We'd have a better chance of impeaching a couple of justices than expanding the Court

[bigtree]

...with a Democratic Senate, the House could investigate the cretins with some certainty of a prosecution, if not conviction.

They could include some of those credential-lacking judges in their investigations, and look into those things the republican-led Judiciary committee refused to consider.

[BruinDadd]

1. Stop

[bigtree]

3. nah

[Thekaspervote]

2. It takes 2/3 majority to impeach a justice...but Glenn Kirschner said Kavanaugh lied under oath

During his hearings, could face criminal charges and forced to resign or just resign not to face charges.

[RockRaven]

4. Impeachment, sure. But that's impotent without removal.

Impeachment requires >1/2 in the House.
Removal after impeachment requires >2/3 in the Senate.

Expanding SCOTUS requires a bill being passed and signed/enacted.
That means >1/2 House and >3/5 Senate (or >1/2 if filibuster is "nuked" ) and a signature or non veto by POTUS.

Both 1/2 and 3/5 are less than 2/3... So... Which one is easier to achieve, huh?

[bigtree]

6. I don't think there won't be enough support for expanding

...but a withering investigation could force recusals, at the least, and votes as well from a still vulnerable republican Senate minority (dream scenario).

[RockRaven]

11. At present, there is nothing which FORCES recusals for SCOTUS, and Thomas has shown that

they will not be shamed by mere publicizing of conflicts of interest into following the recusal guidelines for lower courts (which do not have teeth when it comes to SCOTUS).

Any talk of conflicts of interest for SCOTUS is a polite fiction which Repukes ignore on principle and Dems abide only under the delusion that personal integrity has any virtue when it comes to SCOTUS.

[Desert grandma]

5. With a simple Senate majority

the court could be expanded. A simple majority could pass a bill in both houses by removing the filibuster. They would do the same (and did so for SCOTUS nominees. Expanding court would be much easier IMO.

[bigtree]

8. I don't think we have all the Democrats on that

...maybe we can try both, though.

Kelly, Jon Ossoff, and Cal Cunningham, prospective new senators are opposed. Feinstein also said no.

[Desert grandma]

12. That's what they say now.

Let's see what they say when the ACA is struck down. Their constituents will be screaming at them to do something.

[PTWB]

7. Nonsense.

It would take a regular majority in the house and senate plus the presidency to expand the court - it would take a two thirds majority in the senate to impeach and remove.

Your assertion - that impeachment is the easier path - is simply wrong.

[bigtree]

9. flesh it out politically

...where are the votes for the simple majority in the Senate?

Not all Dems are in favor of expanding.

I'll bet the House is itching to investigate, though.

[PTWB]

10. They'll be singing a different tune soon enough.

Once Roe is overturned and the ACA is deemed unconstitutional by this hyper partisan court.

[Indykatie]

13. Sorry But I think Yours is an Awful Take.

[bigtree]

14. it's not great

...but I think we're more likely to see a commission on judicial reform or the like, before we'll see any bill advance on expanding the court.

By that time...

The House is probably going to investigate anyway.