Imagine Republican outrage if Pres. Biden and a Democratic Congress expand the Supreme Court.

[pnwmom]

And then remember they left Scalia's seat open for more than a year, and Senator Richard Burr was promising to hold the court to 8 members for the entire four-year term of a President Hillary Clinton.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/clinton-wins-gop-say-no-9-supreme-court

“If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court,” North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr said in an audio recording of his meeting with GOP volunteers on Saturday. CNN obtained a copy of the audio.

GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Ted Cruz of Texas have also suggested blocking any Clinton nominees. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said in a debate Monday night that he “can’t imagine” voting for any Clinton nominee though he stopped short of vowing to block a pick from a Democratic president.

[Drunken Irishman]

1. Packing the court is likely fantasy.

It would require every single Democrat to not break ranks and if the Democrats have a majority, it's likely not going to be a significant one. I think a more passable level of reform would be to introduce term limits.

[Awsi Dooger]

4. It's never going to happen

I don't understand why everyone doesn't step back and understand that. There is no way we'd get unanimous support from our side and the mere proposal would draw greater negativity than support.

People who don't follow politics closely would suddenly downgrade everything Trump has done and be accepting of the terms radical and socialist toward Democrats. Those apolitical types do not know anything about the Supreme Court except it is 9 justices. Ginsberg's passing is terrible timing but even McConnell's despicable hypocrisy is going to be viewed as greater normalcy than one side suddenly and desperately changing the numbers.

Too much emotion around here tonight and not enough logic. Statehood addition is a reasonable possibility. Eleven or 13 justices is not.

[Drunken Irishman]

6. Even Bernie came out against the idea back during the primaries...

And he and Biden both made the point that you turn it into a political football where each side, when they gain control of the Senate and the WH, start adding justices.

Democrats add three this time.

Then, in 2025, after a Republican wins the WH again and has a Republican Senate, they'll add three more.

Where does it end? What does that do to the integrity of the court?

I do believe term limits is the way to go. It's a pragmatic approach that possibly could even get the support of some GOP senators.

Make it 18 years and then they're forced into retirement or take Bernie's idea and you can even rotate them down to the circuit courts or something.

But lifetime appointments has turned the Supreme Court into a wholly political bench.

[standingtall]

8. That why we add States to protect the new make up of the Supreme Court

Adding seats to the court would be easier than getting term limits for Supreme Court Justices that would be just about impossible. No one thought it hurt the integrity of the court when seats were added all the way up to the 1860's. We need to get away from the mindset that an unconstitutional law that limit Supreme Justices to 9 somehow protects the integrity of the court. We've been conditioned to believe that tradition it is time to recondition our minds.

[Drunken Irishman]

12. The first thing you're going to have to do is expand the courts...

Because that's the first thing you can do right now. If they vote to approve statehood for DC and Puerto Rico (and PR agrees on statehood), they don't just magically have a senator ready to go. That process is going to take time. So, in the meantime, you're asking Biden to somehow find a way to get 51 Democrats to support something that is extremely divisive. I don't see it.

Maybe in a couple years, if PR and DC have been given state status ... but not next year.

[standingtall]

15. He would only need 50 because Kamala Harris would be the tie breaking vote

Both DC and Puerto Rico already want to become States so able to do it within a year. In a couple of years we might lose the congress and then will wont be getting anything except to watch republicans control the Supreme court for the next 50 years. Say goodbye to Roe V Wade,the ACA and Social Security will be on the chopping block for the republican Supreme Court too unless we do something about it like expand the court. If Biden wants to get anything accomplished at all as President he better pack the courts or he will be one term President who got absolutely none of his agenda through.

[Drunken Irishman]

19. Even at 50 you're not guaranteed enough support.

That's the rub.

You lose Manchin and say Cunningham and likely lose a chance at a majority passes it. I'm sorry but I just don't see that happening in Biden's first year.

[standingtall]

20. It better or Biden will not have no more than 4 years with nothing to show for it

[Drunken Irishman]

22. Maybe.

We're in a bad spot.

[TreasonousBastard]

14. Term limits is the fantasy-- the Constitution puts them in the job for life. Expanding the Court...

may not be impossible these days. We've got circuit courts with more than nine judges- the Ninth circuit currently has 29 judges and 18 retired judges who are often asked to hold hearings when things get busy. There has been some discussion about breaking it up, but such discussions don't go very far.

FDR didn't get very far expanding the court because the court was more popular than the New Deal was at first. Nowadays, nobody is terribly happy with the Supreme Court, everyone for their own reasons so it might be possible to cut a deal.

[Drunken Irishman]

21. if it were 2009, I'd buy it.

But Joe is, at best, going to have a very small majority. I don't see every Democrat supporting it.

[TreasonousBastard]

23. Nor do I, but we should give it a shot. You just never know for sure.

[OnDoutside]

2. Imagine the Republicans losing in November, and packing the Court in December ?

I'm surprised that they haven't done it already.

[mitch96]

24. This seems to be Mcturttles plan all along. Forever jobs for conservative judges. Stack the courts.

[OnDoutside]

25. Yes, and they'd have nothing left to lose in December but to curry

favour with the base.

[BGBD]

3. Fuck em.

We need to realize we're in a war and start acting like it.

They don't respect tradition, norms, or decency. We shouldn't show it to them either.

[dalton99a]

11. +1. It is delusional to pretend Republicans are decent or honorable people.

[vercetti2021]

5. Idgaf what they think

It's time to stop being nice. It's time to secure a democracy by making our own rules.

[Eid Ma Clack Shaw]

9. That's what the Republicans have done, so yep

the alternative to expanding is to concede that there is no point in opposing Republicans in elections. There’s already a grotesque amount of money spent, so just take it away, let the GOP run unopposed at every level and create charities or something if you want to help people - that, as far as I can see, would be more worthwhile than throwing away billions for the ‘honour’ of being putting on the performance of making laws that have literally zero chance of holding up in court.

[Eid Ma Clack Shaw]

10. Much too long. 16 tops.

[Drunken Irishman]

13. 18 - 30 is too long.

t

[TreasonousBastard]

16. It's often forgotten that a 4-4 divided opinion is basically thrown away, so many things...

the Republicans, or conservatives in general, want may not happen.

[pnwmom]

17. It's not thrown away for them when the appeals court is majority conservative. n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

18. But what if they rule our way-- it does happen. 4-4 is a crapshoot, and messy when two circuits...

disagree.