Take back the senate.. extend the house.. and up Scotus members to 15 and let Biden appoint

[Peacetrain]

6 new young liberal justices.. and this will put an end to the dismantling of our democracy (small d) that the current SCOTUS is in the process of doing..

edit at 4:08 PM to add that we have had different numbers of justices before


https://www.history.com/news/supreme-court-justices-number-constitution

Only since 1869 have there consistently been nine justices appointed to the Supreme Court. Before that, Congress routinely changed the number of justices to achieve its own partisan political goals, resulting in as few as five Supreme Court justices required by law under John Adams to as many as 10 under Abraham Lincoln.

The U.S. Constitution is silent about how many justices should sit on the Supreme Court. In fact, the office of Chief Justice only exists because it’s mentioned in the Constitution under Senate rules for impeachment proceedings (“When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside...”).

It’s Congress, not the Constitution, that decides the size of the Supreme Court, which it did for the first time under the Judiciary Act of 1789. When George Washington signed the Act into law, he set the number of Supreme Court justices at six.

[SoCalDavidS]

1. Easy Peasy

Shouldn't be a problem to do all those things.

[Peacetrain]

5. And your solution is?

[SoCalDavidS]

10. Acceptance

Unfortunately, after all the shit I've witnessed, I'm a pessimist. I see no solution, given the population of America.

One who ignores history, is doomed to repeat it.

And we're going to keep repeating the mistakes, and repeating them, and repeating them.

I have ZERO faith in at least 40% of America to do what makes sense anymore.

[Peacetrain]

13. If you do nothing, then we know the outcome for sure.. it is a certaintyll

Roosevelt (Franklin) wanted 13 I think... we have had more justices than 9 before

"Only since 1869 have there consistently been nine justices appointed to the Supreme Court. Before that, Congress routinely changed the number of justices to achieve its own partisan political goals, resulting in as few as five Supreme Court justices required by law under John Adams to as many as 10 under Abraham Lincoln."

[Bluethroughu]

2. Now!

14th Amendment every Senator and Representative that gave aid to the insurrection...fill the positions and start remaking America into what the MAJORITY OF PEOPLE living, working, and building it want.

End this minority servitude.

[brooklynite]

3. Have you discussed this with President Biden?

He doesn't want to expand the Court.

[Peacetrain]

7. And what other solution is there?

[In It to Win It]

16. Keep winning

There is no short term medicine to this.

We need winning until Clarence Thomas dies or resigns.
We need winning until Sam Alito dies or resigns.

They're in their 70s but that's young in Supreme Court years.

[Rebl2]

12. Exactly

If he’s not on board it goes no where.

[Silent3]

4. And everyone gets a pony! n/t

[Peacetrain]

6. And your solution is?

[Silent3]

11. I didn't say I had a solution. But a wish list isn't a solution either.

We have to do our best, of course, to get people out to vote, but it's looking damn likely even our best won't be enough without a shitload of luck, some as-yet unforeseen event or events that turn the tide.

[Peacetrain]

14. I see nothing else that we can do.. other than just get out and vote vote vote

and take it all over.. otherwise we are just sitting and watching SCOTUS dismantle our country.. We have to try.. if we don't try then we know what we have.

[exboyfil]

8. Next time GOP controls all three branches

Court gets expanded to 25 with ten young Federalist Society justices.

Not saying you shouldn't do it, but you better have a plan to hold one of the three branches at all times.

[Peacetrain]

9. How else do we stop it..

Keep it going till everyone is sitting on the SCOTUS.. true democracy (being facetious there).. but how else do we stop this?

[In It to Win It]

15. We keep winning

We can expand SCOTUS. Once justices are appointed, Congress can lower the number of justices again immediately after. However, once those additional justices are confirmed to the Court, they can't be removed regardless unless Congress is willing to impeach them to remove them. Are we, as a Party, willing to take the risk that the GOP won't also expand the Court?

We could also require a unanimous vote of all justices to strike down an Act of Congress, executive orders and/or agency regulations. Are we, as a Party, willing to deal with that high roadblock of another GOP president institute another Muslim ban and it gets put in front of the Supreme Court?

I'm not sure if leadership in the Party is wiling to take those steps. Truthfully, I don't think they want to, or they are uncertain.

[Mad_Machine76]

17. I think some may (rightly) be cautious

of Republican escalation next time they're in power. This goes for the filibuster too. It would serve us well when we are in power but we'd be opening a door with an uncertain future as long as Republicans are a serious electoral threat.

[In It to Win It]

18. I don't disagree

That unknown is scary.

On the other hand, I do question at what point do we start to compromise on those procedural stances. For the bigger policy goals that the Party has, we obviously require 60 senators. Over the next 10 years, can we see that being attainable? If not, then what do we do accomplish our goals over that time horizon?

A reproductive rights bill requires 60 senators. If we create a carve out to pass legislation regulating abortion on a simple majority, Republicans will create a carve out for some batshit crazy shit that they want or they repeal the same legislation because they no longer need 60 senators for legislation on abortion regulations. Maybe they get rid of the filibuster entirely as a response.

We'd have to create a carve out on the filibuster to expand the court also.

If we create carveouts for all of these things, they will create carveouts.

I wrestle with the question because frankly, I've begun to think getting 60 senators is not an attainable goal anymore. If I truly believe that, I would have to be willing to make the compromise and be willing to take the risk of escalation by Republicans.

What are the issues we're willing to risk it for? Court expansion? Abortion rights? Healthcare? Voting rights?

[Mad_Machine76]

21. I think that

we need to redouble our efforts in the states for now. The more states Democrats and progressives control, the less bad legislation will be passed that will bubble up to and be approved by SCOTUS and the more good stuff can get passed (i.e. reduce anti-choice laws and restrictions). Also, the more states we control, the less legislative shenanigans and gerrymandering we will have to deal with and the more Democrats we can get elected to Congress. Problem is that it won't be easy and it will take time and patience, which some people don't have because they want to see results NOW or feel like they're getting some kind instant value for their votes. We have to play the long game like the right-wing has. We can't keep taking two steps forward and then taking our ball and go home when we don't get what we want when we want it. We just can't.

[JohnSJ]

19. Not just take back the Senate, but take back the Senate by at least a majority of two seats

[LakeArenal]

20. I guess some of the above are trying to make you give up your opinion.

I might add:

Take back the Senate and get rid of electoral college.

Get ready… 1…2…3… “We can’t/ won’t do that because……blah blah blah.

Everyone: Don’t get mad, do t get sad—VOTE.