Elizabeth Warren calls for expansion of Supreme Court, saying current court is a threat to democracy

[Polybius]

Source: CNN

(CNN)Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday called for the US Supreme Court to be expanded with more justices and said that the current court "threatens the democratic foundations of our nation."

"With each move, the court shows why it's important to restore America's faith in an independent judiciary committed to the rule of law," Warren wrote in an opinion article published by The Boston Globe. "To do that, I believe it's time for Congress to yet again use its constitutional authority to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court."

The Democrat wrote that she did not "come to this conclusion lightly" or because she disagreed with a particular decision but that she came to the conclusion because she believes "the current court threatens the democratic foundations of our nation."

Her call to expand the high court made up of nine justices comes less than a week after it left in place a Texas abortion law that bars the procedure after the first six weeks of pregnancy and after public approval of the Supreme Court has dropped in recent months. The Supreme Court said that abortion providers have the right to challenge the law in federal court and that the case will return to a district court for further proceedings.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/15/politics/elizabeth-warren-expand-supreme-court/index.html

[Budi]

1. Repeating HRC's warnings like its a new thing.

Where was this concern 5 yrs ago?

[Polybius]

2. Hillary wanted to expand the SC 5 years ago?

Got a link?

[Budi]

4. We wouldn't have to be expanding the SC at all.

Warren knows damned well its a more difficult process than making a applaudable statement.

Where was the urgency of the SC, then.

[Polybius]

6. Can't go back in time though

Unfortunately, Hillary lost and that had nothing to do with Warren. Nothing wrong with moving forward. What should have happened in 2016 won't change 2021.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

10. Nothing wrong with moving forward.

Not for some people. Lol.

[BComplex]

35. Sounds like you have an issue with my favorite senator.

Unfortunate. She's awesome.

[Budi]

38. Sounds like some have an issue with mine .

Caaaaan't even credit her name..

Some want honor for their media quips, now a lot late to the Party that would have secured our SC for decades.

Chump change at this point in time.
I'll take it as a oops we fkd up but I aint owning my part.

She well knows the process is a longshot & not as simple as stated.

[progressoid]

18. Wut?

What's the point of bringing up 5 years ago?

[whathehell]

19. Warren's suggesting an expansion of the Supreme Court..

and she's not the only one to do so..Sorry you don't
like her for some reason, but such is life.

[soldierant]

24. Hillary was not the first and Warren won't be the last.

Many people have said and are saying the same thing. Many other people are talking about reforming the Supreme Court , using various methods. Expanding is only one. Reducing is one. Changing the appointments from liftime, either by setting a term or by instituting a mandatory retirement age. Another thought is to establish a Code of Ethics (there are probably different ideas on how that should be enforced also.) My own feeling is that every justice ought to be invistigated now as of for a thorough background check. Any criminal activity which comes up should be investigated as a crime or crime or crimes. If proof is available, the justice should be charged . And incidentally remved from the court. Can't serve effectively when you're ;locked up.

None of these suggestions would b easy. But the stakes are high enough to justify attempting any of them, possibly all of them.

[Magoo48]

30. Good on HRC.

Good on Liz.

Good ideas need repeating. Who gives a shit who said them and when? wtf.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. It could be done if the whole country were Massachusetts

Fortunately, or unfortunately, it isn't, and this idea is going nowhere at the present time.

[Budi]

5. Exactly right. Warren is well aware of that too.

Jfc

[peppertree]

7. Latin America is known for its coups.

What's less widely known, is that, often, each country's first coup was endorsed by that country's (very conservative) supreme court.

The ones that followed, in fact, often used that first endorsement as precedent.

[onenote]

8. The argument for expanding the Court least likely to win support

It may just be a fig leaf, but the size of the Court's workload and the number of circuit courts are better, neutral-sounding arguments for increasing the court then one based purely on partisanship when our side has the barest majority in the Senate and a narrow majority in the House.

[Slammer]

9. +2

I could see an argument for adding 2 justices since the deliberate and unreasonable delay at the end of the Obama administration robbed him of getting a confirmed appointment (taking one away from the Democrats) and swung the court the other way (giving one to the Trumpists).

Two additional justices would put us up the one which we should have had back then.

I don't think it'd be easy to justify more than that.

Of course a lot of people don't worry about justification....

[monkeyman1]

11. the el'supremo court his turned into a kangaroo court !!

[peoli]

12. So refreshing to hear a progressive

Of course we should

[notinkansas]

13. It. Needs. To. Be. Done.

Along with carving holes in the filibuster, and modifying it to be a talking filibuster, in order to achieve any form of real governance in this country. Without those we are left with the tyranny of the minority.

