'Democrats are not packing the Supreme Court with liberal judges,

[speak easy]

we are restoring the good standing of the Court by appointing Honest Justices who won't mislead the United States Senate during Confirmation, nor deceive Senators with private assurances they never had an intention of honoring. Trump packed the Court with judges who were prepared to lie to the American People. Democrats will restore the stature of, and confidence in the Supreme Court by nominating men and women of character. That is what expanding the court to 13 justices is about: Not abortion, not marriage equality, but the vital integrity of our institutions.'

my 2c

[Baitball Blogger]

1. You do realize we need honest judges who WON'T recognize the conservative Court's

break with stare decisis, right? That's means they will have to go back before Alito and Thomas diverted it to fit their own objective.

It will be interesting to read how the new court lacerates that move, before restoring the institution.

It's already interesting to hear the dissenting opinions of the left leaning members on the Court. They're taking the gloves out and calling the conservative judges out.

[iemanja]

2. Nothing like that is happening

anywhere.

[speak easy]

3. .... do you mean anytime?

[iemanja]

4. You speak in the present tense

as though something like that is in process. It is not. Now, if you want to frame it in terms of how you would see such a move, that's another story, but Democrats are not unified around expanding the court--and the president opposes it. Do you actually think there is a chance of it's getting through the filibuster?

[speak easy]

5. I am speaking hypothetically, of course.

However, if the Court embraces the Independent State Legislature theory, when deciding Moore v. Harper, I don't see that they would be leaving capital or small d democrats much choice. Then question would be, whether President Biden would veto the Bill expanding the Court.

[iemanja]

7. The question is not if Biden will veto it

Again, it is if it can get through the filibuster. It's entirely possible it wouldn't even win a majority of Democrats. We couldn't pass voting rights. What makes you think this would pass? I'd be amazed if something like this ever comes up for a vote.

The Democrats' fixation with presidential elections to the exclusion of state and local elections--and ceding that ground to Republicans-- have set the direction of the courts for a generation to come. It's not just SCOTUS. It's the entire judiciary. And then there is the election of 2016. People can't pull the kind of shit they did then in refusing to vote for our nominee and not expect consequences.

[speak easy]

8. The epitaph of American democracy will be institutionalists saying

'it can't be done' right up until the moment RW demagogues actually do it. The question is not whether SCOTUS will be expanded, it is when, and by whom.

[Cosmocat]

9. Very well stated

nm

[Poiuyt]

6. I think there's a big difference between expanding the court and packing the court

Packing the court is what Mitch McConnell did. Not only by denying Obama his rightful pick on the SC, but also the way his agenda in the Senate was to do nothing but confirm judges to the lower courts. They were never able to get anything done because that was all he did.