NOW SHOULD WE PACK THE COURT?

[Iwasthere]

Would it be possible to start the process if a few repubs walked away from the House? Biden should be fuming right now. NO MORE MR NICE GUY! We are in trouble.

[TexasDem69]

1. What did the Supreme Court do today?

That changed the analysis? And the answer is no, we should not

[Tribetime]

15. Just their line of questioning was so ridiculous

Bending over backwards to make any argument they could in Trump's favor.. Clearly The Supreme Court justices, some of them are.As corrupt as sin

[uponit7771]

38. They will roll on the side of obvious law then make dems feel like they were given a favor

... that's how screwed up SCOTUS is now

[C_U_L8R]

2. Wait until they decree Presidential Immunity

then do it. Just so they know.

[sdfernando]

3. I don't particularly like the phrase "pack the court"

I think a good term would be “rebalancing the court”. Having a Justice for each court makes sense.

[Earth-shine]

19. Unpack the court. It's all locked up. Needs to expand.

[Poiuyt]

25. This! Packing the court was what Mitch McConnell did

But the court should definitely be expanded.

[In It to Win It]

4. As a general matter, I think more judges should be added anyway. The country legitimately needs more federal judges

Congress should have expanded the all federal courts at least 10 years ago. Congress should assess the needs of the judiciary every 10 to 20 years.

Judges are seen as political operatives in robes so that will likely not happen.

[brooklynite]

5. Why do you imagine Democrats in Congress or President Biden would support this?

[Earthrise]

6. Yep. I thought it sounded good when Buttigieg mentioned it in the run up

To the 2020 election. Now I think doing so is urgent.

[wnylib]

20. I was reluctant to agree when it was first mentioned

but now see it as imperative.

[Groundhawg]

7. You say this as if it were possible.

[wnylib]

21. It might be soon if the House balance shifts.

It WILL be possible if we give Biden a securely Democratic Cobgress in this year's election.

[Polybius]

24. Well, we won't

At best we have 50 Senate seats next year.

[Groundhawg]

31. have you forgotten Biden is against it?

[wnylib]

32. He does sometimes shift his perspective when a situation calls for it.

Considering the irrationality and corruption of the current court, Biden might be persuaded to change his view.

[Groundhawg]

33. Have you forgotten Biden is against it?

And why should we convince Biden to go against his wishes? I get it the court is corrupt but there is nothing currently we can do about it.

[wnylib]

34. I agree that currently there is nothing that we can do.

I began by saying that we might be able to something when we have a strong enough Dem majority.

If we get that in the coming election, why shouldn't we try to persuade Biden to approve a law that expands the court?

[Groundhawg]

35. because Biden is Awesome. he knows what's best for us. nt

[wnylib]

36. I agree that Biden is awesome and the best president in my lifetime.

But, he is not God. Come to think of it, people do try to persuade God to do certain things, so trying to persuade a good president to do something is not radical. It's politics, which Joe is quite experienced at.

I am not suggesting making it a campaign issue this year. I'm only suggesting that, if we hold all 3 seats of government in November, we should consider court expansion to match the federal district courts.

[Groundhawg]

37. I Trust joe's position. nt

[iemanja]

8. Well, my mind is changing on the matter

The question is how?

[TexasDem69]

9. Do you want to add two justices?

That would still be 6-5 against us. Or should we add four? That seems pretty convenient since it would give us a majority. But what if one wasn’t particularly liberal, do we then need to add six? And we better do it fast, because who knows what the government will look like in February

[haele]

10. No, just have one judge per district.

That better balances the case loads then 9 judges splitting 13 districts between them.
It makes more sense to add or remove justices as judicial districts are added or consolidated.

Haele

[calimary]

26. Yep. Thirteen districts, thirteen justices.

[Cheezoholic]

27. It's actually the Federal Court of Appeals divided into 13 circuits, but I agree. Afterall The Federal Appeals Courts

are the gateway to the SCOTUS and arguably have more influence over the general population on a day to day basis than the SCOTUS. I have been a proponent of 1 Supervising Justice per Appeals Circuit long before RICO.

[calimary]

29. Aha! Good. I wasn't sure of the wording.

Thanks for the adjustment.

[Silent3]

11. Unfortunately we don't have enough Democrats willing to junk the filibuster and get this done...

...on an emergency basis.

And I do consider this a five-alarm Constitutional emergency.

[brooklynite]

13. More specifically, you don't have enough Democrats willing to add more Justices...

...not do you have a President who will do so.

[Iwasthere]

30. The gravity of the situation is reaching a serious point

Warranting a fresh look, by President Biden. If enough fed up repubs left the house we might just have enough Democrats. At what point do you suggest we act re the clearly mad SC?

[LeftInTX]

12. It would only be a temporary fix.

[mzmolly]

14. Via what mechanism?

eom

[niyad]

16. It might be easier to unpack it.

[LeftInTX]

17. I agree

[Trueblue1968]

18. Pack the court now and pack it hard.

[Zilli]

22. I think we are way past trouble

These sadists could gleefully destroy everything about the country we grew up in and our national integrity, ethics, honor and freedom will be gone and the voice of the people will be silenced. This is a travesty.

[Polybius]

23. No

A) It looks bad in an election year.
B) It would not overcome a filibuster in the Senate, and Manchin and Sinema would not be on board anyway.

[dalton99a]

28. UNPACK the court, or live under fascist rule forever.

Add enough judges to make the assholes permanently irrelevant