How big of a Senate majority do we need to expand the SCOTUS?

[prodigitalson]

Last edited Fri Apr 26, 2024, 08:23 AM - Edit history (1)

or is it simple majority in the House or Senate?

enough is enough

[Voltaire2]

1. 1.

End the filibuster. Expand the court.

[Happy Hoosier]

16. We'll need more than that.

I don't think we have the votes to end the filibuster atm.

[bullimiami]

27. I believe a simple majority can change the rules including the filibuster.

[lees1975]

54. Exactly.

A 1 vote majority to end the filibuster. Then 1 vote to amend the Judiciary Act and expand the number of seats on the court, and then a 1 vote majority for each judge the president appoints after than.

Biden would seal his legacy by pushing Schumer to do this. Visionary leadership requires bold moves, and this would be a very bold move. So do it now.

[dsc]

2. we need enough to be willing to end the filibuster for at least that purpose

I have no idea how many would vote for the filibuster on a bill to expand SCOTUS. We had two who refused to end it for pretty much anything but neither of them will be returning. One can hope Sinema is replaced with the much better Gallego but Manchin will be replaced by a Republican.

[WhiteTara]

7. Can't it be changed in the rules committee

when the next Congress is seated?

[former9thward]

12. Whatever happens in th Rules Committee is a proposal.

It still needs to be voted on by the full Senate.

[WhiteTara]

33. so it takes the 60 vote threshold?

[former9thward]

65. Under the current rules.

Unlike like some I really doubt the filibuster rule will be changed.

[LiberalFighter]

53. Manchin and Sinema won't be there to block it.

[walkingman]

3. This a good explanation from chatGPT -

Legislation: Expanding the Supreme Court would require legislation passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. Alternatively, a constitutional amendment could be proposed and ratified, but this is a much more difficult and lengthy process.

Proposal: A member of Congress would need to propose a bill outlining the expansion of the Supreme Court, specifying the number of additional justices to be added.

Congressional Approval: The bill would then need to pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate by a simple majority vote. This process involves committee hearings, debate, and amendments.

Presidential Approval: If the bill passes both houses of Congress, it would then be sent to the President for approval. The President can either sign the bill into law or veto it. If vetoed, Congress can attempt to override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both houses.

Implementation: Once signed into law, the expansion would take effect according to the timeline outlined in the legislation.

It's worth noting that expanding the Supreme Court is a highly contentious issue, and there would likely be significant debate, opposition, and potential legal challenges throughout the process. Additionally, the number of Supreme Court justices is not specified in the Constitution, so Congress has the authority to change the number through legislation. However, the size of the Court has been set at nine since 1869, so any attempt to expand it would likely face considerable political resistance and public scrutiny.

[prodigitalson]

5. thanks....so simple majority in both houses and a presidential signature

[former9thward]

10. Chat apparently does not know about the Senate filibuster.

That 60 vote threshold would need to be overcome.

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. The rules can be changed with 51 votes and the nuclear option. Nt

[former9thward]

23. Chat did not mention that at all.

The answer provided was incorrect.

[Polybius]

39. Isn't it 50 plus tiebreaker (VP)?

Or is it 51 for this?

[Fiendish Thingy]

45. Sure, VP can be 51st vote

[walkingman]

70. I wish we would do away with the Senate filibuster.

Minority rule already is the case regardless of the makeup of the Senate. 90% of Americans have absolutely no influence on Federal policy. Regardless of who holds majorities in the House and Senate.

US policies continue to benefit the minority. The Electoral College skews our POTUS elections. There are many policies that make it impossible to overcome the power structure (banks, major industries (fossil fuels), weapon mfrs) such as the new laws making it illegal to protest pipelines here in Texas.

So why not quit pretending as though we all have some kind of equal opportunity here in America?

What do we have to lose?

[LiberalFighter]

55. Not expanding it since 1869 is a good reason to expand it along with the number of cases filed.

I would propose it be 13. One for each district.

[Elessar Zappa]

4. We'd need 51 Senators to first get rid of the filibuster.

They could then expand the Court. If the filibuster isn’t removed it would take 60 Senators I believe.

[prodigitalson]

6. it's way past time to get rid of that

[brooklynite]

8. The fact that you're angry doesn't mean that Democrats want to pack the Court

Schumer doesn’t; Jeffries doesn’t. Biden doesn’t.

[tavernier]

9. Mmm... maybe before yesterday.

Now that they have heard the rantings of demented Alito, they may have reconsidered.

[brooklynite]

11. Absent any actual evidence, my opinion holds.

[prodigitalson]

14. Expand the court

Not pack

[kentuck]

21. Some might argue that the Court is already "packed"?

And that there needs to be some balance offered, for the good of our country.

It seems obvious to many folks that this present Supreme Court is very political.

