Justice Breyer issues warning on remaking Supreme Court: 'What goes around comes around'
Source: The Hill
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer issued a warning on remaking the Supreme Court, stating "what goes around comes around."
Breyer made the remark in an interview with NPR published Friday to promote his book "The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics."
"What goes around comes around. And if the Democrats can do it, the Republicans can do it," Breyer told the news outlet.
Conservatives currently hold a 6-3 majority on the high court, leading to some progressives to call for its expansion.
Read more: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/571636-justice-breyer-issues-warning-on-remaking-supreme-court-what-goes?amp&__twitter_impression=true
ColinC
(8,291 posts)No matter what. Best to beat em to it from now on.
Mr.Bill
(24,284 posts)Has any Democrat ever pulled a stunt like the ones Mithch McConnell pulled?
LakeArenal
(28,817 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)or is he unaware of the harm the court is doing?
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)The best way to remake the Court and dilute the conservative majority is for the Democrats to keep winning presidential elections so that as future vacancies occur a Democratic president will be in a positions to nominate replacements. If the Democrats pack the court now while they are in power, the Republicans will surely do it when they regain power. Does any one actually not believe that the Republicans will not do it the next time they get in power if the Democrats do it now? Of course they will. And under our two party system no one party will stay in power forever. The Republicans will surely regain power at some time in the future. We just don't know exactly when.
Justice Breyer has been a great progressive voice on the Court since President Clinton nominated him. I think it would behest us to listen to him.
Mr.Bill
(24,284 posts)whether we do it now or not.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)You state that like it is a fact. The Republicans went nuclear on Supreme Court nominations only after Harry Red did the same for most presidential appointments. Don't you see a pattern here?
Mr.Bill
(24,284 posts)maybe look at republicans blocking presidential appointments to begin with.
And it's kind of ridiculous to ask someone for a source for something that's going to happen in the future.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 10, 2021, 07:05 PM - Edit history (1)
nuclear on most presidential appointments in the first place. Yes, and I sympathize with that dilemma. But that gave McConnell cover to extend it to Supreme Court nominations as well. I think that is partly why we are in this predicament now. If the Democrats had been able to filibuster the three Trump nominations we would be in a much better place now. At the very least, Trump would have been forced to nominate more moderate candidates to the Court.
Igel
(35,300 posts)A number of nominees were blocked and things weren't going to change.
Bush II's response wasn't to call for an end to the filibuster or something like that. It was to give lists of possible nominees to (D) and (R) powerbrokers in the Senate and see which ones could find a consensus. Bush II appointees got appointed--but they weren't as far right as they would have been and some turned out to be not to the right of center at all. We notice when one is right of center not because that's the pattern overall but because that's the pattern of what we notice.
The 4-letter word for what happened then is "compromise."
Calista241
(5,586 posts)Most circuits courts had a a significant number of vacancies. The Chief Justice would publish yearly pleas for the Senate to confirm judges to fill those vacancies and lighten the caseload on the others.
Polybius
(15,398 posts)He is as right-wing as it gets.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)But actually Roberts votes with the other conservatives most of the time. He has sided with the liberals on a few high profile cases. But I wonder if that is just for show so that he can continue claim that he is a moderating influence on the Court. And of course now he can afford to appear more moderate since the conservative block doesn't need his vote anymore.
Steelrolled
(2,022 posts)Siding with the liberals "just for show" on high profile cases seems mighty fine to me. I think Roberts is the least predictable judge, which I view as a good thing.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)does it make? I guess you can have the satisfaction that Roberts voted the right way but the bottom line is that the liberals lost the vote anyway. And when I call them conservatives I am being kind. I think a more accurate label would be "reactionaries."
Polybius
(15,398 posts)For that, he has made a difference.
Polybius
(15,398 posts)They've had opportunities to do it over the past 20 years even.
Mr.Bill
(24,284 posts)Supreme Court Justice with only 51 votes. They refused to even consider Obama's choice of Merrick Garland for almost a year. They blocked almost every Obama pick for any courts. They did lots of things no one had ever done before. Now it's our turn to do so, or they will next time they are in power. We'll wake up one day and find the Court with lots more members and we will only control three votes. And people will say "Why didn't we do that?"
If we lose the Senate in 2022, Joe Biden will not get to appoint anyone to the Supreme Court no matter how many die or retire. I guarantee it. It's time to play hardball with these assholes.
Polybius
(15,398 posts)As far as expanding the SC though, even if I could get behind it, it's too hard to do. Where are we going to get 60 votes for that?
Mr.Bill
(24,284 posts)And even then, there are those several senators who like to play games and threaten to vote no on everything.
Polybius
(15,398 posts)All we need is a net gain of 2 Senators. We could do it today, but two Democrats oppose eliminating it.
Mr.Bill
(24,284 posts)Time will tell.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)But most observers don't give us much of a chance of retaining a House majority. Thinking about McCarthy as speaker and second in line in the presidential succession gives me nightmares.
