Judiciary Act adds four seats to the Supreme Court

[vlyons]

Expand the Supreme Court: Senator Markey and Reps., Nadler, Johnson, and Jones Introduce Legislation to Restore Justice and Democracy to Judicial System

https://hankjohnson.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/expand-supreme-court-senator-markey-and-reps-nadler-johnson-and-jones

[SunSeeker]

1. Desperately needed to restore justice. nt

[packman]

2. And does anyone believe this will pass a Republican road block?

[vlyons]

3. Nothing ventured, nothing gained

[packman]

14. Amen

[calimary]

20. There is that.

There DEFINITELY is that.

[electric_blue68]

46. Yup. 👍

[panader0]

6. No, it won't pass Republicans, but I'm glad it was put out there anyway.

It will certainly get their attention.

[Mr.Bill]

8. The only raod blocks are the filibuster and a few rogue Democrats in the Senate.

Both of those can be overcome if we pick up a few seats in the Senate.

[InstantGratification]

18. One other important thing too

It would also require holding the House. Changing the filibuster rules just needs 51 votes in the Senate. Adding to the Supreme Court requires legislation that passes both houses of Congress and gets signed by the President.

So it would take holding the House with enough of a majority to overcome any democrats that oppose expanding the SC and it would take picking up enough seats in the Senate to overcome Manchin, Sinema and any other Dem that might be opposed to ditching the filibuster. Get those done on Tuesday and you get the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

[Prairie_Seagull]

19. Judicial nominees only need 51 votes in the Senate...right? n/t

[Mr.Bill]

36. Correct.

That's why it's important to hold the Senate. If we lose the senate, Joe Biden has appointed hos last judge for this term. And we need 52 seats because we have a few Senators that like to go against their party when it's most important.

[ColinC]

25. If we gain only 2 senate seats, no.

If we gain maybe 3-5, then there’s a better chance

[Mr.Bill]

38. Assuming the usual two problem Senators won't vote yes and vote no,

That means a 50-50 tie with the VP casting the tie-breaking vote. That's assuming we hold 52 seats. Of course more would be better.

[Polybius]

40. Biden said on June 25th that he opposes adding more Justices

I have no reason to think that he's lying.

Biden doesn't support expanding the Supreme Court, White House says

[Mr.Bill]

41. June 25th is eons ago

in today's political climate. No one will criticize him for changing his opinion. This current court wants to take this country and people's rights back to the 50s.

[Polybius]

42. But he said it the day after Dobbs was decided

If ever there was a time ripe for supporting adding Justices, it was then. Maybe wait to see if he's re-elected?

[Mr.Bill]

43. And watch them give state legislatures

the right to name any electors they want? Watch them take away same sex marriage? Even inter-racial marriage? That's exactly what these six Cristofascists intend to do. We may never have this chance again. We may never have elections again. It's time to play hardball or wake up two years from now in a Theocracy.

[Polybius]

44. Well, we need to pick up two Senate seats and hold the House

How are we going to do that?

[Mr.Bill]

45. Vote!

I'm actually pretty optimistic.

[Polybius]

48. I will on Tuesday

I think that if everything goes our way, we can maybe gain one seat. You think two is possible?

[Mr.Bill]

49. Yes, basically I feel

like there.is a surprise or two out there. Can't be specific, just a feeling I have.

[Polybius]

50. I hope you're right

Three will be even better!

[electric_blue68]

47. 1850's that is.

GOOOOOOOO, DEMS






👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍
🗳️ 🗳️ 🗳️ 🗳️ 🗳️ 🗳️ 🗳️ 🗳️

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

64. This current court wants to take this country into a dictatorship.

Failure to recognize that fact and act on it is helping the Nazi/fascist takeover.

[Zeitghost]

71. We don't have 48 votes now

Manchin and Sinema are not the only obstacles.

[Mr.Bill]

73. True, but the landscape may look

a little different as time goes on.

[SCantiGOP]

62. And what if this passes

And the GOP Senate turns down all of Biden’s nominees and then they win the White House in 2024?
How long would it take to change the 10-3 hard right majority that would result?

[inthewind21]

65. About the same

amount of time it will take to change the 6-3 we have now,

[Hortensis]

4. Any bill(s) that ultimately pass will be under the auspices of

party leaders and have developed a critical mass of house and senate support. It's not time yet because we just don't have the power in either chamber to pass it. So, no critical mass of Democratic congressmen passionately insisting on passage now!

It's so hard waiting for time and other critical factors to come together. If only we at least still had the large Democratic house caucus of 2018 to build on. And more senators of course.

But re-touting this Judiciary Act of (April) 2021 will get some media attention right before election day and hopefully help some who are issuing public statements and not hurt others.

Tuesday! We'll get see what we'll have to work with for the next two years.

[spanone]

5. K&R

[Mr.Bill]

7. President Biden and Democrats in Congress have to realize

that the bullshit McConnell pulled with the Supreme Court is a big part of why we voted for them and allowed them to control both houses in Congress. The fact they have not fixed this yet is shameful, even if the blame can only be placed on a few of them. They know who they are. If we lose one or both houses, it will be part of the reason why. We elected you to do something. Do it.

If you don't, and we lose Congress, this country is over.

[sop]

10. The theft of those two SC seats was the most nakedly undemocratic act of MConnell's career.

It must be set right.

[wnylib]

59. +1,000,000

[AllyCat]

61. I would argue it was 3 seats.

He colluded with the orange anus to get Kennedy to retire and appoint the 3rd.

[Hestia]

60. You are correct, but who knew at the time about Manchin & Siema? This is not an autocracy and with

the numbers in both chambers so close, we have to wait. We need at least 5 more senators, 61 would be fantastic. Even if filibuster isn't overturned, then number holds in our favor. Last time was the 5 months in 2010 when we did have the senate majority.