[prodigitalson]

31. That is absolutely the correct framing

The court is packed and expanding is the only way to unpack it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

22. Soon, Democrats will face a critical choice

Expand the court or lose the ability to govern.

With the current SCOTUS majority, any legislation is subject to second guessing and reversal.

If Democrats refuse to kill the filibuster and expand the court, they will lose the ability to govern, either through obstruction and sabotage by SCOTUS, or by cynicism and apathy by the electorate, who will soon grow tired of Dems’ inability to codify Roe, address climate change, protect voting rights, and a host of other rights that have been decimated or are at risk of being removed.

Expanding the court to 13 seats, when there are 13 districts of federal appeals courts, is not an unreasonable or radical proposal.

If Biden can’t muster the political will and courage, then it will be up to President Whitmer, and a Dem congress with new leadership in 2028 to get it done.

[brooklynite]

25. Name an elected official at any level who advocates expanding the number of SC Justices.

[spooky3]

26. Here's a list of consponsors:

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/democrats-introduce-bill-to-expand-u-s-supreme-court/#:~:text=WASHINGTON%252C%2520D.C.%2520%E2%80%94%2520On%2520Tuesday%252C,from%2520nine%2520to%252013%2520justices.

[FBaggins]

30. Worth pointing out...

… that three senators is substantially short of the minimum required of 51.

Possibly also worth pointing out that a 50/50 senate is the best we can hope for thisncycle

[spooky3]

43. People keep moving the goalposts. I'm responding

To posts essentially claiming that no (as in zero) officeholders want an expansion. That’s flat out incorrect.

[Polybius]

52. From the link:

WASHINGTON, D.C. — On Tuesday, May 16, a group of U.S. Senate and House Democrats reintroduced the Judiciary Act of 2023, a bill that would add four seats to the U.S. Supreme Court, bringing the bench from nine to 13 justices. The bill was introduced by Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). The Judiciary Act was first introduced in 2021; a press release cites the growing support for court expansion in the intervening two years.

Interesting list.

[Fiendish Thingy]

29. Elizabeth Warren, Ed Markey, Tina Smith

Adam Schiff, Katie Porter, Jamie Raskin and 58 other representatives .


https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/05/the-movement-to-expand-the-supreme-court-is-growing/

Ever since President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to add justices in the 1930s and suffered political backlash, the idea of packing the court has been seen as taboo. But some lawmakers are now coming around to the idea, with the Judiciary Act counting 61 cosponsors in the House. The most powerful and entrenched Democrats, including President Joe Biden and the leaders of the Senate’s judiciary committee, remain unconvinced, however. The bill is far more popular in the House than the Senate—the body which actually confirms federal judges. It has three cosponsors in the upper chamber: Democrats Edward Markey and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Tina Smith of Minnesota. Though it has a long way to go before having a chance at success, the idea of court reform, including expansion, has already come further than many thought possible.

[speak easy]

47. The fact that you're not angry doesn't mean that Republicans did not pack the Court.

Without the Trumpers. Roe would still be law, but that's nothing to get angry about? THE GOP/MCCONNELL PACKED THE COURT. Don't come back with FDR era court packing shit to me.

You are not angry?

[LiberalFighter]

56. Is it really packing if the court becomes more balanced?

If there was any packing it was with the help of McConnell.

[Iwasthere]

68. I hope they are paying attention and CHANGE THEIR MINDS

Imo we are doomed if they don't. Nice guys finish last. Take off the gloves, the SC is corrupt.

[JT45242]

13. Real Dems or DINOs like Maserati Manchin and Curtsy Kyrsten...

We could do away with the filibuster with 51. We could even go back to as long as you stay on the floor talking, you can filibuster. That would be acceptable to me.

Then we can pass everything we want if we regain the house as well.

Expand SCOTUS to match the number of appeals courts (13) which matches most of history.

Then put some teeth into lying on disclosure forms so that Alito and Thomas are more scared of jail than pissing off Leo and the rest of their benefactors. .

[prodigitalson]

15. This

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. Simple majority if 51 support killing the filibuster. Nt

[TexasDem69]

18. You need the will to attempt it

I haven’t heard any serious Democrat propose this step. I wouldn’t support it.

[Johonny]

20. We need 20 years of a democratic Senate

and president to out last enough of the putrid justices and appoint intelligent people instead.

[Autumn]

24. Nobody in power wants that. The sc is a much honored and beloved institution

that will never be changed. Will never be replaced or held accountable. Even though it's a clear and present danger, hopelessly corrupt and as outdated as a muzzle loader on a battlefield in a nuclear war.
Just ask them and just about every elected politician. Not going to happen.

