I heard of a possible PLAN on Morning Joe this a.m.

[Honeycombe8]

I didn't see that this was posted elsewhere, so if it was, just let me know and I'll self-delete.

Talking pundits on MJ...they started discussing one POSSIBLE thing the Dems could do.

They must take back the Senate & House.
They must win the next Presidential election.
THEN...they can enlarge the # of seats in the U. S. S.Ct.
THEN...they can appoint justices for those add'l seats.

Can they do that? The people discussing that seemed to think so.

It's a tall order, winning back both houses of Congress AND the Presidency. But if that can be done, they can "fix" the S.Ct. problem. Which those guys thought should probably be enlarged anyway. I missed the part where they mentioned why there was good reason to enlarge it, anyway.

The U S Constitution leaves it to CONGRESS to decide on the number of justices. The number SIX was decided by The Judiciary Act of 1789. 1789. Maybe it IS time to review that.


Light at the end of the tunnel

[elleng]

1. Enlarging #, some history. NOT an easy lift.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

[lagomorph777]

2. Each step is very high risk of course; RePutins rigging elections and SCROTUS enables them to do it.

But if we can overcome those problems, and take Congress in very large numbers (2/3 is required, as I understand it), we could and should do it. Pack it with 25-year-old Progressives.

[Honeycombe8]

18. It's hard to know the votes required.

I saw that the 2/3rd rule was changed to 3/5th (60 votes) for legislation...what kind of legislation, or all legislation, I don't know.

I saw that 60 votes are requird for confirmation of USCT nominee, but that is actually 50, now, I heard on tv. McConnell & Repubs changed the rules, I think.

Too complicated for me. But there IS a path....hard or not.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Sure, and if my aunt had wheels she'd be a pastry cart.

"Tall order" doesn't come close to describing what that is. It could happen, I suppose, but not by 2020. It will probably take many election cycles, I'm afraid.

[Hortensis]

40. :) Confirming for OP that congress can change the #

of justices, though. They did it a bunch in the 1800s, but not for a very, very long time and there'd be a lot of noise from the far right. But congress definitely currently has the power to increase the number of justices by simple majority votes.

Which brings us to your post.

In these tumultuous times, though, when a president is suddenly illegally and severely abusing children, with almost certainly more illegal surprises to come, do we really dare predict with certainly to 2020, much less several election cycles?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

42. I hope to be pleasantly rather than unpleasantly surprised,

but these days it's impossible to predict what will happen tomorrow, let alone next year. Maybe there will be some cataclysm that will turn things around in a good way - but at least the way things are now I'm not holding my breath waiting for a black swan event that isn't some kind of disaster.

[Hortensis]

44. I am terribly afraid that we could have to crash

to break the authoritarian coalition that's pulling us toward disaster.

Tormenting children is a turning point for some. November 6 will tell how many, or few.

[lapfog_1]

4. FDR tried it already

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roosevelt-announces-court-packing-plan

He didn't get to do it... however, circumstances are different now

[Cuthbert Allgood]

30. I don't think he really wanted the number to increase.

He just wanted to SCOTUS to back his plans using the Commerce Clause. Everyone know that his packing plan was not a good idea, but they also knew Congress would do what he wanted. So the needed number of justices flipped to allow his economic plans. Then there was no need for the court packing.

[Hamlette]

46. WE don't want the number to increase, we want exactly the same thing FDR did

we want SC decisions to go our way, or at least be fair FFS.

Historians think FDR's effort to "pack" the court weakened him and was harmful to his presidency.

I wouldn't the hell advise dems to try it.

[KPN]

48. Interesting. Any sources you can share?

[Hamlette]

68. sure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

google fdr pack court for much more

I would add that the supremes made some horrible decisions in fdr's first term making it very difficult for him to pass legislation to help with the depression so its understandable why he was frustrated. On the other hand, fdr enjoyed vast public support for his policy so you can see why he got a bit heady.

I would study this very carefully before I considered it. I'm surprised Joe thinks it could work. Or was it just the op?

[KPN]

70. I'll check it out. I thought maybe you had a book

book reference. I’m not sure why we wouldn’t pursue something like that given all the shady stuff the GOP has done to subvert democratic processes over the past two decades (well, back to Nixon actually). So I definitely would like to learn more.

[Hamlette]

72. I've read quite a few books on fdr over the years but can't think of which might talk about this

I was a US history major so it might have been a teacher or text book but my memory of the attempt to pack the court being a big mistake and setting FDR back a bit is very strong. His bill to pack the court allowed him to name a new justice whenever a serving justice reached the age of 70 without retiring so in effect adding one justice to the court for each old justice. We would never in a million years allow the GOP to do this and FDR had an overwhelming majority in Congress and was extremely popular with the voters. If he couldn't do it, don't see a time in the near future where we'll have a prez with that much popularity.

