This is the clearest, and most straightforward argument I've seen for expanding the Supreme Court

[Bleacher Creature]

It's obviously not going to happen without a larger Democratic majority, but if and when that happens here's an easy way to make the argument in a non-partisan way.

Link to tweet

[SheltieLover]

1. Thx, BC!

[thesquanderer]

2. If similarly each circuit had to supply one justice, I wonder how that might tip the scales? n/t

[bronxiteforever]

3. Kick & recommend. Great post.

[Rhiannon12866]

4. Twitter replies:

🇺🇦SHARON ☮️💔
@Skepmi
·
Jun 25
More Democrats in Senate. It will take 60 votes OR eliminate filibuster. We cannot eliminate filibuster without Manchin and Sinema’s votes. They refuse. We must increase Democratic majority in Senate to 53 in Nov. we can then tell Sinema and Manchin go get screwed!

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Evolve Dammit]

5. Precedent!

[Evolve Dammit]

6. Precedent!

[former9thward]

7. It is not a good argument.

In 1869 the SC Justices traveled to the circuit they were in charge of and heard cases. That has not been the case since 1911. Each Justice now has a circuit or circuits assigned to him/her but just for emergency appeals and request for stays. It is not remotely the same amount of work.

[proud patriot]

10. I beg to differ

it is exactly the reason to expand .. PERIOD .. now on to making DC a state plus our territories .. fair is fair after all ..

[uponit7771]

17. You made the technical case for 4 more justices in your last two sentences. It doesn't matter

... the volume of work or what century it is what matters is the circuit courts are still associated with the justices at all.

MAGA will claim the SC needs to be expanded to keep non whites out and then proceed on expanding the courts for that reason unabashedly.

[kelly1mm]

8. So long as you are cool with a Republican President/Senate expanding the Court to 13

if/when they have the Presidency/Senate under the same logic then yeah cool beans .......

If not you may want to rethink your position. (and remeber they can always increase the number of circuits when they are in charge .....)

[proud patriot]

11. not beyond 13

using the 1869 reasoning ..

[kelly1mm]

13. There is no constitutional limit to circuit courts (or that there be circuit courts at all) Are

you OK with the republicans seating 4 extra justices to the supreme court if/when they are in charge? If not this is just situational politics. I suppose that when/if the Republicans retake the Senate the Democrats will be the BIGGEST supporters of the filibuster ever seen (kind of like last time they were in the minority.)

All I am asking for is some logical consistency.

[speak easy]

19. Are you willing to bet the future on the GOP sticking with nine justices?

[proud patriot]

51. Not me ... they will do it ..

We must act now !

[proud patriot]

52. I am not fearful of it ... I know it

The game is afoot and fear of the other doing it is foolish , for they will do it ..

We Know it ... We must act now and not out of fear but justice ...

[Hav]

21. Yep, worst case scenario that needs to be considered:

In a miracle, Dems have the votes to expand the SC but there's not enough time and political will by at least one Dem senator to fill the new seats. In the 2022 midterms, Reps win a 1 seat majority in the Senate and they block any SC nominee hearings.
If they win the 2024 elections, congratulations, the balance is now 10-3 in favor of Repubs thanks to this brilliant plan.

[48656c6c6f20]

22. And there's the problem

You're thinking like a Democrat with scruples, morals and thoughtfulness. You're enemy is a rabid viscous animal that would destroy anything in their way to get what they want. And they're winning. And we keep losing and proudly saying, see we're the good guys. Well fuck that. I'm tired of losing.
It's time to become them and fight for what is right. I'll deal with the conflict of soul later.

[proud patriot]

9. i've been saying ths for years

[In It to Win It]

12. The Party doesn't quite seem willing to nuke the filibuster to make that

or many other things happen just yet... assuming we can't get 62 or more senators, which appears to be unlikely in the foreseeable future.

If we're okay with doing away with the filibuster, we can't scared of Republicans using it toward their advantage when they gain power.