[ExTex]

14. No need to expand SC. Rick Perry (Yes, him) has ideal solution.

Staggered 18-year terms so a term ends every two years. Every President would be able to appoint two SC justices in a four-year term. Two terms; four justices. Reappointments permitted so no whining about ending "tradition" of lifetime SC service.

https://newrepublic.com/article/94461/rick-perrys-smart-court-reform

[onenote]

15. Among other questions: what happens if the Senate refuses to confirm a nominee?

[Polybius]

17. But that'll be even harder to do

Expanding the SC only takes either 50 votes plus the VP or 60 with the system we have now (filibuster). Term limits would take 67 votes (plus two thirds of the House) and 3/4ths of the states. All but impossible.

Looking at that though, it's a brilliant idea. I really like the idea of reappointments in case someone is appointed young (45) and had been great for 18 years. How did Rick Perry of all people come up with this?

[George II]

16. There have been nine Supreme Court justices since 1869 - 152 years. BAD to change it now.

[BootinUp]

21. Bad to be second to want to change it. nt

[Knight of the Middle]

20. From 9 to 13 is my Suggestion

The way things are going, we could use the luck!

[FM123]

22. Yep.

And thirteen makes sense too, since the courts are divided into 13 circuits.

[Deminpenn]

39. +1

nt

[quaint]

36. At the same time, as many have recommended, establish a Code of Ethics.

One Supreme Court justice for every 25 million in U.S. population.
That would help prevent future court packing.
329,500,000 / 9 = 36,611,111.1111
329,500,000 / 13 = 25,346,153.8462

[dalton99a]

23. Do it, or live under GOP rule forever

[Liberty Belle]

25. The need is more critical now than when Hillary was running, since Trump appointed 3 right wingers

and tipped the court to a 6-3 conservative balance. Not even "normal" conservatives but the craziest loons we've ever had on the high court.

If they uphold outrageous voting rights restrictions that red states are imposing, we've likely lost our democracy forever. And they are about to take away reproductive rights for women at least those in red states.

The need is urgent and cannot wait. Biden does need to expand the court now, whatever it takes to do that. He can argue that our population has grown, we need 13 judges for 13 circuits, or whatever but also just note that this would be unstacking the court since the Republicans blocked Obama's nominee for the entire last year of his term, yet hypocritically rammed through a third Trump appointee only around 2 weeks before the election.

Our democracy truly does hang in the balance here and there is no more time to delay. When Hilary spoke it was a hypothetical concern but now it's an imminent threat, exactly as Elizabeth Warren has so clearly stated.

Those here who oppose expanding the court better get ready for authoritarian rule and an end to the U.S. as a democracy.

[Polybius]

37. "the craziest loons we've ever had on the high court"

Strongly disagree. Thomas and Alito are more conservative than Trump's 3 picks, as was Scalia and probably Rehnquist as well.

[nvme]

26. 13 JUDGES TO REPRESENT THE 13 ORIGINAL COLONIES

PACK THE COURT!

[ck4829]

27. K&R

[Mike Nelson]

28. Well...

... I would support this, but see little chance of it happening. These things take so much time, we don't know what President will be nominating the Judges! Still, Warren knows there is a problem. We need to look at additional solutions. Why is it okay to lie under oath and get a seat on the SC? Right now, it's up to Senators... they can vote in anyone. Something more needs to be done... more ways to look at qualifications, and easier ways to impeach Judges.

[The Jungle 1]

29. Let's go SCOTUS

[ArizonaLib]

31. If the court is expanded and turns conservative again

It will be even more difficult to change back to no partisan majority.

Prior to FDR/Truman the court was ideaologically conservative. After years of liberal appointments the court became balanced. After the LBJ gift to Nixon and Reagan's appointments including O'connor who was set to retire in order to care for ailing husband, postponed retirement to vote for GWB in Bush v. Gore so that she could be replaced by a conservative. This led to putting in place the Citizen's United court, interrupted by the 2 Obama justices followed by the current deviant majority. Gorsich would have left in place Roe v. Wade.

[NonPC]

32. What Would Mitch Do?

You can bet he would expand it. Oh that's right -- the shoe is on the other foot now.

[mahannah]

33. And they should not be appointed for life.

[myohmy2]

34. what's the problem...?

...thanks Liz, let's try to do it while we can...

...the supremes as configured are a political-hack joke...

...adding a few more clowns to the mix won't hurt anything...

...

[Deminpenn]

40. CJ Roberts knows full well the consequences

of veering away from settled law. He was Warren's target audience.