And doing bold stuff hasn't always served us well. We got rid of the need for a super majority on the appointment of judges because the GOP would not support any of Obama's picks. Sounded like a great idea at the time (and was sort of hard ball) but I wish we needed 60 votes for Kennedy's replacement.

[KPN]

75. Was FDR confronted with a GOP that consistently

undermined the fundamentals of democracy in every way conceivable to thwart the will of the people? We are in another time, dealing with entirely different and nefarious circumstances. We are the majority being subverted. FDRs majority was not being subverted on every front. I think the people would be with us today if we did this and handled it wisely.

[Honeycombe8]

78. I think it was a guest or two on the MJ show.

Certainly not me....I didn't even know that could be done.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

71. Weakened him?

It's what made the New Deal possible. I don't think that's weakening.

[onenote]

73. The Democrats lost more than 70 seats in the 1938 house elections

and 7 Senate seats. While control of both Houses remained with the Democrats, it was obviously a lot closer. And the court packing fiasco bears part of the blame.

[Hamlette]

81. thanks onenote. I thought it was a disaster.

[Hamlette]

80. it didn't make it possible because it didn't pass. n/t

[kentuck]

5. I would prefer to see Justices limited to 9-year terms...

...and would need to be re-confirmed every nine years, with a maximum of two terms.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

11. requires an amendment

Life terms are set by the Constitution.

[Caliman73]

15. I would rather see the rules of conduct enforced.

If the rules of conduct were to be enforced, we would have gotten rid of Thomas, Scalia, and Alito a long time ago. Each of them have violate numerous standards of conduct with electioneering and political activity which is prohibited, especially Thomas.

[Maraya1969]

25. Maybe if we win back congress they can bring up charges against Thomas now?

I didn't know what a pig he was. Newsweek wrote about him several months ago.

http://www.newsweek.com/clarence-thomas-impeachment-perjury-sexual-harassment-812953

Lost in the din of the 2016 presidential election was a proto- #MeToo charge that called out Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Thomas was famously accused of sexual harassment when law professor Anita Hill detailed such allegations during his 1991 confirmation hearing. Hill had worked with Thomas for years at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—an agency that investigates federal sexual harassment claims. In her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Hill accused Thomas of continually discussing his porn predilection, which included talk of bestiality and rape scenes as well as an actor who went by the name Long Dong Silver.

"His conversations were very vivid," Hill told the committee. "He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes. [...] On several occasions Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess."

The #MeToo movement reintroduced Hill's claims to the world as a surging grass roots effort to support women coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment swept across the country. Ironically, however, when another woman penned a Facebook post accusing Thomas of groping her twice in 1999, the story was buried under the seemingly breathless coverage of then-candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

43. Pretty tough to 86 somebody who's been there for 25+ years

for something he did way back then, even if he deserves it.

[luvtheGWN]

64. Many other countries, including my own

have Supreme Court justices retiring (mandatory) at age 75. Most of them very sensibly retire before they reach 75. Lifetime appointments are nuts, IMHO.

[Honeycombe8]

19. That would require the same # of votes, though.

Equally hard.

And there is rationale for a life term. It's so that they are not susceptible to political pressure. Imagine if they needed confirmation the next year, the influence that might have on their decisions that affect the party in power.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

22. You think it's a good idea to be having a confirmation of a new judge

or the re-confirmation of a sitting judge every single year? Really?

I don't.

[mr_lebowski]

29. Reconfirmed every nine years it says, at least now it does dunno if changed

Only way there's exactly one reconfirmation every year is a mathematically VERY unlikely scenario.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

31. Well, certainly we wouldn't do all 9 in one year.

So the "reasonable" option for that plan would be to do one a year. Which is crazy.

[mr_lebowski]

33. No, each re-confirmation would be based on when they were seated ...

That would be what would start the clock.

Not saying I'm a fan, just ... the math is off.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

35. Having even one judge a year reconfirmed would suck.

Having multiple in a year would be crazy.

The SCOTUS is supposed to be the body that makes sure change doesn't happen on a whim. That's why they have life tenure. If we started doing this, then laws would fluctuate much more wildly. Roe would have been overturned (Reagan) and reinstated (Clinton) and overturned (Bush) and reinstated (Obama) and overturned (Trump) again. At least that many times. We don't need that level of crazy in our country.

