Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
Thu Jun 28, 2018, 01:10 AM Jun 2018

Hey, Democrats: Pack The Supreme Court

t is time for the Democratic Party to stop pretending that the words of men like Kennedy matter as much as their actions. The Supreme Court, Congress and the executive branch of the U.S. government are instruments of political power. All three are currently being used to advance the ideology and agenda of international fascism. House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Anthony Kennedy all protest that they themselves do not personally harbor these terrible beliefs. Nevertheless, they find themselves professionally compelled to assist those who do.

Two months ago, the idea that the United States should abolish Immigrations and Customs Enforcement ― the militarized deportation enforcement agency ― seemed outlandish in Washington. On Tuesday, New York candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won a seat in the House of Representatives pledging to do just that. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) has penned Abolish ICE legislation and is now courting co-sponsors. Two years ago, Medicare for All seemed like a pipe dream. Now it’s a standard agenda item for aspiring Democratic politicians, along with a federal jobs guarantee and ending private prisons. These ideas are animating the party faithful because they’re directed at people. They address actual problems facing real, flesh-and-blood humans. They are not scientific abstractions about the ideal functioning of perfectly modeled markets, or the procedural flow of the bureaucracy or the tenor of the discourse at leading think-tanks.

The court was founded in 1789 with just six justices and has included as many as 10 ― from 1863 to 1866, when a Republican legislature intentionally shrank the court size to seven justices to prevent President Andrew Johnson from making any appointments. In 1937, with the Supreme Court habitually striking down President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s efforts to save the country from the Great Depression, FDR floated the idea of expanding the court to as many as 15 justices. The history of “court-packing,” as it became known, is unbecoming. But lawmakers keep coming back to variants of the idea because it works. Even after FDR retreated from his proposal amid a profound outcry from Southern Democrats, the justices sitting on the court got his message and began issuing more sympathetic rulings on the New Deal. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and John Roberts will not be so malleable. Democrats will have to follow through. But members of Congress are not elected to be polite. They are elected to exercise power, a fact well understood by McConnell ― who blocked Obama nominee Merrick Garland. The Senate majority leader didn’t hesitate to demand the speedy confirmation of whomever Trump picks to succeed Kennedy.

The choice between court-packing (in 2021) and international fascism should not be difficult.
Democrats can’t get their ends ― a decent society of mutual respect and shared prosperity ― by ignoring the means of power. Playing nice with fascist enablers in Washington will not stop fascism.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b33f7a8e4b0b5e692f3f3d4

39 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hey, Democrats: Pack The Supreme Court (Original Post) SunSeeker Jun 2018 OP
I don't think we want to go down that road. SomethingNew Jun 2018 #1
You're pretty certain? Crutchez_CuiBono Jun 2018 #2
Nah SomethingNew Jun 2018 #4
Couldn't disagree more. Crutchez_CuiBono Jun 2018 #6
Like I said, I've studied this enough to feel comfortable with my prediction. SomethingNew Jun 2018 #7
The only reason the GOP is not packing the Court right now is because they don't need to. SunSeeker Jun 2018 #3
Ok, so what happens when power changes hands again and the Republicans do the same? SomethingNew Jun 2018 #5
Republicans already operate without boundaries. Lucky Luciano Jun 2018 #9
Exactly. Desperate times call for desperate measures. SunSeeker Jun 2018 #10
A lot of our centrists friends seem more concerned about not offending Republicans than taking care yurbud Jun 2018 #13
There is a significant difference between SomethingNew Jun 2018 #17
Oh please, Court packing did not cause our country to "barely survive." SunSeeker Jun 2018 #20
Go read a history book. SomethingNew Jun 2018 #23
I'm not the one "blinded" here. nt SunSeeker Jun 2018 #24
How could we have "gone nuclear" when McConnell wouldn't give Garland a hearing? onenote Jul 2018 #33
Forcing a vote on the Senate floor to discharge his nomination from the Senate Judiciary Committee SunSeeker Jul 2018 #38
they've already done it with blocking Garland without a vote. yurbud Jun 2018 #15
+1 appalachiablue Jul 2018 #37
I do. I'm done with worrying about how KPN Jun 2018 #8
How many justices did the Supreme Court start with? yurbud Jun 2018 #11
How does that respond at all to the concerns in my post? SomethingNew Jun 2018 #14
It has been gone since Mitch McConnell blocked Garland, arguably since 2006 Dem Congress yurbud Jun 2018 #16
I don't think you know what you're talking about here. SomethingNew Jun 2018 #18
the mere threat of court packing by FDR made conservative supremes behave themselves a bit better yurbud Jun 2018 #12
Exactly. FDR failed to pack the courts, but the hardliners learned self control. nt Lucky Luciano Jun 2018 #19
+1 dalton99a Jun 2018 #25
But for it to work, we need a president who can make the threat credibly yurbud Jun 2018 #26
That is the common belief. The historical record suggests otherwise. onenote Jul 2018 #34
thanks for the additional details yurbud Jul 2018 #36
Nothing to see here, just another leftbro Blue_Tires Jun 2018 #21
WTF does this have to do with Bernie Sanders?! SunSeeker Jun 2018 #22
I was directing my rant towards the original author Blue_Tires Jul 2018 #29
I think rownesheck Jun 2018 #27
I think that would require a Constitutional amendment. SunSeeker Jun 2018 #28
Doesn't all this talk and endorsement forthemiddle Jul 2018 #30
He doesn't need to pack the Court. He has a conservative majority. nt SunSeeker Jul 2018 #31
Only by one vote. forthemiddle Jul 2018 #32
You think he's satisfied with that? He hates Roberts for some of his votes onenote Jul 2018 #35
Trump will never be satisfied about anything. We can't let that stop us. nt SunSeeker Jul 2018 #39

