Will the threat of expanding SCOTUS restrain the current Court

[redstateblues]

From tearing apart the gains of the last 50 years?

[Voltaire2]

1. nope.

[bigtree]

2. I don't see how

...I wonder what happens in the court while we're deliberating on them? It might embolden or hasten them to their appointed tasks.

I don't think you get a bill to expand the court right away. There will likely be a commission of some sorts on Judicial reform established, and expanding the courts will be hard-pressed to find a majority, even among Democrats when the spotlight of the election turns away.

[Bradshaw3]

15. Hard to find a majority of Democrats once the ACA, Roe, voting rights etc are overturned?

You can add in any significant legislation, or any the repubs decide to sue over, the Democrats pass that the SCOTUS then strikes down. Yes it may take awhile for those things to happen but it isn't hard to see it coming. Not only would Democrats demand something be done to stop this repub method of minority rule they would be demanding it. Otherwise our votes mean nothing.

[bigtree]

23. I don't want to be too cynical

...but I've seen the election year commission shell game many times before.

Hope for the best.

[Bobstandard]

31. Proposing a commission is raising the white flag

It’s a convenient some screen for preparing to do nothing

The idea that the commission be bipartisan is especially galling.

[area51]

34. +1 n/t

[Bradshaw3]

33. No doubt about that

I'm 67 and always believed in our system. But it's become obvious that the repub party and the powerful elites who control them are only committed to maintaining power, democracy be damned. Only one way to fight that - fire with fire.

[Mike Niendorff]

3. It's not a "threat"

And no, it won't.

This one must actually be done.


MDN

[The Magistrate]

28. Hear Hear, Sir

It is never enough to show a fanatic the pistol. It must actually be fired.

[Deuce]

4. I don't think so...

[Statistical]

5. No. The Republicans and the courts are betting that the Democrats will blink.

When given ultimate power Democrats rarely ever use it ruthlessly like Republicans do. Instead try to seek bipartisanship and compromise. They have for 40 years now very predictably every single time it happened. I mean Obamacare is essentially Romneycare. It was designed to be the most appealing and moderate choice possible.

If the court was 6-3 liberal and DC/PR were red territories and the Republicans gained control there is a 0.000000000000000000000% chance they wouldn't expand the court and open both territories to statehood and it would happen in the first weeks of the new Congress.

[Bobstandard]

32. If we blink we lose in 2024

Because our side will be disgusted

[Statistical]

35. I agree the stakes have never be higher just saying historically Democrats have been very reluctant

to use the full power offered under the law.

For example DC and PR still aren't states. The current house size benefits Republicans but the Wyoming rule hasn't been implemented. The filibuster is of more benefit to Republicans than Democrats and it still exists.

Now I do hope the leadership takes this power and uses it to the full extent of the law but one can see why Republicans just assume Democrats will blink.

[LovingA2andMI]

6. No

Next.

[lark]

7. Fuck no.

They are doing the bidding of rich repugs and the rw religious who will laud them for this. That is all they care about, promoting the rw rich and the religious. Roberts like to pretend to be an American sometimes so voted against the drumpf theory that he is king, while of course Thomas and Alito (and forget if it was Gorsuch or Kav who also protected the constitution) voted that we are a fascist rw country and the president has no boundaries.

When (not if) drumpf runs to them yelling fraud and demanding for them to overturn the "fraud" aka election - Roberts will probably vote with the Dems, maybe even Kav/Gorsuch but I'd put big money down that Barrett will go with what her "authority" told her to do and will vote to undo the will of Americans. They will also remove - ACA, women's choice & even civil rights - gone too. She is the worst SCOTUS in history, at least her record is and I'd be shocked if she doesn't live up to her total infamy.

[Ohiogal]

8. If they vote to decimate Obamacare

We could always come up with a public option, no? Especially if we take the Presidency and the Senate.

I am nervous as heck because I have an ACA plan. And I am also furious that I have to sweat this thing out AGAIN..

[SlogginThroughIt]

12. and they will strike it down again.

[Bradshaw3]

17. Exactly

Along with any other legislation the repubs decide to sue over. They are basically negating democracy and it has to be stopped.

[spanone]

9. Just do it.

[kysrsoze]

10. Doubtful. Alito, Handmaid, Pubic Hair and Beer Pong are all true believers.

[dalton99a]

11. NO.

Exhibit A: Bush v. Gore

[SoonerPride]

13. Not at all. They will plow right ahead and dismantle asmuch as we let them

[moondust]

14. Nope. Boofing parties will continue.

[Boogiemack]

16. Just look at the fuckers...do you think it will?

Hell no!

But it might make some would-be-anti-Trumpers think twice about their vote this time.

[Buckeyeblue]

18. I think Roberts will restrain the current court

He has a sense for the court's history and is sensitive about legitimacy questions. Just a hunch on my part. I could be wrong.

[Arazi]

20. He can't counterbalance The Handmaiden and Kegger alone

So no fucking way.

It will be full steam ahead until they're stopped by 4 liberal Dem additions to SCOTUS

[Buckeyeblue]

27. I think he will talk to them about election restraint

Trump is already illegitimate. If the SC comes up with some strange ruling allowing him to somehow "win" reelection, the public will be done. The court's legitimacy will be questioned. I could even see scenarios where states will begin to ignore the court, leaving the 9 justices out on a rock, shouting into the abyss.

[Arazi]

29. The Handmaiden immediately participated in a campaign video after being sworn in

She isn't going to be restrained.

She's going to do exactly as directed by her masters at the Federalist Society

[bigtree]

25. maybe he could urge recusals

...especially if the House gets up to speed on investigations of the SCOTUS picks and the Trump admin. process.

[Clearly fogged in]

19. Let's add a word

Would the perceived threat ...?

Do they ever consider what they view as spineless democrats to be a threat? It's not even on their radar.

[NurseJackie]

21. Nope. It must be balanced and corrected BEFORE they get a chance to do more damage.

We don't need actual proof or a specific action to justify expanding the court. We already have our justification.

[edhopper]

22. No

in fact it will push them to even more radical rulings.

[JHB]

24. No. They won't take it seriously until it happens...

...and the situation is not the way it was in the '30s.

The people who have been driving what the Republicans have been doing for several decades now are out to overturn long-established laws and rulings. Their goal is to return the government to the scope (or lack thereof) as it had during the Gilded Age of the late 19th century. That's the period they laud as the Age of Greatness that we've fallen away from, when Great Men built Great Industries, made Great Fortunes were made, and government got out of (/was bribed to stay out of) their way. And anyone who calls those Great Men "robber barons" is a Marxian socialist!

They're not going to stop until they've been stopped. They've come this far by simply bowling over norms and brazening out the complaints afterward, allowing their action to stand as the new normal. And then they bowl over more things and push it further.

Why would they stop doing that now?

[Bettie]

26. No. First off, they will get their agenda enacted

knowing that it might take years to get it put back in place.

Second, none of the right wingers believe that Democrats will actually expand the courts.

In this thread, there are people on our side who think it can't be done and say so. Why would they hold back when they believe we don't have the will to do what must be done?

[Autumn]

30. No.