If this rule was in place we'd currently have:

2020-2022 - Biden Justice 1

2018-2020 - Trump Justice 2

2016-2019 - Trump Justice 1

2014-2016 - Obama Justice 4

2012-2014 - Obama Justice 3

2010-2012 - Obama Justice 2

2008-2010 - Obama Justice 1

2006-2008 - GW Bush Justice 4

2004-2008 - GW Bush Justice 3 (will be retired at 2022 Midterm elections)

This court is 5 Dem justices to 4 Rep justices -- had Trump won, it would be 5-4 Republicans.

@Anthony_270 @Berg2036 @IndependentPerson @PoliticalPundit

The only thing I don't like about the packing of the Supreme Court is that it is ideologically-driven when there could be sound non-partisan reform, such as the one I'm suggesting. 

 

 

Are Canadian and UK Supreme Courts political? Do the nominations get political? That could be worth looking into.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, PoliticalPundit said:

Will you feel the same way when the Republicans win in 4 years and add another 4 seats? 

Sure. I think every president should have a set number of judges that the nominate to evolve the court. As I state in one post. One judge every 2 years with a retirement of a judge every 2 years. 

10 hours ago, Anthony_270 said:

I don't think that will be the reaction. I think the reaction will be much stronger than that. Goodbye USA, IMHO.

Well, I doubt expanding the SC actually passes. There's probably at least 3 Dem senators that would oppose it. That's why my reform idea I mention above is probably the fairest way to reform the court, a nonpartisan reform. They could even make it take effect after Biden's presidency ends (whenever that is) and grandfather the sitting justices from the rules. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, IndependentPerson said:

Are Canadian and UK Supreme Courts political? Do the nominations get political? That could be worth looking into.

I'd want to know. Let's ask a Canadian @Anthony_270

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, vcczar said:

I'd want to know. Let's ask a Canadian @Anthony_270

They're political in that they are appointed by the PM. The process isn't that politically contentious, because they are simply appointed - no opportunity by opposing parties to try to derail it, really. Mandatory retirement of 75. Can also be removed by PM.

They should probably be more contentious, TBH.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Anthony_270 said:

They're political in that they are appointed by the PM. The process isn't that politically contentious, because they are simply appointed - no opportunity by opposing parties to try to derail it, really. Mandatory retirement of 75. Can also be removed by PM.

They should probably be more contentious, TBH.

Why do you think they should be more contentious? I really like your system as you present it, although I think there should be some sort of check on appointments and removal, just to prevent extreme appointments or extreme removals. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Why do you think they should be more contentious? I really like your system as you present it, although I think there should be some sort of check on appointments and removal, just to prevent extreme appointments or extreme removals. 

Because the appointments matter - they should be scrutinized. But because we don't have separation of powers, an opposition party could only really inflict damage in the realm of popular approval.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anthony_270 said:

Because the appointments matter - they should be scrutinized. But because we don't have separation of powers, an opposition party could only really inflict damage in the realm of popular approval.

There's no vetting process? They could appoint any Canadian citizen?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Anyhow,

1) Mitch McConnell should have given hearings to Merrick Garland (he could allow hearings & pressure the moderates to vote no) (or at least, should not have had Amy Coney Barrett appointed).  However, the politicization of the court is part of the reason this happened (e.g. Democrats's war against Bork, Thomas).

2) Packing the Court is a dirty trick like the one above.

https://thebulwark.com/why-court-packing-keeps-failing/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the Democrats need just a simple majority for packing the supreme court? Or do they need 60 Senators?

I think the Democrats are extremely overplaying their card right now. If the GOP can hold the Senate seat in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania (will be the hardest), Ohio (should be safe by now), North Carolina and Florida (i can't see Rubio losing, he is relatively popular in Florida) the next two election cycles are favoring the GOP in my opinion, even if the Democrats can hold their turnout high in 2022 (which I doubt), also the recent census is favoring the GOP (I think they hoped for more, but still). If the GOP don't screw it totally up, the house will be a automatic pick-up just because of the census in 2022 and they will likely gerrymander Nebraska. Also they will pick up 3 Senate seats in 2024 for sure (Ohio, Montana and West Virginia), while only Susan Collins in Maine is in real jeopardy. The Democrats have many seats in Tossup-States to defend in 2022 and 2024 - two in New Hampshire (Sununu will likely run in 2022), one in Georgia (Warnock is not really popular, Loeffler was awful, Warnock had likely lost against Perdue. Hershel Walker should have a better chance, at least in 2022, Georgia is trending very blue). Two seats in Arizona, i think one or two in Nevada. One in Michigan, another one in Wisconsin. I can even see New Mexico becoming competetive (Ronchetti lost by a very small margin, especially if you consider that he got nearly no funding and the Anti-Oil politics are really hurting New Mexico right now). 

If the Democrats overplay their cards they could in the worst case lose the House by 2024, lose the presidency by 2024 and lose the senate maybe even by a supermajority by 2024. The Republicans would be in an even better position then the Democrats right now. 
But on the other side, we are talking about the GOP, they will find a way to screw things up. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2021 at 9:02 AM, Championship said:

Do the Democrats need just a simple majority for packing the supreme court? Or do they need 60 Senators?

I think it just needs to be passed by the Senate with a simple majority. If that happens, I believe they then also have to confirm each Presidential appointee to the SC, as per a replacement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...