SomethingNew

(279 posts)
1. I don't think we want to go down that road.
Thu Jun 28, 2018, 01:15 AM
Jun 2018

Just imagine the outcome. Republicans see the demand from Democrats to do that and preemptively do the same. Then Democrats take a shot at it. Back and forth every time the party in power changes. What are we going to do with a 100 member SCOTUS? Best bet is to elect liberal politicians who will pass good laws rather than relying on the court to do it for us.

I'm also pretty certain that Roberts will not vote to overturn Roe or Obergefell so there is at least five justices to uphold those, making this less dire than some seem to think.

SomethingNew

(279 posts)
4. Nah
Thu Jun 28, 2018, 02:44 AM
Jun 2018

I'm familiar enough with Roberts's jurisprudence to feel comfortable with that prediction. Roe is too deeply entrenched in American society at this point, despite what some conservatives would have us think. It's not going anywhere. That would too seriously undermine the court and its decisions. All the "Roe is doomed!" articles are being written by 1) people who really know nothing about the court and the justices other than what they can glean from the news headlines or 2) chicken-littles who are using extreme hyperbole either from lack of critical thinking or because they know it creates good clickbait (looking at a certain ATL """journalist""" here).

Crutchez_CuiBono

(7,725 posts)
6. Couldn't disagree more.
Thu Jun 28, 2018, 02:48 AM
Jun 2018

Your analysis will prove to be flawed if we get another SCJ before the election. If you think it's just click-bait, you are going to have a hard time here I think.

SomethingNew

(279 posts)
7. Like I said, I've studied this enough to feel comfortable with my prediction.
Thu Jun 28, 2018, 02:57 AM
Jun 2018

I'm less sure of Alito and Gorsuch but I think even they might refuse to vote to overturn Roe (though I wouldn't bet my life savings on that one). Thomas almost certainly would.

I'm tempted to set a reminder to link you back to this post a couple years from now, but I'll restrain my more childish impulses.

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
3. The only reason the GOP is not packing the Court right now is because they don't need to.
Thu Jun 28, 2018, 01:45 AM
Jun 2018

SCOTUS already has a conservative majority.

Us not doing it will not prevent the GOP from doing it. The GOP fascists have demonstrated over and over and over again that they will do whatever it takes to implement their world view. Being nice to them has never gotten us anything but steamrolled.

Of course we should pass progressive laws. But we need a progressive Court to keep the GOP from eviscerating those laws, like the GOP did to the ACA.

SomethingNew

(279 posts)
5. Ok, so what happens when power changes hands again and the Republicans do the same?
Thu Jun 28, 2018, 02:46 AM
Jun 2018

Or when all the articles and other calls for court packing convince them to just go ahead and appoint another dozen justices this summer?