(Remember when Al Franken won but his opponent kept filing lawsuit after lawsuit to overturn that vote? THAT is why we had senate majority for 5 months, then everyone started losing their teabagger minds and GQP won majority.)

[vlyons]

9. Just wish this happened a month ago

So Dems would have time to make it a talking point for the mid-term election. Especially in light of SCOTUS gutting Roe. Oh well ---

[former9thward]

31. It happened 18 months ago.

The link is from April, 2021. That should tell you something...

[Mr. Sparkle]

11. Id imagine its an incentive for democrats to get out and vote

Their saying, give us the numbers and we will pass the legislation. Though they should have announced it earlier so more people can hear about it.

[former9thward]

32. It was introduced 18 months ago.

The link is from April, 2021.

[Mr. Sparkle]

54. Good to know, thanks!

[Evolve Dammit]

12. When was the last time the SCOTUS was expanded? I'm thinking FDR but not sure.

[reACTIONary]

15. FDR threatened to do it...

... but didn't. The threat helped, though. They started to moderate their decisions.

[reACTIONary]

16. The largest court was 10 justices...

The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since. In 1937, in an effort to create a court more friendly to his New Deal programs, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow a new justice to be added to the court—for a total of up to 15 members—for every justice over 70 who opted not to retire. Congress didn’t go for FDR’s plan.

https://www.history.com/news/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court

[Wednesdays]

37. And FDR's plan backfired so badly

it (along with the 1937 dip in the economy) helped the GOP to make significant gains in the 1938 elections.

[Evolve Dammit]

55. Thanks very much!

[iemanja]

68. An even number could be a good idea

That would avoid split decisions by only one justice and would require more compromise.

[reACTIONary]

70. I think a super majority for any constitutional decision...

.... would be a big improvement, regardless of the number.

[Liberty Belle]

13. It's about time!

Let's hope the elections go well for Dems so that there will be enough votes to actually get this passed and save our democracy.

[jaxexpat]

17. I see a much needed case that must go to this new USSC.

Let them rule on the motion to remove judges who have betrayed their testimony before the senate. An 8-10 member majority in a 13 member court should work wonders.

[lindysalsagal]

21. Ho-LEE-CRAP!

WOW! Now, let's eliminate the electoral college!

[inthewind21]

66. That would

require a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.

[republianmushroom]

22. I like it

[SuperCoder]

23. From 2021.

Sadly.

[NJCher]

29. not a biggie

lots of bills sit around for just the right time.

I am glad these elected representatives have this ready to go.

[ShazzieB]

30. Yeah, why is this being reported here like it's actual news?

I had a reply all ready to go, based on this being current news. Then I noticed that the article is dated April 15, 2021, and went "Wtf?"

Expanding the Supreme Court is something I think desperately needs to happen, but this article is more than a year and a half old. Don't tantalize me like this, doggone it!

[Sogo]

24. Love it!

[catrose]

26. Hallelujah!

[onenote]

27. Introduced a year ago. Referred to Committee. Hasn't even gotten a hearing.

Don't hold your breath.

[onenote]

28. Introduced a year ago. Referred to Committee. Hasn't even gotten a hearing.

Don't hold your breath.

[KPN]

33. This was introduced in 2021. Is something new going on

with it now?

[markodochartaigh]

34. Pack the supreme court?

The supreme court has already been packed. Since the Republicans showed the way to zip through justice Barrett, the Democrats should pass the Judiciary Act and approve four more justices before the end of November. They should try and get the most qualified people, but they also should not worry about setting the bar too high. If justice Kavanaugh can be poured over the bar, almost anyone should qualify.

[Warpy]

35. Yes, please

There are now 13 district courts instead of the nine when the number was last modified. There is nothing in the constitution that limits the USSC to a set number of seats, only that each Justice oversees a district court.

Wingnuts will scream, they hate change of any type. Even ifBiden pledges to appoint only 2 Justices this term, the court will be a little less skewed toward the theocratic/fascist far right.

It's overdue, WAY overdue.

[brooklynite]

39. Meh...

Biden, Pelosi and Schumer don’t support it. Not going to go anywhere.

[Celerity]

51. You should state up front that this is from over 18 months ago. It is not new news at all.

[rampartc]

52. what can go wrong?

we expand to 13 justices (not unreasonable 1 per judicial district) but not effective until trump "47" picks the new justices

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

53. Even if four seats were added, it might not help.

With only 48 reliable Senate votes, we wouldn't be able to seat four justices of the stature of RBG. The seats would remain open, and the next senate may not be as favorable as the current one. If the Reps take the senate, no Biden candidates will have a hearing.

We could end up with an additional four Barretts and Cavanaughs. Maybe eve a Thomas or two. Herschel Walker may be available. Or Sidney Powell.

[cstanleytech]

56. I completely argee with this and it should be done with new judges seated before the new year.

At least then we will have some reassurance that the Supreme Court will not be a court made up of justices that render rulings based on their personal political views.

[Willis88]

57. Is there a danger that the senate may place additional repubs if it flips?

I’m thinking this should be done when house and senate are on more solid footing.

[inthewind21]

67. Of course

There is.

[Prairie_Seagull]

58. in my mind, we need a ground swell both in citizenry and in congress.

Maybe it's already started. Maybe we are helping. Now we need to hit the gas, um i mean accelerator. Ha

[Grins]

63. Couldn't they have waited until...Wednesday?

That all the mouth-breathers need to hear before an election.

[iemanja]

72. This is many months old

I don't know why the OP posted it now.

[Autumn]

69. This should have been shouted all over for the last 18 months by every Democrat.

That it wasn't make me wonder why.