[kelly1mm]

14. You should be VERY, VERY afraid of what the Republicans will do if Democrats nuke the filibuster. nt

[In It to Win It]

16. Then we will have to learn to do without on some things

There is no national legislative agenda then until we get 60 senators because we're not getting reasonable GOP compromises on clean energy, abortion rights, or many of the expansive things that were apart of the BBB plan.

The vast majority of our legislative agenda is limited to whatever we can do through budgetary reconciliation. We have to get creative on taxing and spending for everything until we get 60 or more senators.

If we can get 60 senators, we possibly have to deal with a pro-life Democrat from a more conservative state. We possibly would have to deal with a Democrat from a more conservative state who may not be so willing to do what we need on climate change. In reality, we may have to get more than 60 just in case we get 1 or 2 that are not entirely with for all of our agenda.

[uponit7771]

18. Because MAGA wont nuke the filibuster they first chance they get!? They've done it before for ...

.... categories and without question they'll due such because they can in near future.

At some point Americans have to stop trusting MAGA after they've shown us who they are

[kelly1mm]

32. Senator Reid was the one who started the nuking of the filibuster, not republicans. When Trump

urged McConnel to nuke the filibuster when the republicans had the trifecta he refused. McConnel knows that the filibuster is a fantastic tool for obstructionists which is what the republicans are.

Everybody seems to forget there is a history on the filibuster nuking and it is not that old ....

[uponit7771]

35. Because MAGA abused filibuster to stop Obama judges which goes to my point that

.... MAGA starts the bad faith and Dems have to respond to it

They'll do the same thing with supreme Court judges and nuking the filibuster; MAGA will start bad faith actions dema will HAVE TO escalate

[kelly1mm]

36. Every use of the filibuster is seen as an abuse by the majority. What would be a non-abusive use of

the filibuster?

[uponit7771]

37. False. You can use your filibuster in order to press concerns but not stop legislation all together

Bottom line, the Republicans have used the filibuster to stop any progress of any legislation at all. No matter what the case, that is 100% abuse of the filibuster

Again, Republicans escalated the issue of the filibuster to the extreme degree under Obama picking judges. That is a fact not in dispute

Democrats responded by doing a carve out for judges because of Republican abuse

Going forward any legislation Republicans will again escalate, escalate and escalate. We can no longer trust them. They have proven and shown who they are. Matter of fact now they're just writing it down and telling America the fuck off

[kelly1mm]

38. I think you and I will not agree on the benefits of the filibuster. I think Democrats will

continue to be blocked while they are in power from pushing their programs through by the courts while Republicans will have unchecked power to enact their agenda when they are in power. This is my fundamental reason for supporting the filibuster.

[uponit7771]

39. We have to agree on reality; MAGA escalated abuses of filibuster ***FIRST*** dems responded. right?

[kelly1mm]

42. The Republicans refused to seat a historically high number of President Obamas judicial

nominees. That is a fact. Calling that abuse is an opinion. It is an opinion widely held.

[uponit7771]

44. Maybe but objective data can be set on when GOP started using filibuster at high rate and when ...

... dems responded and there's no doubt about it GOP started using filibuster in high numbers ... ***FIRST***.

Dems responded, dems ***SHOULD NOT*** respond this time but be first in getting ahead of GOP not wanting democracy

[kelly1mm]

45. So long as you are cool with the consequences of no filibuster for Democrats when they are in the

minority, then more power to you. I wonder what would have happened if Democrats did not have the filibuster in the first two years of the Trump presidency, where they used the filibuster over 300 times to stop Trumps agenda?

Again, the Democrats may be able to pass their legislative agenda if the filibuster is no longer a rule but much of it will be struck down by the courts (IMO) whereas the Republicans will have no such impediments ......

[uponit7771]

47. Because of the objective change to the filibuster I am 10000% OK with it not existing at all. The

... change in the filibuster from a standing speech etc to an email has done more damage than good.

