Democrats to introduce bill to expand Supreme Court from 9 to 13 justices

[Polybius]

Source: NBC News

WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats will introduce legislation Thursday to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices, joining progressive activists pushing to transform the court.

The move intensifies a high-stakes ideological fight over the future of the court after President Donald Trump and Republicans appointed three conservative justices in four years, including one who was confirmed days before the 2020 election.

The Democratic bill is led by Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee. It is co-sponsored by Reps. Hank Johnson of Georgia and Mondaire Jones of New York.

The Supreme Court can be expanded by an act of Congress, but the legislation is highly unlikely to become law in the near future given Democrats' slim majorities, which include scores of lawmakers who are not on board with the idea. President Joe Biden has said he is "not a fan" of packing the court.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/democrats-introduce-bill-expand-supreme-court-9-13-justices-n1264132

---

This is huge, but it’s gonna take 60 votes to pass, so I wouldn’t get my hopes up much...

[Budi]

1. Democrats go big & go bold to save our Democracy.

The Democratic bill is led by Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee

[Grasswire2]

2. how can we help? nt

[regnaD kciN]

3. I don't see why they're even attempting this...

Not only would it take sixty votes (unless Schumer expanded Mitchie's "no filibuster on SCOTUS nominations" to also cover any legislation concerning the Court), but I very much doubt that it would even be able to get fifty. Besides, wasn't Biden promising a commission to study changes to the court system that would including changing the makeup of the SCOTUS? It seems like this move would be short-circuiting that attempt.

[Lonestarblue]

28. I agree. This is a bad move before the commission has even made recommendations.

And it could well cost Democrats the Senate in 2022. Lots of voters will vote on the SC alone. There are more important things that need to get done before this right now.

[Ligyron]

29. Such moves might be more appropriate and successful after we hopefully prevail in the mid terms.

[lagomorph777]

34. Naysaying will kill us.

It's time to act. Yes, let's make sure we speed up Biden's commission, and stay in alignment with that. But pressure is NEEDED to save our Democracy.

The notion that we'll lose votes is crazy. Pukes will always vote Puke. Our side will increase turnout by inspiring voters with HOPE.

[notinkansas]

35. That commission has been announced, but

many suspect that Biden does not really approve of changing the number of justices.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/supreme-court-commission/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%2004.13.2021&utm_term=daily

[RobinA]

39. Agree

This is crazy with so much else to do. It seems like overreaching and gives the other side fodder for the midterm election. It seems like an unforced error to me. Let's do things we can brag about in two years and then again two years after that.

[KPN]

4. This is a positive step ... in the right direction given the circumstance ...

40 years of rightward drift.

[qazplm135]

5. They won't even get 50

In fact I'm skeptical they have a majority in the House for it.

[Calista241]

6. Yeah, Dems can only lose 3 votes, and it won't pass.

[madville]

20. It's just to appease the base advocating for it

Most in Washington don’t want to open that can of worms and it won’t pass. It would set the precedent that the party in power simply needs to add justices every time they have the majorities.

[SunSeeker]

7. Good. We have to start trying. nt

[Mawspam2]

8. This sounds like laying down a marker.

Maybe, we keep the SCOTUS at 9 if you give us DC / PR Statehood.

Might work.

[Raine]

9. Not going to happen. nt

[BigmanPigman]

10. This is from last Friday....

UPDATE: Biden unveils commission to study possible expansion of Supreme Court"
Source: Washington Post

"President Biden created a bipartisan commission Friday to study structural changes to the Supreme Court, giving the group 180 days to produce a report on a range of thorny topics including court expansion and term limits. The commission, composed of 36 legal scholars, former federal judges and practicing lawyers, fulfills Biden’s campaign promise to establish such a group after activists pushed him to back expanding the court after Republicans rushed to confirm Justice Amy Coney Barrett shortly before last year’s election. Biden has said he is “not a fan” of adding seats to the Supreme Court, but he has declined to say whether he supports any changes to its structure."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142726444

[cstanleytech]

11. According to McConnell you only need 51 votes when it comes to SCOTUS.

[ColinC]

13. This is the thing. Could his rules passed in 2017 apply to this law?

I think it's not too far fetched to say it does. It'll depend on what the parliamentarian says, I guess.

[cstanleytech]

14. The rules in question though are not rules the Constitution requires are they? If not then

we can simply do what the Republicans did to stack the court and increase the number of justices to SCOTUS.
Of course I would not do what they did completely and stack it with extreme liberal justices rather I would appoint a 3 liberal ones and 1 moderate to bring the Court back into balance.

[ColinC]

16. Exactly. Congress has the full authority in this regard...

[PSPS]

12. "Joe Biden has said he is 'not a fan' of packing the court"

The Supreme Court can be expanded by an act of Congress, but the legislation is highly unlikely to become law in the near future given Democrats' slim majorities, which include scores of lawmakers who are not on board with the idea. President Joe Biden has said he is "not a fan" of packing the court.

