The Supreme Court has become very politicized.

[kentuck]

Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump have taken it to a new level. Trump believes these are "his" Justices. Last night, he said at his rally that he would want the courts to stop mail-in votes from being counted after November 3rd, and they should declare a winner. This is how far they have gone in de-legitimizing our elections.

Supreme Court Justices are obviously not exempt from the pressures of the cult. They, too, can be manipulated. This Court is looking more and more like an arm of the Republican Party. That is not what the authors of our Constitution intended.

If they show themselves to be as partisan as it now appears, what can be done to de-politicize the Court? Some have recommended expanding the Court to make it more non-partisan and balanced. Would that work?

[sarisataka]

1. No nt

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. Expanding the court to 15 will dilute the influence and power of any single justice

It must be on the Dem agenda once Biden is sworn in.

Don’t fight to gain power if you don’t intend to use it.

[Bettie]

11. Yes indeed

And the problem our party tends to have is that in the past, they have assumed or wished that the other side would work with us instead of against us.

I would hope that belief has gone extinct now, given what has happened in recent years.

[madaboutharry]

3. I think Roberts is actually a decent person.

His world view is not one I share, but it seems that some of his later opinions have the intention of correcting the political hackery. I think he is struggling. It seems to me that he recognizes the damage that has been done to the integrity of the court and is trying mightily to prevent the court from becoming a clearinghouse for partisanship. I also think he has no charitable thoughts about Trump.

[Mike 03]

6. That is the portrait that emerges of Chief Justice Roberts in

the book The Most Dangerous Branch: Inside the Supreme Court's Assault on the Constitution by David Kaplan.

Word for word, what you wrote.

[madaboutharry]

12. I haven't heard of that book.

I swear these are my own thoughts!

But, I think what I said here is true. There are forces now on the court, Alito and Thomas particularly, who do not care about anything other than their own political views worming their way into legal interpretation. Roberts by all accounts has now decided to take this threat to the sanctity of the court seriously.

[Mike 03]

15. He also supposedly has quite an ego.

The book describes him as bristling if someone addresses him as "Justice Roberts" instead of "Chief Justice Roberts."

The book isn't that great (the onslaught of Trump books are much more interesting). Kaplan did predict Kavanaugh would be the next SC justice (his book was written many months before Kavanaugh was confirmed). The most interesting part (IMO) was the insight into Roberts.

I didn't mean to imply you had gotten your opinions from the book, I just thought it was remarkable (and reassuring) that your insight was exactly the same as this author's. It makes me more confident that his appraisal is correct (which is good for America).

[Under The Radar]

9. You are correct to a certain extent

Roberts has for the last 4 years tried to be the counter balance to the conservative packing. I have also seen other conservative justices take the liberal side while Roberts votes conservative. In all appearances and opinions he is trying to find a middle ground, especially on Trumps tax return cases and on the Covid mandate challenges.
But I can never allow myself to forget how he butchered the Citizens United case and forced a conservative ideology creating a new super pac for unlimited anonymous spending from what should have been a simple campaign finance violation.

[John Drake]

4. FDR tried to "pack the court"

Because he thought they were blocking him.

It's always been politicized.

The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 (frequently called the "court-packing plan" was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the Court had ruled unconstitutional.

[C_U_L8R]

5. It's been intentionally corrupted with politicization

History won't be kind to Roberts or his fellow conservative doormats for the harm they're doing.

[Mike 03]

7. An aside from Bob Woodward's book RAGE:

Lindsey Graham is portrayed as completely aware that all the courts are being politicized and that some whackos are being confirmed (although he says the craziest ones are being rejected), and he is quoted in the book saying it worries him and that it is not a good thing...

BUT HE CONFIRMS THEM ALL ANYWAY.

[benld74]

8. It began during #44

Scotus seated at speeches, then not being seated.
Believe GOP began exerting influence on it back then

[Sympthsical]

10. Roberts does not like Trump

Furthermore, Roberts is very conscious and possessive of his legacy. He puts a lot of truck in the dignity and separateness of the Court.

I do not see him doing Trump’s bidding. In fact, I think Roberts would be only too happy to see Trump go.

Roberts has his fuck ups, but he hasn’t been the Republican rubber stamp people surmised. On many issues, particularly LGBT ones and the ACA, he’s pissed off Republicans mightily. No way he lets the Court get into a Bush v Gore mess. He’s not Renquist.

[njhoneybadger]

14. +1

[Statistical]

18. I do agree on Roberts but ...

with Ginsberg replaced by an ultra right winger even if you count Roberts are a moderate who may sometimes side with the liberal side of the court that means most decisions will go 5-4 in favor of fascism.

Roberts may turn out to be the next Kennedy BUT the Court still needs to be expanded. It isn't a nice have or somewhat useful it is utterly critical to avoid the US regressing backwards. Ban marriage equality, ban abortions, rollback civil rights protections, expand Christian rights, break down separation of Church and State.

Honestly IMHO restoring the court is the single most important issue for the next administration and one which will have lasting ramifications for decades to come. Nothing else matters if an ultra right wing court just strikes it down.

[Mike Nelson]

13. I think...

... if Dems win the Senate, every Trump pick should be investigated. Any problems should result in impeachments. Moscow Mitch took it to a new level. Dems need to take it to the limit.

[Statistical]

17. Except impeachment only works when senators are loyal to the country not their party.

It takes 67 votes to convict and no Republicans will break ranks.

I would prefer that early valuable political capital and time be spent making actual systemic changes which can happen with a simple majority. Open PR & DC to statehood, expand the court, expand the house. Pass significant restrictions on the power of the Presidency. Pass a $15 minimum wage, add a public option for the ACA, etc.

Things like that will have a lasting impact on the direction of the nation for generations to come. A doomed to fail before it starts impeachment trial will not.

[Statistical]

16. In theory Justices can be impeached but ...

it requires 67 votes in the senate. Also if only one Republican was willing to break ranks impeaching Trump what are they chances any of them would impeach a SCOTUS justice.

Honestly even if Mich hadn't done this the Supreme Court should be expanded. Justices are being appointed earlier and living longer. Hundred years ago it was rare for a justice to serve more than 20 years some served less than 10. Today it is more like 25-30 years. If Trump gets his way and puts a 48 year old on the bench it could be 40 years.

The reason SCOTUS appointees is so "gameable" is because it happens so rarely. Expand the court to 15 to 17 justices and there will be one being replaced every 1-2 years or so.