Steelrolled
(2,022 posts)winning presidential elections".
Exactly, this is what we got. BUT, if people like Breyer would retire at opportune times, like NOW, it would help a lot. RBG's legacy has been tainted by her refusal to retire, seemingly driven by ego, and it seems Breyer is headed down the same path.
lapfog_1
(29,199 posts)they stole outright 1 seat on SCOTUS. Either by holding up Obama's pick for ONE YEAR because an election was coming OR by giving Trump his third pick when early voting in the presidential election had already started.
Sorry, what goes around DOES come around... and it is time we Democrats deal out some "raw power" exercise of our own and remake the court to correct the over-reach by the repukes.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)What McConnell did to the Garland nomination was egregious and just plain wrong. But that was not court packing. The Republicans refused to allow a floor vote on the Garland nomination but they did not advocate adding extra justices. The Republicans have never made a serious attempt to pack the Court. But you better believe that if the Democrats do pack the Court the Republicans will do it also when they regain power. And we will be right back where we started.
Casady1
(2,133 posts)so this is a good thing?
EarlG
(21,947 posts)skewing the Supreme Court to the extreme right for decades, would we?!?!?
Oh, wait...
MyOwnPeace
(16,926 posts)Let's see - he says that the 'Texas' decision is totally wrong - he believes the 'Bush-Gore' decision is totally wrong...........
but we shouldn't do anything?
EYESORE 9001
(25,934 posts)A larger number of SC justices will make it harder for either party to pack the court. Breyer talks like this will harm public perception of the SC. I got news for him: its not held in high esteem at the moment.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)later. The next time the Republicans gain power, and under our two party system that will almost surely happen at some point, the Republicans could easily pack the court again.
Just_Vote_Dem
(2,804 posts)FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Ummm
Traildogbob
(8,731 posts)The ONLY response needed to be asked of him. To his damn face. Same damn argument about filibuster. Bow to the minority. Exactly what democracy is based on (sarcasm) Govern in fear of the minority. BS.
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)A man devoid of logic doesn't need to sit as a liberal court justice.
If the Court was now 6-3 Progressive, well, it would never have been. Before that happened, Conservatives would have expanded the Court as necessary.
These "trusting dolts" have tried my patience long enough. Enough!
LenaBaby61
(6,974 posts)jrthin
(4,835 posts)I wish he had the dignity and wisdom to leave, now!
COL Mustard
(5,897 posts)And give Biden a chance to nominate his successor and have that person confirmed before the midterms....y'know, just in case......
Mr.Bill
(24,284 posts)would try to sabotage that, too.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Layzeebeaver
(1,623 posts)Control Dark money
Eliminate special interest pressure lobby influence
Full disclosure of financial links
Etc.
As long as there are levels of undue influence then restructuring the court is only a bandage on a severed aorta.
Im sure everyone has an opinion on this and that mine is likely faulty and subject to critique.
Corgigal
(9,291 posts)surprise. Hes not, hes good.
enki23
(7,788 posts)The barn door is swinging in the breeze, and the horse is not in fucking evidence.
bucolic_frolic
(43,146 posts)Seats and probably elections were stolen and we have fewer liberals on the Court as a result.
I don't want to rehash it, and doubt it could have been done fully and fairly, but they never did count the votes in Florida. They never made an effort. They squashed it.
dalton99a
(81,475 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,146 posts)LenaBaby61
(6,974 posts)Fiendish Thingy
(15,601 posts)The bigger the court, the less influence of any single Justice.
Think about this scenario:
Democrats shy away from expanding the court, and in 2024, the GOP takes back the White House and controls both chambers of congress. Then, they abolish the filibuster and add another six conservative justices to SCOTUS.
THEN WHAT?
MyOwnPeace
(16,926 posts)Just think - they could let 'Sleepy Clarence' sleep away the rest of his time on the bench - and nobody would care!
TiberiusB
(487 posts)And no one seems to address it. Justice Breyer is 1,000% wrong.
The game plan for the GOP seems obvious.
1.) Take over the Courts and especially the SCOTUS.
-Corporate friendly radical evangelical conservatism and a blind eye to precedent and the Constitution
2.)Seize control of the vote by taking over local election boards
-Don't like an election outcome? Change it! Don't worry about the courts, that was handled in step 1.
3.)Take back Congress
-This ends any hope for Biden's administration passing anything truly worthwhile
-It could even open the door to impeachment and removal from office (why run against Biden when you can run against a much less popular woman of color?)
-Breyer gets sick or dies and Biden can't replace him...deja vu...
4.)Take back White House
-abolish the filibuster
-continue to pack all federal courts
-push voter suppression and anti abortion laws onto the blue states by making them federal law
-Pardons, pardons, pardons
-Goodbye environmental regulations, hello drilling and mining
-corporate tax cuts as far as the eye can see
The door to authoritarianism is nearly wide open and there's no reason to think the GOP is prepared to accept any other outcome. The insurrection should have cemented that fact.