[leftstreet]

32. Also better to let them take the blame

apparently

[spooky3]

34. Not true.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/05/the-movement-to-expand-the-supreme-court-is-growing/

[Autumn]

35. Won't happen. Republicans will pack the courts to legislate what they want.

Democrats won't do it. No republican will ever join with Democrats in adding to the court.

[spooky3]

42. Maybe; depends on election results. But it's not true that "nobody in power

Wants That.”

[Autumn]

44. Joe doesn't support expanding the court. He's said that. So some Dems might like the idea

and one bill was written to expand it and that bill has just sat there. That 60 votes needed are as hard to get as a unicorn is to catch. And no one will support doing away with the filibuster so it's not going to happen. There seems to be no will to do what has to be done. Look at the people who have the actual power to advance a court expansion and tell me which one's are for it.

[spooky3]

49. One last time--you made a claim that "nobody wants this." That's not

True. You’re now moving the goalposts.

Have a nice day.

[Autumn]

64. Who has the power to bring this bill up and pass it?

Johnson? Not gonna happen. Jefferies? He can't bring bills up to vote. Joe? He is against it? I don't see any other powerful people in the administration or other institutions talking about it. To me that's nobody. Sorry you don't like my wording, you can ignore it.

Autumn (45,079 posts)
44. Joe doesn't support expanding the court. He's said that. So some Dems might like the idea
Fri Apr 26, 2024, 11:27 AM
and one bill was written to expand it and that bill has just sat there. That 60 votes needed are as hard to get as a unicorn is to catch. And no one will support doing away with the filibuster so it's not going to happen. There seems to be no will to do what has to be done. Look at the people who have the actual power to advance a court expansion and tell me which one's are for it.

[LiberalFighter]

59. He may be more inclined to support an expansion now.

[wnylib]

38. It has happened in the past. We have not always had 9 justices.

[Autumn]

41. The court changed six times before settling at the present total of nine in 1869.

FDR attempted to expand the court in 1937 but it was was defeated by the Chief Justice and Roosevelt’s own party members

[wnylib]

46. And it can change again.

[Autumn]

48. Good luck with that, FDR couldn't do it in war time. nt

[Goodheart]

28. One

[beaglelover]

36. Expanding the court would be a terrible thing for Democrats to do. We would lose future elections for decades!

[LiberalFighter]

60. No we wouldn't. That is just hyperbole.

If an explanation of why it is needed is provided it would avoid negatives.

The population of the USA was just under 39 million in 1870.
It is now over 330 million.

There are 13 circuit court of appeals.
Roberts oversees the DC, Fourth and the Federal Circuits.
Alito and Kavanaugh oversee 2 circuits.
The remaining 6 oversee 1 circuit.

If there are 13 justices they each would only oversee one circuit.

[Polybius]

37. Depends on multiple things

Right now, we have 51 seats and at least two who would not end the filibuster. So, if we're talking about next year...

1) 60 with filibuster in place.
2) 50 if we get rid of the filibuster. Requires just 50 votes plus tiebreaker (whoever is VP).
3) Assuming we have 51 votes next year and get rid of the filibuster, we will need 50 votes to expand. Does every Dem support that?
4) If Biden is re-elected, would he even sign it? He said that he's against expansion.

[Polybius]

40. How about just one Justice?

That would certainly cause nearly everyone to vote for President. Obviously, I'm kidding.

[ripcord]

50. President Biden has said he doesn't support expanding SCOTUS

Doesn't that make this discussion pointless?

[LiberalFighter]

61. No it doesn't. He probably thought it was pointless when he didn't have the votes to make it happen.

Now with abortion ban. And possibly some other issues he might be more inclined to support it. Provided the votes are there.

[ripcord]

63. You are projecting your emotions onto him

He said he is opposed to the idea of expanding the Court. If he believes it is wrong he isn't going to change his mind for you.

[LiberalFighter]

66. Wouldn't you be projecting?

[ripcord]

67. I have no problem trusting the President to do what he thinks is right

Isn't that why we elected him?

[LiberalFighter]

69. But you are saying he won't change his mind.

And then you change it around.

[Initech]

51. Enough to make Mitch McConnell and Fox News irrelevant.

[CelticCrow]

57. Bad idea

While I wholly agree with the sentiment it would just lead to an ever expanding court as the Republicans would do the same in return once they regain power and the pendulum always swings back and forth triggering further expansions. Wouldn't be long before the court was the size of the Senate...

[elocs]

58. Expanding the SCOTUS is a nice thought but in reality, I can never see that happening.

Democrats and those on the Left choosing to vote for Hillary in the battleground states was entirely doable and would have changed history and those who chose not to vote for her gave us the consequence of having Trump as president and allowing him to appoint 3 justices to the Supreme Court and giving them a solid 6-3 majority.
No expansion of the SCOTUS was needed.

[LiberalFighter]

62. Another issue that needs to be dealt with is the judge shopping.

That needs to be banned.