[speak easy]

20. Because the GOP would never nuke it themselves?

[kelly1mm]

33. Not 'never' but unlikely in the foreseeable future. They did not nuke it when they

had the trifecta in Trumps first 2 years even though he asked them to. McConnell knows the filibuster is a fantastic tool for obstruction which is what the republicans do best.

[uponit7771]

40. right ?! The "republicans aren't really scorpions that'll sting the frog" argument sounds hysterical

[Deminpenn]

28. If the Rs get 51 seats and the fillibuster stands in their way

they will vote to eliminate the legislative fillibuster.

The judicial fillibuster is already gone in case you missed it.

[kelly1mm]

34. Senator Reid nuked the judicial filibuster. The R's just finished the job by making it apply

to the USSC. If you are mad about the judicial filibuster being gone blame the person who did it.

[uponit7771]

41. But reps escalated filibuster abuse first right ?! tia

[Deminpenn]

43. That's my point, when it suited McConnell to get his

rw picks on SCOTUS, he got rid of the fillibuster for those appointments.

FWIW, Biden's filled a lot of court vacancies and almost all have been approved with significant R support. None of that would've happened if Reid hadn't nuked the fillibuster. Not having a fillibuster seems much more conducive to civilized behavior and bipartisanship than having it.

[kelly1mm]

46. Couldn't you say 'when it suited Reid to get his lw picks on the federal courts, he

got rid of the filibuster for those appointments.'?

[Deminpenn]

48. Had McConnell and co not been

100% obstructionist, Reid wouldn't have resorted to the "nuclear option" on below SCOTUS judges.

McConnell could have had a list of qualified, conservative judges who might have drawn Dem support, but he wanted idealogs who he knew weren't going to get that so he went ahead and dumped the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees, too.

[standingtall]

53. Nonsense Republicans are already doing every thing they want now

What's it going to take for some Democrats to realize the court must be expanded. Do republicans have to repeal the entire New Deal first? republicans better be afraid we are going to add States once we nuke the filibuster.

[Earth-shine]

15. No lifetime appointments.

Back when this was decided, such appointments were shorter.

[onenote]

23. They really weren't shorter.

Out of the first 50 SC Justices, 13 served for between 20 and 30 years and 8 served for more than 30 years.

Out of the last 50 SC Justices, 8 have served for between 20 and 30 years and 7 have served for more than 30 years.

[Earth-shine]

24. We live longer now. The potential for a justice to be on the bench into their 90s is much greater

now than ever.

Lifetime appointments make them untouchable. Look what that has for Alito and Thomas.

[onenote]

25. The potential may be greater that applies to justices appointed by Democrats too.

Two of the longest-lived justices were William O. Douglas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. At what age would do you think justices should retire (and should it be based on age or on number of years of service)?

[Earth-shine]

26. There should be a complete redesign of the court such that justices rotate in and out.

In some instances, like now, these justices are exercising more power than presidents.

[onenote]

27. Arguably, the Supreme Court has always exercised more power than presidents.

[Earth-shine]

29. Arguably, this conversation is over.

[onenote]

31. Okay. Nice chatting with you.

[Deminpenn]

30. My view also

1 Justice for each federal circuit with the CJ keeping the extra responsibility of the Federal Circuit.

Here are the current assignments: Roberts 4th, DC and Federal
Thomas 11th
Breyer 1st
Alito 3rd, 5th
Sotomayor 2nd
Kagan 9th
Gorsuch 10th
Kavanaugh 6th, 8th
Barrett 7th

Notice the two most conservative, rw justices have the two most rw circuits in the 5th and 11th. Of the 9 circuits, Dems/Liberals head 3 despite Sotomayor and Kagan having seniority over Kavanaugh.

CJ Roberts and other justices have long complained about the increased workload on the federal judiciary as well.

[Joinfortmill]

49. We need to do this ASAP. Someone needs to persuade President Biden.

[Poiuyt]

50. K&R