Lucky Luciano

(11,242 posts)
9. Republicans already operate without boundaries.
Thu Jun 28, 2018, 10:11 AM
Jun 2018

They will continue to do so - the installation of gorsuch was a prime example every step of the way.

We can’t be all genteel as usual. Time for some jugular shit.

I actually suggested packing the courts a couple months ago on this site. Interesting that someone else in a mainstream-ish source is thinking the same and publishing it.

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
10. Exactly. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Thu Jun 28, 2018, 01:36 PM
Jun 2018

I don't know why any people insist on following the rules of decorum with Trump, when he proudly breaks them daily. We are only enabling Trump.

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
13. A lot of our centrists friends seem more concerned about not offending Republicans than taking care
Thu Jun 28, 2018, 02:19 PM
Jun 2018

of their constituents and country.

SomethingNew

(279 posts)
17. There is a significant difference between
Thu Jun 28, 2018, 02:25 PM
Jun 2018

not caring what Republicans think and not thinking. Court packing crosses over to the latter. Our republic barely survived all the similar maneuvers in it's very early days and was held together by the brilliance and character of some remarkable men. We dont have anyone today who is their equal or who would be able to patch things up and keep us moving forward.

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
20. Oh please, Court packing did not cause our country to "barely survive."
Thu Jun 28, 2018, 06:24 PM
Jun 2018

Our country barely survived slavery, whose defense caused the Civil War. And we barely survived the Republican Hoover administration, which caused the Great Depression. Those were trying times for our country's survival, but not Court packing.

We did not go nuclear when McConnell would not give Garland a hearing, and what did that get us? McConnell turned around and himself invoked the “nuclear option” to eliminate the filibuster in order to confirm Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. And now we are about to get a fascist majority on the Supreme Court. Now THAT is an existential threat to our country. We should do everything in our power to stop that, including Court packing.

SomethingNew

(279 posts)
23. Go read a history book.
Thu Jun 28, 2018, 10:40 PM
Jun 2018

Focus specifically on the struggles with the judiciary in the late 1700s and early 1800s. Extreme partisan division and schemes like you're proposing are nothing new. Back then they even openly tried to have their political opponents killed.

You are too blinded by your hatred of the current iteration of the republicans to keep any historical perspective.

onenote

(42,374 posts)
33. How could we have "gone nuclear" when McConnell wouldn't give Garland a hearing?
Mon Jul 2, 2018, 04:27 PM
Jul 2018

The Republicans controlled the Senate, not us.

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
38. Forcing a vote on the Senate floor to discharge his nomination from the Senate Judiciary Committee
Mon Jul 2, 2018, 07:37 PM
Jul 2018
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/senate-dems-garland-options-223285

But I guess everyone thought Hillary would win and it was not worth the fight.

KPN

(15,587 posts)
8. I do. I'm done with worrying about how
Thu Jun 28, 2018, 06:16 AM
Jun 2018

the Rs will react in response. That’s what got us here where we are today. Fuck that. Stuff the court. Shove it down their throats — or they will continue to shove it down ours.

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
11. How many justices did the Supreme Court start with?
Thu Jun 28, 2018, 02:17 PM
Jun 2018

There's historical precedent for expanding it.

SomethingNew

(279 posts)
14. How does that respond at all to the concerns in my post?
Thu Jun 28, 2018, 02:19 PM
Jun 2018

In today's political climate, that has remained one area even trump hasn't dared enter. You open that door and our entire system of checks and balances is gone.

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
16. It has been gone since Mitch McConnell blocked Garland, arguably since 2006 Dem Congress
Thu Jun 28, 2018, 02:24 PM
Jun 2018

refused to impeach Bush.

SomethingNew

(279 posts)
18. I don't think you know what you're talking about here.
Thu Jun 28, 2018, 02:27 PM
Jun 2018

That response was, once again, unresponsive. You should do some reading on the court, its role and its history, and some of the dangers its faced over the years dating all the way back to the 1790s.

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
26. But for it to work, we need a president who can make the threat credibly
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 01:00 PM
Jun 2018

"the go along to get along" sort ain't gonna cut it.

