HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Question: Was Biden signa...

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 09:49 AM

Question: Was Biden signalling to GOP that if u dare confirm Barrett he will expand the courts?

I got the feeling by saying he's not a fan of court packing but "it depends" whether they go ahead with Barrett. If so, i say go for it.

41 replies, 1058 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 41 replies Author Time Post
Reply Question: Was Biden signalling to GOP that if u dare confirm Barrett he will expand the courts? (Original post)
onetexan Oct 16 OP
634-5789 Oct 16 #1
MurrayDelph Oct 16 #16
Skraxx Oct 16 #24
Goodheart Oct 16 #19
onetexan Oct 16 #33
Goodheart Oct 16 #35
Polybius Oct 16 #21
Ninga Oct 16 #2
thesquanderer Nov 4 #38
Ninga Nov 4 #39
thesquanderer Nov 4 #40
Ninga Nov 4 #41
brooklynite Oct 16 #3
Buckeyeblue Oct 16 #4
Statistical Oct 16 #28
lark Oct 16 #5
onetexan Oct 16 #9
Polybius Oct 16 #23
moonscape Oct 16 #30
lark Oct 17 #37
Chainfire Oct 16 #6
Statistical Oct 16 #29
NNadir Oct 16 #7
The Velveteen Ocelot Oct 16 #8
PRETZEL Oct 16 #11
Wounded Bear Oct 16 #12
The Velveteen Ocelot Oct 16 #15
Skraxx Oct 16 #18
The Velveteen Ocelot Oct 16 #20
Skraxx Oct 16 #22
The Velveteen Ocelot Oct 16 #25
Skraxx Oct 16 #26
onetexan Oct 16 #34
beachbumbob Oct 16 #10
ihas2stinkyfeet Oct 16 #13
flor-de-jasmim Oct 16 #14
Demsrule86 Oct 16 #17
Skraxx Oct 16 #27
JCMach1 Oct 16 #31
Hortensis Oct 16 #32
lagomorph777 Oct 16 #36

Response to onetexan (Original post)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 09:50 AM

1. Joe should def put 5 more justices on the Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 634-5789 (Reply #1)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 11:30 AM

16. Six

So there's one for each Circuit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MurrayDelph (Reply #16)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 11:42 AM

24. I Like That Idea, Start High and Negotiate down to 4 or 5 more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 634-5789 (Reply #1)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 11:35 AM

19. 20 more, seriously.

Nominating and confirming a Supreme Court justice should not be the drop dead circus events we now see. Why should any individual Supreme Court justice be any more significant than a US Senator?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Reply #19)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 03:02 PM

33. because they're lifetime appointments. There should be term limits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onetexan (Reply #33)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 03:21 PM

35. Because they ARE lifetime appointments is the exact reason why they should be made individually less

significant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 634-5789 (Reply #1)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 11:37 AM

21. Without Feinstein and Manchin, we need at least 52 seats

Even then it might not be enough if there are others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onetexan (Original post)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 09:51 AM

2. I clearly heard him say that he will let voters know before Election Day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 4, 2020, 10:48 AM

38. He didn't actually say anything more about this before election day, did he? (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Ninga (Reply #39)

Wed Nov 4, 2020, 11:03 AM

40. Thanks! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #40)

Wed Nov 4, 2020, 11:04 AM

41. Sure!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onetexan (Original post)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 09:52 AM

3. No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onetexan (Original post)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 09:52 AM

4. If he is there are a number of variables to overcome

1. Him winning the election
2. Getting a majority in the Senate
3. Getting Senators to agree to increasing the SC

I get talking about it in the abstract. But I wouldn't say too much about it. It seems a long shot under the best conditions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buckeyeblue (Reply #4)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 11:58 AM

28. Between 2 & 3 also add remove filibuster. That has to happen first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onetexan (Original post)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 09:56 AM

5. That's what I thought I was hearing.

If repugs pack the court, which they will 100% do, he will take action to save democracy. I don't know if this is just wishful thinking, but it definitely looks like he's considering doing this, which would be a great thing and a necessary thing. He should also expand the judiciary by 70 (Democrats, of course). The filibuster has to go first and there are several Dems who could stop this - Mancin and Gillibrand come to mind - but that has to be done immediately because there is so much fuckery to overturn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lark (Reply #5)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 10:05 AM

9. Completely agree. I took it to mean Joe was lobbing a warning to GOP that if u dare i will do it.

2 can play this game. May work, may not. But given how hypocritic the GOP is they shouldn't be surprised he would do this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lark (Reply #5)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 11:40 AM

23. Feinstein too opposes ending it

She said so just a few weeks ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lark (Reply #5)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 12:03 PM

30. Gillibrand has weighed in on this? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moonscape (Reply #30)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 09:56 AM

37. Not recently that I know of but she was opposed to ending it when the Dems were in charge.

She is quite conservative in many way including this and guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onetexan (Original post)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 09:58 AM

6. Increase the size of the courts

and then pass legislation requiring a 2/3 vote in both houses to change it again. Play by the rules the Republicans have established.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chainfire (Reply #6)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 12:01 PM

29. That would require a constitutional amendment.

Passing of legislation is a simple majority. Even if the law requiring 2/3rds to expand the court passed that law could be repealed with a simple majority so they wouldn't expand the court they would repeal the law then expand the court.

