Ari Berman's tweet to Moscow Mitch about court packing...

[SharonClark]

Ari Berman @AriBerman
Oct 14
You stole a Supreme Court seat, confirmed 218 Trump judges after blocking 110 Obama nominees & now rushing to confirm Amy Coney Barrett 20 days before Nov 3 when over 14 million people have already voted. That's definition of court-packing

[Skittles]

1. CORRECT

Dems need to start truly FIGHTING BACK against repuke projection bullshit

[Iliyah]

2. K & R . . .

[The Mouth]

3. "court packing" means *ADDING* justices to SCOTUS

Goddamn it, words have meanings.

"Court Packing" is when we add enough new justices to get a court that actually serves the people and defrays the effect of any one justice leaving or coming on board.

Not saying it's a bad idea, but for Christ's fucking sake, no good is done by just deciding to change the meaning of words.

[BadgerMom]

6. Words DO have meaning.

At some point in our past, Edward Rumely, a right wing newspaper man who sympathized with the Nazis, coined the phrase “court packing” to describe the legal and previously used action of adding members to the Supreme Court when FDR pushed for it. To me, muddying the meaning of the term is the work of the angels. I WANT people to see the unfair actions of McConnell and the Republicans as ugliness and abuse of power. Leave Democrats a clear playing field for explaining why adding new members now would make the representation on the SC more equitable for the majority of Americans. We shouldn’t be using that term with its negative connotations to describe adding justices to increase democracy. We should destroy that term and come to the table with a new one.

[The Mouth]

7. We should call it "Rebalancing" the courts

which would be both less troublesome and more accurate.

A larger SCOTUS, with defined terms, would go a long way towards preventing this shit.

the court NEEDS some justices looking to the future and some looking at the past; some with a desire to restrict government, some with a desire to facilitate government solving societal problems. Balance.

[BadgerMom]

13. I like "rebalancing."

And, yes, defined terms would be better. Wouldn’t that require an amendment?

[not_the_one]

16. You have to use terminology that Americans can understand.

Rebalancing? Sadly, you will lose a lot of Americans who won't bother to take 30 seconds to understand.

"Packing" is exactly what Moscow Mitch did.

I think we should force out all those "appointees" that the turd has "packed" into the entire justice system. If the turd liked them, they have something to hide. We need to find it.

[mazzarro]

17. B-I-N-G-O! n/t

[JHB]

20. Precisely. "Packing" was not used merely about adding to the court...

...it was about changing the composition of the court in sufficient numbers to get particular political results.

That's what Mitch has been doing. It's what Republicans have been doing for a generation whenever they have the opportunity.

Changes in a Biden admin would be to alleviate that already-accomplished packing.

[The Mouth]

25. No. It. Isn't.

"Packing" has meant, for decades *ADDING* justices.

I'm not saying it's a Bad Thing, I am saying that since they didn't ADD justices to the courts it wasn;'t "Packing"

Words have meanings.

[JHB]

44. Yes. It. Is.

The specific usage referring to the Roosevelt-era proposal to expand the court does not preclude broader usage for systematic action to reshape the composition of the court so that rulings will favor certain political/ideological outcomes. Legislation to change the numbers is one form, hyperpartisan application of existing rules is another.

It may be new to you, but I've heard the term "packing" in the context of turning the courts conservative for a couple of decades, including by conservatives.

[The Mouth]

45. OK, can you please cite?

Thanks

[ashling]

29. No amendment required

the Constitution leaves it up to Congress to set the number of justices.

... also, the jurisdiction and number of lower courts ....

[Grasswire2]

33. RESTORING balance

Everyone understands that.

[maxrandb]

35. How about "unfucking the courts"?

[Pacifist Patriot]

27. Actually, "court expansion" means exclusively adding justices.

"Court packing" has two meanings/methods. Adding justices is one, and deliberately and concertedly controlling the ideological balance is the other.

ETA: The common understanding of court packing only referring to increasing the size of the bench is because of FDR.

[The Mouth]

31. The second meaning is like 'gerrymandering'

both sides do it to the best degree they can, just as any sports team tries to score more.

Of course we reconfigure political districts to add Democratic seats whenever we can, and we put as many liberal justices into every position possible. To not do so is suicide, or at least utterly stupid.

We regard making the courts as liberal as possible as making them more fair and just, just as we regard drawing districts to maximize the number of Democratic seats as enhancing the fairness and representation. The other side does the exact same thing when they can. That's the way the game has been played for 200+ years. That's not 'packing' no matter who does it.

I fucking hate it when there's a perfectly good word that everyone knows and understands and people degrade the ability of everyone to communicate by using another word that DOESN'T mean that; it just ignorantly screws up the language just so some jackass can feel smarter than they are.

[Pacifist Patriot]

34. The difference is...

Democratic presidents, by and large, follow the rules and norms. Republicans, to achieve their ideological objectives, have not in recent years. Their underhanded actions have been viewed as packing the court unfairly on ideological terms. No one is going to argue that duly elected presidents who luck into court picks during their term are going to nominate someone who has different political values. Of course they choose someone on their end of the spectrum.

I do understand where you are coming from, I really do. It's just a semantic hill I'm not prepared to die on. I'm not going to fault someone for referring to the GOP's bullshit when it comes to the SCOTUS as "court packing." The judicial outcome feels very much the same.