Republicans would just wait for them to cave.

onenote

(42,374 posts)
34. That is the common belief. The historical record suggests otherwise.
Mon Jul 2, 2018, 05:01 PM
Jul 2018

The only support for the conclusion that it was FDR's court-packing plan that led to the SCOTUS shifting its position on New Deal legislation is the timing of the decision in the Parrish case, which overruled an earlier decision and upheld the constitutionality of a minimum wage law. The decision was issued in late March 1937 and FDR's court-packing plan was first announced in February 1937 and discussed in a fireside chat in early March. But the historical record shows that two days after the case was argued in December 1936 -- nearly two months before FDR unveiled his court packing plan, Justice Owen Roberts, one of the two "swing" votes on the Court, already was voting, along with Chief Justice Hughes, also a swing vote, to uphold the minimum wage law. The split was 4-4 with the two swing votes joining two of the liberal Justices. The court could have issued the 4-4 decision and the minimum wage law would have been upheld. But the Chief Justice wanted to wait for Justice Stone, who had been ill and thus hadn't participated in the initial December conference on the case. Stone returned to the court before FDR announced his plan, but the decision in the case wasn't published until after the plan had been made public. There is no record evidence that the plan influenced the outcome and both the Chief Justice and Justice Roberts (in a memo to Justice Frankfurter) denied the plan had anything to do with the decision.

In all likelihood, the two events that really led to the court "switching" were the election results in 1936, in which FDR and the Democrats won an overwhelming (three-quarters) majority in the House and Senate and the death of one of the four reliable conservatives on the court in late 1937 -- an event that allowed FDR to name a more reliable liberal to the bench. That Justice's death was followed in quick succession by the death or retirement of the remaining three conservatives on the court (Sutherland in January 1938; Butler in November 1939, and McReynolds in June 1941).

So, in all likelihood, the court packing plan didn't alter the course of the New Deal by causing the court to shift to the left. However, it contributed to a backlash against FDR and the Democrats that resulted in the loss of 72 House seats in November 1938.

Conclusion: pursuing a court packing plan, in light of the historical record, would be a bad idea.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
21. Nothing to see here, just another leftbro
Thu Jun 28, 2018, 07:48 PM
Jun 2018

putting the cart before the horse with a bunch of pie-in-the-sky pipe dreams instead of devising a way to flip both houses into huge majorities FIRST and then drawing up articles for impeachment and taking back the white house in 2020... Because those four things must happen for his proposals to have a snowball's chance of becoming reality...

And can we please stop propping up the notion that nobody thought about universal healthcare until Bernie Sanders came along? Folks got some short-assed memories...

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
22. WTF does this have to do with Bernie Sanders?!
Thu Jun 28, 2018, 08:34 PM
Jun 2018

And no way have I ever come close to "propping up the notion that nobody though about universal healthcare until Bernie Sander came along." LOL You definitely got the wrong person there!

And no way am I saying we should pack the Court now. I am well aware of the composition of Congress now. Nor am I saying we should pack it first thing we do when we take Congress, or to the exclusion of everything else.

I am saying we should use ALL the weapons legally at our disposal. The GOP not only does that but resorts to criminality. All I am saying is we should use all legal avenues available to use to fight the fascist Supreme Court majority.

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
28. I think that would require a Constitutional amendment.
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 01:23 PM
Jun 2018

It's a lot easier to pack the Court. The Constitution does not specify how many Justices can be on the Court.

forthemiddle

(1,373 posts)
30. Doesn't all this talk and endorsement
Mon Jul 2, 2018, 02:42 PM
Jul 2018

Of packing the Court as soon as we take over, give Trump the permission to try and do it now?

All I’m saying is be careful what you wish for.

forthemiddle

(1,373 posts)
32. Only by one vote.
Mon Jul 2, 2018, 04:24 PM
Jul 2018

That’s nothing, especially with news reports hoping Roberts will be the new swing vote.
This is a Donald Trump, the egomaniac, do you really think that he wouldn’t take advantage of the Dems politicking on packing the courts, he wouldn’t do it first?
Until the Senate switches hands, this should not be a topic of conversation.

onenote

(42,374 posts)
35. You think he's satisfied with that? He hates Roberts for some of his votes
Mon Jul 2, 2018, 05:03 PM
Jul 2018

So if he thought he could get away with it, there is no doubt that he would try. But I'm sure republicans on the Hill who know their history -- and how the court packing plan was an electoral disaster for the Democrats, who lost 72 seats in the 1938 elections -- don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. And neither will the Democrats in Congress if we get the majority in 2018.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Hey, Democrats: Pack The ...