Elizabeth Warren: "Expand the Supreme Court"

[brooklynite]

Boston Globe

I believe in an independent judiciary. I also believe in a judiciary that upholds the rule of law — not one that ignores it to promote a deeply unpopular and partisan agenda at odds with the Constitution and the settled rights of our citizens. And when a court consistently shows that it no longer is bound by the rule of law, Congress must exercise its constitutional authority to fix that court.

Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to change the size of the Supreme Court. Congress has used that authority seven times before. To restore balance and integrity to a broken institution, Congress must expand the Supreme Court by four or more seats.

Some oppose the idea of court expansion. They have argued that expansion is “court-packing,” that it would start a never-ending cycle of adding justices to the bench, and that it would undermine the court’s integrity.

They are wrong. And their concerns do not reflect the gravity of the Republican hijacking of the Supreme Court.

[Omnipresent]

1. Setting a precedent is the problem.

The rethugs would only expand it even more, once they got back in power.

[W_HAMILTON]

5. LOL!

Last edited Wed Dec 15, 2021, 06:39 PM - Edit history (1)

If Republicans abided by precedents, there wouldn't even be a need to have this discussion.

[Omnipresent]

17. Exactly!

Were in a caught up in a vicious cycle of “tit for tat”.

[58Sunliner]

2. YES.

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. 15 seats minimum, 21 seats would be better- with 10 year term limits.

Dilute the power and influence of any individual Justice.

I don’t care if the Republicans do it too when they are in power.

[standingtall]

4. The court needs to be expanded

However we are going to need to get a bigger majority in the Senate before we can do that.

[Tickle]

12. True maybe

In 2023 when we have a real majority in the senate and manchin becomes who?

[Hoyt]

6. Certainly wish trump hadn't appointed 3 white wingers to Court, but not sure expanding Court is

the way to go.

After a few admins, we'll have hundreds of Justices as each side tries to stack the court.

[alwaysinasnit]

7. Expand the Court to 15 and have 9 serve on a rotational basis. That way, you can't

predict which judges will hear any controversial case.

[brooklynite]

8. The part first you can do; the second you can't without a Constitutional Amendment.

[alwaysinasnit]

9. Wishful thinking on my part.

[crickets]

10. Making persuasive, well-reasoned noise about it is phase one.

The groundswell for change has already begun. May it continue to grow. From earlier in the year:

Senator Markey, House Democrats propose bill to expand number of Supreme Court justices to 13 - APR 2021
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senator-markey-house-democrats-propose-bill-to-expand-number-of-supreme-court-justices-to-13/ar-BB1fH7ub

Markey cited McConnell’s refusal to allow a vote on former president Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, who is now the attorney general, in order to hold the seat open for a new president nominate a justice, and and the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat despite Ginsburg’s death taking place weeks before the 2020 presidential election. Barrett’s confirmation prevented the American people from having a say in the court’s ideological leaning by allowing Trump to fill Ginsburg’s seat instead of allowing the next president to nominate a new justice, Markey said. [snip]

Markey was joined at the press conference by Representative Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, co-sponsors of the legislation Representatives Hank Johnson of Georgia and Mondaire Jones of New York, and activists from progressive organizations.

Thirteen justices “will enable us to do justice as to rectify the great injustice that was done in packing the court,” Nadler, who is also a co-sponsor of the bill, said at the press conference. He added that while the Constitution established the Supreme Court, Congress has the power to determine its size. [snip]

When asked about Pelosi’s opposition to the measure at the conference, Nadler said the speaker is a “very good judge of events and history,” and he believes as the Supreme Court continues to administer decisions Democrats find unfavorable, “Speaker Pelosi and others will come along.”

Keep up the pressure, Dems. Run hard like never before in 2022 to get the numbers needed.

[Demsrule86]

11. Wow...why didn't someone consider that before? Oh wait, it has been talked about for months and

as Sen. Warren must know because she is a Senator, we don't have the votes in the Senate.

[Polybius]

14. Long before than even

FDR tried and failed to do it.

[madville]

13. I doubt they could get 40 Senate votes for it right now

Several Democratic Senators are on record opposing expanding the SCOTUS.

[gldstwmn]

15. Keep saying it.

[AncientAndy]

16. Is she going to introduce a bill for court expansion..

or just write op-ed’s and tweets about it? Given the urgency she expresses, you’d think she would have the bill written already. When does she plan on bringing this bill to a vote in the Senate?

[Buckeyeblue]

18. The SC should have more justices but also be rethought

The constitution is vague on the role of the SC. Honestly, the SC we have today, really has, over the course of our countries history, given itself the authority that it has.

I'm not sure what it should look like. But there should be more transparency. More accountability.

[IbogaProject]

19. 15, 5D, 5R, 5non partisan

15, 5D, 5R, 5non partisan, the idea is to to have the 5D & 5R selected closer to the current process, with seat balance set, the final 5 would be picked as non partisan picked by those 10 and then those NP ones would still be confirmed by the Senate. 15 is the # of district courts and theoretically they could do some of the reviews in rotating grouops of 5.