[The Mouth]

36. Words have meanings

All semantic hills are worth fighting over for this OCD old-school geek; people who just stupidly use the wrong word when there is a perfectly good one are exactly like the jackasses who throw their garbage out of their cars, they just fuck up the environment for everyone else, and should be chastised and called on it, Democrat or Republican.

[Pacifist Patriot]

41. ok

[RobertDevereaux]

28. Let's just agree to call what THEY'RE doing Court Fucking.

[VA_Jill]

42. Only

if you're a Republican. The Supreme Court, as originally constituted in 1789, had SIX justices. In 1801, a lame-duck session of Congress, led by John Adams, it was changed back to five. Then Jefferson changed it to seven, and in 1837 Andrew Jackson decided to make it 9. It can be changed at any time by a 2/3 vote of the House and Senate. Note that all increases have been made by Democrats. This probably increases the Repugnican animus and opposition. Too bad, so sad.

[The Mouth]

43. They have been butthurt since Bork

And according the the Republicans I know (LOTS of family), after what happened to Bork *anything* they do is fair and justified.

[VA_Jill]

46. Aw hell

They've been butthurt since FDR, if you want to go back that far. As far as Bork, my late ex's best buddy, who was a pretty damn conservative Republican, was against Bork, on the grounds that the man was simply unqualified. If he were alive today, I shudder to think what he'd say about Amy Bony Carrot.

[Lonestarblue]

4. We won't cheat like Repubs to accomplish our goals, but we do need tough actions.

Republicans will scream to the skies over even minor changes, so Democrats may as well go big. If that means changing the 60-vote rule so Republicans cannot filibuster every action to death, so be it.

[greblach]

9. The Repubs already removed the filibuster for the Supreme Court

The court has varied in size many times in history...

[The Mouth]

37. It's not cheating

Contests have rules. There's nothing in the Constitution which prevents what the Republicans are doing, there's nothing in the Constitution that says we can't add to the court.

As you point out, they'll squeal like stuck pigs no matter WHAT we do, so F-em and spare the lube.

[paleotn]

5. Oh, we've not seen court packing...

yet, Rethugliscum, but it's coming.

[greblach]

8. The Democratic Party needs to respond

And by responding, I mean Unpacking the court by adding justices to the Supreme Court, and adding 110 to the lower courts to make up for McConnell's shenanigans...and I would call it the McConnell rule...

[lagomorph777]

23. Unpacking. Perfect word for it!

Go forth and spread that word!!!

[warmfeet]

10. Very true.

Nonetheless, we are going to have a difficult time convincing our representatives (including POTUS and VPOTUS) that increasing the size of the SCOTUS is the best way to go. It's what's needed, but it is going to be a very difficult sell. I will do my part, best as I can.

[AleksS]

12. Indeed. And so will I. So will I.

I hope it doesn't take something truly egregious like RvW overturned or ACA struck down before folks realize how important it is.

I'm from WI, and believe me, an overtly, unabashed, openly partisan court, is a very very dangerous thing. No matter what our Governor does--the GOP just has the WI SupCt. fast-track it to their court, which then hands down whatever ruling the GrOPers were asking for. It's like a super-veto. Checks and balances? We don't need no checks and balances!

[The Mouth]

32. What I think they'll do is go after Wickard V Filburn

rolling back every law based on the ICC since 1947

[BadgerMom]

14. I'll be on the phone and writing.

[lastlib]

30. There is an alternative to enlarging SCOTUS--

Establish a National Court of Appeals. (Pack it with 25 good young progressive judges.) ALL appeals from lower courts go here.

Strip the Supreme Court of all appellate jurisdiction. (Yes, Congress can do this.) Leave it with only its constitutional original jurisdiction. All appeals go to the National Court of Appeals.

Clarence PubicHair can take all the naps he wants and play with his "long-dong silver" to his little heart's content, and BeerBoy Kavanaughty can spend the rest of his career hung over. And the rest of the country gets justice. Problem solved.

[rainy]

11. At minimum we should add Merrick Garland

and DARE them to say a word about it!

[lagomorph777]

24. Merrick and 3 liberals.

[Blue Owl]

15. K&R

[stuffmatters]

18. And one of those 110 Obama judgeships Mitch blocked, M. filled w Judge Handmaiden

SCOTUS is her second installation by Mitch. Quelle coincidence.

[stopwastingmymoney]

19. And, I want an investigation into why Kennedy suddenly decided to retire nt

[djacq]

21. Barrett, if confirm, will be TWO seats stolen.

[dalton99a]

22. Absolutely.

[Texin]

26. They only call it "court-packing" when Dems try to nominate/confirm a judge to the bench.

[jmowreader]

38. I think we could sell this pretty easily

I am not interested in just adding members to the Supreme Court. I am extremely interested in adding 10 members to the Court, which would be enough to create a second Court on the West Coast, or enough members to create three or four panels. The Constitution does not say what the Supreme Court needs to look like, and our country has grown enough that a single-panel Supreme Court is no longer meeting the needs of the nation.

[AllaN01Bear]

39. le ouch.

[lame54]

40. A demented 6-3 court......

Making completely screwed up repug decisions for generations despite the growing pogressive populace

Joe would be right to fix this