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)Jon King
(1,910 posts)So the Dems should not do it because some day the Repugs might make it right wing again? Makes no sense. Its current construction means it will stay right wing for decades anyway.
no_hypocrisy
(46,089 posts)1. The Court is either 5-4 non-conservative or 4-4 with a swing vote
and
2. There are 51 Republicans in the Senate or 50 and a republican VP.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)chowder66
(9,067 posts)I doubt we can get enough votes to expand the court. Impeachment might be the only way if there are grounds for it, but even so, they can be acquitted.
LiberalFighter
(50,912 posts)More than likely they can get at least one of them impeached if not two. Primarily Thomas and the beer guy.
PSPS
(13,594 posts)Alpeduez21
(1,751 posts)of what repukes will do. They stole the 2000 election, they've packed the courts, they are racist beyond compare, they are killing thousands of americans a week, they stormed the capital to to steal the 2020 election.
Get off your asses and act like you're in charge. Bullies gonna bully till they get smacked.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)Lets be real. They would lose some support from the nicey nice folks. The "when they go low we go high" crowd.
But IMO they would gain many more. I think they underestimate just how much, not only Democratic voters, but Independents, and even some small r Republicans, would like to see their tone rise more. Would actually be impressed if they'd show more backbone.
Look, no one WANTS to have to use aggressive and accusatory language, if that is going "low", but the game has changed. Even from only a few years ago when Obama was sworn in. Republicans just keep marching towards madness, worshipping a demagogue that still whines he won the last election. It does no good living in a dream world, like Manchin, that Repukes are just inches away from being cooperative and open to compromise.
Also, they must anticipate Republican and Fox News talking points before they use them. And get ahead of them. Stop assuming the best from them, and start assuming the worst. Each and every time. Have a PR plan in place, and come out with counter statements even before they throw out their poison. "They will try and frame it like this...and this is why they are wrong...."
Response to LiberalLovinLug (Reply #38)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
DBoon
(22,363 posts)The Unmitigated Gall
(3,807 posts)Pukes have been sending a lot of fucking shit around, if you haven't noticed, Mr. Breyer. It's up to dems to make sure it COMES around, Mr. Breyer.
madville
(7,410 posts)So you just have to accept going in that if we added 4 to make it 7-6, they would add 4 to make it 10-7, then we add 5 the next time and they add 5 their next time, etc, etc. It basically becomes a rubber stamp for whoever can control the White House and Senate at the same time and delegitimizes the court more than it already is.
With the 50-50 Senate nothing is happening before the 2022 election regardless and we have no idea how 2024 will turn out yet. I don't think you could increase the number of justices even if we had 60 Senators, I think many of them are just giving the issue lip service and don't really want to do it.
Mr.Bill
(24,284 posts)I served two years on a County Civil Grand Jury in California. It had 19 members, A supermajority, which was required for certain procedural matters, was considered 12. I can tell you that if there had only been nine members it would have been a lot easier for a few assholes to take control. And believe me, those few assholes were there. They tried and failed to take control because the rest of us wouldn't let them.
LiberalFighter
(50,912 posts)BlueIdaho
(13,582 posts)For every time someone trying to defend the stinking status quo said that. Doesnt matter if its the minimum wage, the electoral college, the Supreme Court, womens rights, or a hundred other issues - this kind of father knows best finger wagging chaps my butt. Breyer is an invested member of the status quo with a lifetime gig - what the hell do we expect him to say?
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)This purblind fool wants to stop it 'coming round' to them in due turn.
I am so tired of people saying 'oh if we do this Republicans will do that'.
Do it to them first and make it stick.
Sanity Claws
(21,847 posts)They faced ZERO consequences for stealing RBG's seat and failing to vote on Merrick Garland's nomination. They faced ZERO consequences for ramming I LIKE BEER on the bench without investigation.
Enlarging the court could be a consequence, finally.
Kid Berwyn
(14,897 posts)Courts now packed by extreme RWNJs.
wryter2000
(46,039 posts)Moscow Mitch kept Garland off the Court. If he'd been on it, the Texas woman-hating law case would have been different.
samsingh
(17,595 posts)the top court is not legitimate
BaronChocula
(1,550 posts)"Progressives" obsessed with dilly-dallying with tradition make Mitch McConnell laugh as he plans his next assault. There is no victory through being non-threatening. It's time to smack the crap out of Dems with this Stockholm syndrome just to wake them up.
WhoWoodaKnew
(847 posts)SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)The REPUBLICANS have already turned the Court into a political body untethered by precedent.
So you want us to just sit back and take it, Justice Breyer?
I don't think so!
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)Also, please retire now.
Steelrolled
(2,022 posts)set the number of justices (9 seems good), and tighten up the nomination and approval process, to prevent foul play.
Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)
ExTex This message was self-deleted by its author.
Polybius
(15,398 posts)But all of which he speaks of would require 60 votes.
Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)
ExTex This message was self-deleted by its author.