Bias much? I don't think Biden has ever uttered the phrase "packing the court." That's a GOP focus-group-tested derisive term. It's not "packing" the court. It's "expanding" the court or "balancing" the court.

[stopdiggin]

17. well -- except for the fact that the term

has been in wide use for -- an eon? I don't think you can really re-frame this as bias or 'tilt.'

[stopdiggin]

15. I don't really see any purpose to this

other than: 1) a sop to (a portion of) the base, and/or 2) a talking point aiming to keep the court (which IS dangerously unbalanced) in the spotlight.

and (just thought of this) 3) maybe serving up a little 'notice' to the court itself? A subtle, "Don't get too carried away?" (whether that has any effect remaining and open question)

The obvious down side -- there appears to be very little public support for the notion. And the leader of your party is -- pretty skeptical.
----- --- -----

[Mike Nelson]

18. Well...

... it's time to throw this out there... see what happens. We don't know the future, although, presently, it will fail. But, let's say the Supreme Court does something HUGE. If that happens, we will see a change... then, a negotiation from 13 to 11 might get majority support.

[Polybius]

40. Majority support does nothing

We need 60 votes out of 100.

[madville]

19. This would be a gamble that Republicans will never regain control

Because as soon as they do they simply add more justices to get a bigger majority. Then Democrats do it when they get control back, then Republicans their next turn, etc. Next thing you know SCOTUS has 100 justices, they’re gonna have to build a bigger building

[oldsoftie]

21. Dont know why this isnt obvious. But it would have to be 101; tiebreaker.

[madville]

25. Not necessarily

That’s assuming they always add just enough to have a one seat advantage. Either party could go big and give themselves a 60-40 split or something

[lagomorph777]

36. OK.

Ultimately SCROTUS looks more like Congress. I can live with that.

The real problem is to make Congress look more like America.

[dalton99a]

22. Kick

[Buckeyeblue]

23. I think it needs to be more creative than just expand the court

But I'm not sure how we could do that without having a constitutional amendment.

[lagomorph777]

37. Expansion does not require a Constitutional Amendment.

The Constitution gives Congress full authority to decide the sizes of the Courts.

[Buckeyeblue]

38. I get that. But the problems with the court run deeper than actual members

I think the term on the court should be for a set period. I also think we should have an age cut off. I think there should be more justices. But if we expand legislatively, it could open the doors to further expansion.

[lagomorph777]

43. Expand it to be huge - I don't care.

Main thing is to bring Congress into better alignment with the electorate. And yes, that might require an Amendment to do something about the Senate's flagrantly anti-democratic structure.

[bucolic_frolic]

24. The snuffing of the Garland nomination is a bigger issue in my view

If we fix it, Republicans will break it again. McConnell paid no price for dereliction of duty.

[JudyM]

33. This. There is too much weasel room in the rules for such a weasel. "Because I say so" can't suffice

And also that sham investigation into beerboy needs serious review.

[Roc2020]

26. dems are not playing around

it's about time. The 'Rs want war feed it to them.

[brooklynite]

27. Will this be not passed before or after reparations?

[turbinetree]

30. I guess its just fine and dandy that the "federalist society" can pack courts and other legislative

bodies and that basically one "guy" and his money can do this along with many others and that "dark money" bunch:

https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2020/10/10/snapshot-secret-funding-amicus-briefs-tied-leonard-leo-federalist-society-leader-promoter-amy-barrett/

but when a party decides to bring forth legislation to expand the court from 9 to 13 which force in money wins, that is the question?

[SmartVoter22]

31. Pack the Federal Circuit Courts

Put more justices on the circuit courts.
This would ensure the cases, that come before SCOtUS avoid the GOP packing of those courts over the past decade.
SCOTUS takes it's cases from the circuit courts and bringing a larger and more diverse set of federal justices to address the needs of 330Million people. The federal benches have a wide disparity of judges seated, with the 9th having 29 judges and others with as few as 11 judges. This is not a equal representation across the circuit and by revising the number of justices on the circuit could bring a better, and more accurate representation.

Just a thought on court packing.

[lagomorph777]

32. YYYEEESSSSS! Time to kill the Filibuster so we can get this done!

[Polybius]

41. It still wouldn't be done

Manchin would never vote for this.

[lagomorph777]

44. We haven't tightened the screws on Manchin yet.

Kompromat, bribes, or political pressure applied to his voters. He'll move when it's in his self-interest.

[Devil Child]

42. Disgusting, last thing this country needs is 4 more life time appointments to the highest court

[lagomorph777]

45. Hahahaha!

Sure - let's just let the right-wing crazy minority dictate our course for the next forty years. Like that's not disgusting?

Sorry - not buying that idea one bit.

[Devil Child]

46. Abolish lifetime terms n/t

[lagomorph777]

47. Dramatically more difficult than expanding the court.

But yes, I agree that would be useful.