Still we shouldn't let fear of what the Republicans will do in the future drive the decision. The Republicans are packing the courts RIGHT NOW. Doing nothing means they already won and don't have to do anything in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onetexan (Original post)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 09:58 AM

7. What Moscow Mitch has been doing is court packing.

If someone brings a tank to a fight, you don't respond with a BB gun.

Senator Whitehouse made it clear enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onetexan (Original post)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 09:59 AM

8. It's not up to him; there's currently a statute setting the number at 9,

which was passed in the '40s. Congress has to do it. Biden could back the legislation and sign it into law if it passes both houses, but it's up to Congress in the first instance. And that's really all he has to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #8)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 10:25 AM

11. This is where I think the Vice President Biden is making a mistake

and letting this linger as an issue that shouldn't be an issue.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #8)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 10:27 AM

12. Actually, I believe it has been set at 9 since the 1860's...

But you're right about one thing. It would have to happen in the Congress.

I suspect that if they passed a law expanding the court, Joe wouldn't veto it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wounded Bear (Reply #12)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 10:36 AM

15. It was re-set again at 9 in 1948 after FDR's unsuccessful attempt

to increase the court to 15. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #15)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 11:35 AM

18. Incorrect, It Has Been 9 Since the 1860's, FDR threatened to increase but ultimately didn't.

https://www.britannica.com/story/why-are-there-nine-justices-on-the-us-supreme-court

"Basically, the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to determine how many justices sit on SCOTUS. This number has ranged between 5 and 10, but since 1869 the number has been set at 9."

--snip--

"President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a reorganization bill to Congress that would allow the president to appoint a new justice for each one who was at least 70 years old. Congress did not oblige, of course: this was seen as a court-packing scheme that would have given Roosevelt too much power. Rooseveltís motives were to push through his New Deal, which SCOTUS had continually worked against during the presidentís first term."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skraxx (Reply #18)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 11:36 AM

20. That's true.

Would have been more accurate to say re-authorized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #20)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 11:39 AM

22. Interestingly, It's Where The Term "Court Packing" Came From

A term that I dislike in the current context. It's definitely time to MODERNIZE the judicial system that has seen caseloads increase exponentially along with the population of the country, since 1869.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skraxx (Reply #22)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 11:42 AM

25. Agree. FDR didn't like what the court was doing with some of his New Deal programs

so the idea was to "pack" the court with justices who would be more amenable to them. The current concern, though, is that the court has become so biased and political in general that expanding it (not "packing" it with partisans) would restore it as the nonpartisan body it was intended to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #25)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 11:44 AM

26. Indeed, In My View We Are Left With Little Options BUT to "Modernize" or "Balance"

the federal judiciary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wounded Bear (Reply #12)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 03:12 PM

34. Ding Ding Ding!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onetexan (Original post)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 10:16 AM

10. I think we all know it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onetexan (Original post)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 10:29 AM

13. exactly how i took it.

 

exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onetexan (Original post)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 10:34 AM

14. That was my sense. Go, Biden!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onetexan (Original post)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 11:33 AM

17. Yes, that is what I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onetexan (Original post)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 11:46 AM

27. He Sure Was!

And I'm encouraged to hear it as we are left with little choice BUT to do so. The federal judiciary is WAY past due for modernization. The population of the country and caseloads have grown exponentially since 1869 when the size was last increased. We also need to increase the amount of Federal appellate courts that are inundated with case backlogs because of insufficient capacity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onetexan (Original post)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 12:08 PM

31. Well, and I like how he thinks, she's not confirmed YET

I like reality based Presidents

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onetexan (Original post)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 12:27 PM

32. No. McConnell & Co WILL confirm Barrett in hard-right court packing.

This isn't frivolous for them, it's a major wet dream.

CONGRESSIONAL Democrats will decide what they can and will do depending on the power they will have as of January 3, 2021.. No senate majority, nothing. No incoming Democratic president, nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onetexan (Original post)

Fri Oct 16, 2020, 03:24 PM

36. Expansion is unpacking

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread