General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsdalton99a
(81,516 posts)15 was a number proposed by O'Rourke and Buttigieg during the primary
hauckeye
(635 posts)sandensea
(21,639 posts)Presumably with a Coke can in his hand.
ellie
(6,929 posts)that Thomas is very sick. I don't remember where I read it.
Thanks for the info, ellie!
Far be it from me to wish anyone ill health - but at a time when over 200,000 mostly good people have died thanks in part to Repug criminal negligence, it's safe to say Clarence deserves no respect at all.
GoCubsGo
(32,086 posts)Which he should be, given that he lied to Congress during his confirmation hearing.
AZ8theist
(5,477 posts)A new Senate majority should impeach the POS.
bucolic_frolic
(43,182 posts)The Constitution gave us powers to make government work well, but the truce between parties to stay in power as well as the political reality of running the country has mothballed far too many of them. So few impeachments in our history, so few judges removed. It's become a spoils system of sometimes marginal incompetence or worse. Money and lobbying was never meant to control judiciary appointments, but you know what we have in the way of lobbyists. America is due for a tuneup and a cleansing. Yet Joe Biden will have his plate full with Covid, recession, running the country. But if anyone understands Washington it's someone who's been there forever, he should delegate duties. Maybe we'll have a Senate majority to stop the gridlock.
Already it's a long agenda.
oldsoftie
(12,555 posts)Would just look like sour grapes & would be doomed to fail
AZ8theist
(5,477 posts)during your confirmation hearing?
Well, ok then.
oldsoftie
(12,555 posts)He's not going to be convicted of lying about when he heard what or drinking stories & the like.
If the Dems get the Senate then they need to show the people that they can ACCOMPLISH something in order to KEEP the Senate.
DonaldsRump
(7,715 posts)Start an investigation and let's see if he perjured himself. There was NO investigation in 2018. Let there be one when the Ds take over the White House and Senate and expand in the house.
It needs to be both FBI/US Attorney as well as Congressional investigations. Failure to answer questions or to show up gets you thrown in prison for contempt.
This all should be done and dusted in one year or less.
EVERYTHING should be on the table. We need to expose what has happened and restore the rule of law.
AZ8theist
(5,477 posts)Celerity
(43,415 posts)so zero chance, probably even if Trump is POTUS and the Rethugs control the Senate, so could easily swap him out
argyl
(3,064 posts)Fuck a 2/3rds impeachment, a criminal conviction would be a lot more straightforward.
Celerity
(43,415 posts)There are a few scholars who say you could have an Act of Congress that changes that, but the vast, vast percentage of other legal scholars disagree.
argyl
(3,064 posts)Have a hard time doing his duties. Thought that was only the Dotard?
Fuck, these assholes are appointed for life. That shit really has to go.
And the vast , vast percentage of scholars are full of shit. Are these fucks beyond the law? Could they literally shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get any with it?
Celerity
(43,415 posts)like you said, and nothing would happen (as long as he was POTUS) as long as the Rethugs in the Senate do not vote to remove in sufficient numbers to get to 67 total votes.
The Constitution has massive blind spots.
sheilahi
(277 posts)Oh shit, why not 877 justices? Oh, wait a minute, not enough chairs.
calimary
(81,322 posts)We DO have to start thinking in those terms, though.
I wish WE fought like the CONs do. They're ruthless, and look how it's benefited them. They're on the doorstep to abolishing the ACA, a woman's right to choose, and even Social Security and the rest of the social safety net.
They don't see government as being in the position to help people, only to kill people. Because they're more than okay having a big time military and all the guns you can eat.
Republicans. They DON'T want to help you. And they never did. Didn't see it as their job or their sacred quest when they swore to uphold the Constitution to be seated in their government jobs.
MoonchildCA
(1,301 posts)It would remake it in the image of the federal court of appeals, they could someway hold the number to 15. If we just randomly add two, then the republicans add two, we add two, ad infinitum.
Here is the article Four Ways to Expand the US Supreme Court
mjvpi
(1,388 posts)15 makes sense to me. Ever the idealistic Democrat, I would hope that picks were made to correct this Federalist Society mess, in terms of balance, but past that goal picks would not be made vindictively. In my civics classes (yes, Im that old) the judiciary was depicted as the most spiritually pure manifestation of our democracy, with the Supremes being diamond like in their dedication to the fairness of our laws. A lock step majority of any persuasion is not in the deliberative best interest of our ideals as a country. I dont think the founders had Bret the weeny wagger in mind.
calimary
(81,322 posts)These things can sometimes be really helpful when we're writing up our "asks" in our Indivisible group's Research & Writing team. Sometimes it's not enough to say "do something!" Sometimes you have to give them direction! "Hold news conferences and stay in the public eye on this." "Make some noise about this! Keep it on the front pages." "Deploy your rapid-response team on this issue, and at EVERY turn, and if you don't have one, GET ONE!" This article has some meaty suggestions, and should be said, read, and spread.
Sometimes We The People have to lead our "leaders." Spoon-feed them, put words in their mouths and ideas in their heads. And calcium in their backbones.
Btw - If you have an Indivisible group operating near you, join it! Highly recommended! It's the best activism I've found, and I've put a few years in (ever since the Student Coalition for Humphrey/Muskie!). It's done quite a bit of good, on a personal level, too. These things are good for the morale. You really feel like you're actually DOING something, not just sitting and moping or complaining. It's also generated friendships, helped a newcomer in a new state start feeling the way around. Our group is small but spunky. And indeed we do stuff. Even if it's just via Zoom, which is most of the time. Last night, though, some in our team wanted to get together and maybe say a few words over the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Maybe it was just because we all haven't seen each other, or hung out together, or gone out to do stuff or knock on doors or meet at a local restaurant after church for our postcard parties. I was surprised - there were 17 of us in this little mini-park, holding flashlights, posters, and those electronic "candles". It was nice. We all needed to just BE, together. It was nice. And I needed it.
Highly recommended, if you're not in Indivisible already.
ahoysrcsm
(787 posts)I recall the total being 57 states/territories, so one judge per 2 should right every wrong done by neocons.
Zoonart
(11,869 posts)LakeArenal
(28,820 posts)Claustrum
(4,845 posts)see who has the bigger number.
SharonClark
(10,014 posts)Lonestarblue
(10,011 posts)This might be the one thing that would get younger people out to vote. Not only Roe, but the ACA would be gone with another right-wing justice. Many young people work in the gig economy,,and the ACA is the only healthcare they have. I think Biden needs to really hit these two points hard. Or maybe Kamala should since she might be better with younger voters.
onetexan
(13,043 posts)Nevilledog
(51,122 posts)2naSalit
(86,647 posts)Suddenly I'm not any more.
Great idea.
enough
(13,259 posts)Grins
(7,218 posts)... it will give McConnell and the Republicans something to think about. And theater is something Rs understand.
Say it! Just to see the reaction, and get the Rs on the record.
Upthevibe
(8,053 posts)Why wouldn't Biden get anywhere near it?
Baked Potato
(7,733 posts)Need to soften up that turtle shell.
AlexSFCA
(6,139 posts)cause if gop ever get to power again, theyll expand it to 20.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)The fight that FDR had over it did not help him politically.
Wait and see the Repukes first move.
BigmanPigman
(51,611 posts)them anyway. (I just watched Ken Burns: The Roosevelts on PBS).
roamer65
(36,745 posts)Good series btw.
Duppers
(28,125 posts)Great idea.
Travel Hat
(117 posts)Trump can try and but more than one new justice on the court. If I'm correct he could try and put four! A president can put as many as six justices at a time for every justice that is over 70 and 1/2 years of age. So he can replace RBG and add 3 more because that's how many that are over 70 1/2 years old. OK, tin foil hat off.
dpibel
(2,833 posts)Whatever do you believe you're talking about?
burrowowl
(17,641 posts)Hassler
(3,379 posts)Upthevibe
(8,053 posts)I completely agree...Go to 13....
I'm quite serious.
Hassler
(3,379 posts)Ilsa
(61,695 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Turin_C3PO
(14,004 posts)if we take the Senate and presidency.
lastlib
(23,248 posts)Majority of both houses. Might take 60 in the Senate if the filibuster isn't eliminated. And president's signature.
Schmice3
(294 posts)Upthevibe
(8,053 posts)I'm not familiar with what happened regarding Roosevelt. Would you provide a link or the name of a story that I can look up?
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)Schmice3
(294 posts)dpibel
(2,833 posts)Roosevelt was facing a court that was blocking the New Deal. So the situation was similar in that it was a reactionary court.
But back then, there had been no theft of a Supreme Court seat. There was not the gross politicization of the court.
And, back then, I don't believe the general public believed that the Supreme Court was a totally political animal.
Things are different now.
usaf-vet
(6,189 posts)demtenjeep
(31,997 posts)like now
Cha
(297,322 posts)mysteryowl
(7,390 posts)I think Harris has it in her, but does Biden?
xxqqqzme
(14,887 posts)be an amendment to the Constitution?
dpibel
(2,833 posts)Just creates a Supreme Court.
The number has varied over the years. Started out at 6, was 10 at maximum.
Nothing holy about nine.
xxqqqzme
(14,887 posts)Thank you
RestoreAmerica2020
(3,435 posts)Paz.
wnylib
(21,487 posts)Talk about politicizing the court even further! Every president afterward would consider chsnging the number of justices in his/her favor.
A better option is to impeach present justices, like Kavanaugh, for lying to Congress.
Get and hold the Senate. It's crucial.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,035 posts)Republicans have always politicized the courts.
Democrats by comparison not so much,
wnylib
(21,487 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,035 posts)You want to being the purist, the beautiful loser?
Yeah Roe v Wade, Obamacare, pre-existing conditions, civil rights and so on may be overturned but by God we'll stayed true to our principles.
wnylib
(21,487 posts)don't think R's need or should have our help in destroying the system of checks and balances. They're doing well enough on that on their own.
I am, like everyone else here, still angry over the blatant stunt Moscow Mitch pulled in refusing to allow Garland s hearing. I am doubly furious over his predictable hypocrisy on the issue now.
The majority of Americans are not aware that the number of justices is flexible. The threat of expansion would provide R's with more talking points about Dems trying to pull a coup in the election. It would backfire on Biden.
I'm all for fighting another McConnell stunt. Call out his hypocrisy publicly, loudly, and often. Attack McConnell viciously and ramp up a nationwide donation to defeat him. Have massive peaceful rallies in DC and across the nation. Make McConnell feel really threatened if he goes through with a nomination. Make this a rallying cry to defeat every R candidate in the country. Focus on weak Senators in the election. Repeat McConnell's words over and over about refusing Garland a hearing. Smear R's with their own s#@t.
But don't make threats that could hurt us politically and escalate the already extreme politicization of SCOTUS.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,035 posts)You haven't offered a solution. Just the same namby pamby "We shouldn't stoop to their level"
I will not unilaterally disarm. When they go low don't go high. Kick them in the fucking teeth.
wnylib
(21,487 posts)take the Senate. THEN, if we must, pack the court after the fact, without announcing the intention during the election. Don't show our cards before playing them.
I fully agree that we are at political war with R's of immense consequences to the nation's future. You think I am being a wishy-washy purist and idealist. I am being pragmatic. Do you seriously believe that threatening to pack the court will stop McConnell and the Senate? After what they did with the Garland nomination and after they refused to try, let alone convict, the impeached traitor? I think that is a naive belief. It will not stop them, but it will give fuel to R's in their campaign to convince the public that Dems are subversive and dangerous.
lastlib
(23,248 posts)Another tool at Congress' disposal is limiting the Court's jurisdiction. The Court has been politicized since the days of Marbury v. Madison. Nothing new there. It's just noticed more now because of media attention. Every president since Lincoln has probably wished they could expand the Court, but really only FDR discussed it so openly that it got public attention. But enlarging or shrinking the number of seats has always been a prerogative of Congress.
wnylib
(21,487 posts)and constantly changing its size is a good idea?
Kinda makes a mockery of the balance of power, doesn't it?
Of course politics influence court appointees. It's not possible to completely avoid that. But why ramp it up even higher?
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)that set the number of SCOTUS justices at 9. Before that, it had changed several times. That law would need to be repealed, I believe, before they could add justices.
Expanding the lower courts is definitely a good idea, however.
lastlib
(23,248 posts)From 1789 to 1807 the court comprised six justices. In 1807 a seventh justice was added, followed by an eighth and a ninth in 1837 and a tenth in 1863.
The idea has occurred to me that enlarging the Court would actually DE-politicize it. If enlarged, the change of one justice would be less likely to change the ideological balance, and we wouldn't have the brutal political fights over vacancies that we have now. I'd like to see that idea tested.
WheelWalker
(8,955 posts)wnylib
(21,487 posts)save the Republic? R's are already claiming that Dems are subversive and planning a coup in this election. The majority of Americans don't know that expanding the court is an option and is not unconstitutional. R's would put Biden on the defensive by attacking a court-packing threat as proof of the dangers of a Dem coup. It would backfire on Biden. The campaign would become all about "protecting the sacred SC from a Dem coup" forcing Biden to address that instead of the issues he wants to emphasize.
We should fight, yes. We should make R candidates feel very threatened in the election if they follow McConnell on a nomination. We should attack his hypocrisy regarding the Garland nomination vs a replacement for RBG. We should hold massive PEACEFUL protests in DC and across the nation.
But don't endanger the Trump/Harris lead with a threat to expand the court and thereby give R's fuel about them protecting American institutions from Dems.
Warpy
(111,277 posts)so that high population states get adequate representation and along with that, more electors. That way, low population states will no longer be able to dominate elections. Dirt should never have been allowed to outvote citizens.
Things have been UNFAIR for too damned long. Fuck the crooked Republican Party. Fuck McConnell. And fuck all the diseased billionaire horses' asses they rode in on.
Wounded Bear
(58,670 posts)Expanding the lower courts is a necessary option. Repubs have been starving them for years, waiting for the perfect storm of Trump/McConnell to take advantage of the situation.
Expanding the Supreme Court? I'm a little iffy on that, it's a pretty obvious political move, but after McConnell stole the Garland pick, we might just get away with it. And if we kill the fillibuster it could be done.
czarjak
(11,278 posts)softydog88
(126 posts)and was lambasted for it because it was seen as a purely political move. Same thing will happen to Biden, I fear. I agree that it needs to be done, but I also agree that Biden won't even suggest it. At least as important is the dismantling of the electoral college, and I would argue that when two elections since 2000 have gone to the candidates with fewer votes, that simply is NOT democracy,
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,123 posts)BootinUp
(47,165 posts)Zeitghost
(3,862 posts)Threatening to Stack the Court is a bad idea.
ecstatic
(32,712 posts)We already had a seat stolen, not to mention the hundreds of judges that were held up during Pres Obama's term. I want to see action in that direction immediately after inauguration day.
Grasswire2
(13,571 posts)Mike 03
(16,616 posts)I'm so glad people are thinking of some ideas.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Nitram
(22,822 posts)lark
(23,105 posts)I was forgetting about the lower courts - yes, those absolutely have to be expanded as well and repugs won't be able to stop it if we take back the Senate and presidency.
gulliver
(13,186 posts)Biden is running on uniting the country. We don't need to be advertising that we're going to break norms. That might just cost us the election.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)though. The Constitution gives Congress the power to decide and change the number, and it has done that a few times, just not for some while.
Expanding the number would help lessen two Very grave functional problems we currently have. One is the ability of a party thats gone rotten to corrupt the high court with rotten and/or extremist justices within a couple presidencies held by them.
We are seeing the other right now: That the death of one justice can effect a catastrophic ideological shift. A larger bench of justices will provide greater stability and lessen that danger.
I think its very necessary. Its just a shame that it wasnt done before, but weve never had a political party taken over by this degree of corruption and determination to overthrow the sovereignty of the people.
malthaussen
(17,204 posts)But expanding the Courts would be a good idea regardless. Their calendars are all pretty clogged.
But it's disingenuous to say that it would "depoliticize" the Courts. In fact, it would make them more political, and threatens to polarize them beyond all impartiality. It is, however, equally disingenuous to try to maintain that we haven't already reached that point. Given length of tenure of judges, the damage done to the Judiciary by polarization will take decades to eliminate. The good news is that that damage is not so severe as doom-sayers contend. There are only a few Justices who will let politics guide their decisions every time, even in the USSC.
-- Mal
benld74
(9,904 posts)W T F
(1,148 posts)W T F
(1,148 posts)rdking647
(5,113 posts)that will go a long way to ensure the GOP never has control of the senate again.
DonaldsRump
(7,715 posts)I love John Dean, but Joe doesn't need to get bogged down in this right now during the last 40 days of the election. He needs to harp on the Merrick Garland hypocrisy and he needs to bash the hell out of whomever Trump picks. That's all I would do at this stage.
McConnell and the Reputincans will pay a brutal election price for this anyways.
Once (not if) Joe wins and the Ds take control of the Senate and expand in the House, then we do this with a vengeance on January 21, 2021, giving notice that this will be done once we win. And we investigate the hell out of any dodgy judicial appointee made by Trump who did not receive a meaningful vetting/confirmation process. I am SURE there are many. Lying during the confirmation process is a major biggie. Since there was no real investigation done for Kavanaugh, for example, there is no way to know what he testified to under oath was true.
This is not a Star Chamber; rather, it is doing what should have been done before mediocrities are put on the judiciary for life.
turbinetree
(24,703 posts)because of how the appeals court is based on population and expand the lower court like Dean said...........
garybeck
(9,942 posts)dont the dems have to take back the senate before the could even dream of doing something like that?
not to mention, if they don't, the republicans could expand it on their own and put more assholes on there.
kimbutgar
(21,163 posts)McConnell broke the rules and were going to break them further. I wish every time McConnell speaks they play the recording of him saying no Supreme Court in an election year and put him on the spot to explain why he is allowing this 45 days before the election.
bdamomma
(63,875 posts)that's it Schumer go after McConnell please.
turbinetree
(24,703 posts)because of how the appeals court is based on population and expand the lower court like Dean said...........