Dems in Congress should immediately introduce a provision allowing 18 SCOTUS

[grasswire]

This week.

Introduce a bill in Congress that's very simple, and allows Obama to appoint six more court members.

A shot across the bow.

Doesn't matter if it would be passed. At least the idea would be introduced into the public conversation.

[kelly1mm]

1. If the court packing plan did not work for FDR with massive Democratic majorities

in congress it will not work for the President now.

[grasswire]

4. "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." n/t

[TheWraith]

15. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results." nt

[Bandit]

24. Just because someone of note said that doesn't make it true..

You might be amazed at what can be accomplished by try, try again...

[11 Bravo]

18. OK, please explain to us the rationale (Constitutional or otherwise) for a nine member court.

Are you aware of how the number of SCOTUS justices was initially determinied?

[backscatter712]

20. It blew up for FDR because he went over Congress' head and tried to do it unilaterally.

Congress can and has passed laws changing the number of justices in the SCOTUS.

And the more progressive members of Congress are more than welcome to introduce the bill.

[FBaggins]

21. FDR didn't try to do it unilaterally

That wouldn't be possible.

He proposed legislation... just as the OP does.

[badtoworse]

2. FDR already tried that - it didn't fly

It wouldn't stand a chance in either the Senate or the House and it would piss off a large majority of the electorate. Not a good idea.

[grasswire]

5. well, we sure don't want to piss anyone off!

Mama don't allow no pissing people off round here!


That's how Bush became president.

[badtoworse]

6. Pissed off people rarely vote for the guy who pissed them off.

[grasswire]

7. those who would be pissed off wouldn't have voted for Obama anyway

Do you think that Democratic voters would not vote for Obama because Dems in Congress attempted to level the playing field?

[badtoworse]

11. Definitely and Democrats would suffer substantial losses in Congress as well.

"Packing the court" would be viewed as over the line by people of all political persuasions.

[Blue Meany]

13. "Over the line" implies that there are some norms that are to be adhered to

in politics, practices which are honored by all participants. That used to be true. But movement conservatives have been crossing these boundaries for a long time: they filliubuster everything; the hold the nation's economy hostage to get their way; they have hacked into Democratic congressional servers; they pack the supreme court with partisan hacks; they have attempted to politicize large swaths of the federal bureaucracy to help them win elections; they have used the investigatory powers of Congress and the Executive Branch to try to hurt their opponents, even imprisoning them on trumped up charges.

In the face of these underhanded hard-ball tactics Democrrats have mostly stuck with Roberts Rules of Order. No doubt Democrats would lose some votes for crossing lines that Republicans would hesitate a second to go over, but they might gain a lot more votes for not being such wimps--and therefore, being fit to lead,.

[badtoworse]

14. In the end, this is a matter of opinion and I believe the idea would be a big time loser

Short of doing it and seeing what happens, there is no way to know for sure.

[TheWraith]

16. The world consists of much more than tea partiers and DUers.

I know that's a hard concept for people here to understand, but there is a massive shitload of people in the political middle.

[FBaggins]

19. Sorry. That too is wrong.

There absolutely would be democrats who would be lost to the president by such a blatant power grab attempt.

As I said earlier, there would be no shortage of even Democrats in Congress who would oppose such a move.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. You know this did not work for FDR right? And damn it

he had a solid majority.

[MineralMan]

8. Interesting idea, but it would be doomed to failure,

and the failure would hurt Obama in the election. So, not a good idea, despite being interesting. It's been tried before, you know?

[FBaggins]

9. It doesn't matter whether it would be passed?

Hogwash. Of course it matters.

It's the worst of both worlds if you propose something that is clearly self-serving and fails to come anywhere near passing (and it would fail with a majority of Democrats voting against). You don't get the benefit of the legislation and you take the public opinion hit.

[grasswire]

10. I disagree.

Sometimes the process of seeking change itself is the goal. Because in the process, the matter is brought to the national conversation. Opportunities exist for education, for awareness.

[FBaggins]

12. But this isn't "seeking change" in any societal way.

This is trying to change the rules of the game after you lose.

Draw attention to the change that we actually seek (a better healthcare system)... don't muddy the waters by shifting the conversation to "Democrats want to stack the court!"

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. The Republican-controlled House would love to bring this to a vote

[Puzzledtraveller]

22. Pesky minor details. n/t

[B2G]

23. And if the Repukes had tried this in 2002,

you would have felt...what?