[mr_lebowski]

37. I'm just talking about the math involved in the proposal ...

If it's 'every 9 years' for each one, the clock on each has to start when they're seated ... I mean, that's this person's proposal we're responding to, and in order adhere to it, we could have a few in one year, then none for a few years, etc. That's the only way to do it 'every nine years for each'.

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Here's the challenge

Republican blowback.

IOW, one day in the future, Republicans will re-gain majorities in the House and the Senate. And they use a democratic "good idea" and use it against Democrats. Remember when Democrats changed the filibuster rule for voting in Obama's slate of federal judges? And how Mitch expanded that good idea to voting in a nominee for the USSC with a simple majority vote?

Imagine Republicans packing The Court when they get a chance . . . . .


Holding on to Roe indefinitely means getting a few Republicans to vote for it on occasion. When Collins and Murkowski retire, which Republican will vote for Roe?

[Honeycombe8]

79. The S.Ct. can overturn Roe v Wade. Congress can't. nt

[Tatiana]

7. It's probably more likely that we'll take back the House and name Hillary speaker.

Which I would love because it would be one of the biggest FUs that we could deliver to the Right Wing.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

32. Well that's never going to happen.

Least of all because I'm pretty sure HRC wouldn't want to be Speaker.

[mr_lebowski]

34. I'd like Lieu or Schiff, myself ...

[Cuthbert Allgood]

38. I'd like Bustos, Jefferies, or Linda Sanchez

[Freddie]

41. Chief Justice Barack Obama

Has a nice ring.

[lapucelle]

77. It will never happen, BUT

if it did, and both Trump and Pence were forced to resign in disgrace, then ...

If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/19

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

8. We don't have to do anything other than win congress and

delay hearings and a vote on a SCJ. Delay should be straight-forward like the gop under Obama.
No new SCJ in an election year. PERIOD. PERIOD. PERIOD.
Any talk of anything different lets the gop behave business as usual bc we have some sort of "back-up plan". NO. STOP the roll towards a new SCJ. Just make a statement like Mitch did...then clear out of town.

[FBaggins]

12. How do you propose getting the GOP to agree?

Delay should be straight-forward like the gop under Obama.

This is where we have to discuss the difference between a majority and a minority. In order to be "like the GOP under Obama", we have to pick up two senate seats.

We don't have the power to delay a vote past January the way they did.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

16. It ws a new thing when they did it.

FBAggins...Not my job. I didnt get elected. I was posting on a discussion board. Maybe congress can do their job for once. When then gop is in the minority...they stop the Dem congress all the time. How is it we can't do the same?

[vi5]

21. +1,000,000,000

"You need to stop offering suggestions and just trust our leaders. They know what they are doing!!"

*Leaders do something indicating they clearly don't know what they are doing*

"Well why don't YOU do something!?!?! What's YOUR suggestion?!?!"

[FBaggins]

24. Nope. It wasn't new at all

It was new for supreme court justices... but it happened several times for appellate nominees.


How is it we can't do the same?

Because it isn't the same. When they were able to stop something in the minority, it was through use of the filibuster... which is now gone. When they were able to stop something under Obama... it was because they were in the majority.

[KPN]

53. I agree. We shouldn't even be having this discussion

given the fact that the illegitimate president is under investigation for serious if not treasonous crimes harmful to our nation and/or the moral standing of our executive branch. This president should not be allowed to make any nominations/appointments of any fucking judges — let alone SCJ — until the investigation is completed! None!

I don’t understand why our party leaders and the media aren’t hammering this point home vociferously! It’s absurd that we are even talking about strategies to block Trump’s nomination under these circumstances. There should be absolutely no question about NO APPOINTMENTS pending completion of the investigation.

What the fuck are we doing?

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

58. KPN

You have it really dialed in. I completely agree. It's simply beyond debatable anymore. The man has pulled us out of treaties and alliances and gotten us chummy w the dictators of the world. HOW MUCH evidence is needed to make a threshold case that somethings rotten in Denmark and that we just insist on it. Period. maybe the Sgt At Arms can go arrest every congress person at home as we await sanity in our govt gain.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

9. Judiciary Act of 1869

The 1869 act set the current standard of 9 justices. It would have to be repealed and replaced. This would required controlling both house and the Presidency and having filibuster proof numbers in the Senate or nuking the legislative filibuster.

[uponit7771]

74. +1

[FBaggins]

10. Republicans already control the House/Senate and White House

What keeps them from doing that right now?

[Moostache]

17. The fact that they are literally kicking our ass?

The court is already 5-4 majority conservative (Kennedy was no "swing vote", he was conservative).
The next to go from the court is likely Ginsberg. Then the court will be 6-3 and nothing will be done about that in my lifetime or my children's life times...

[FBaggins]

26. They didn't get every vote they wanted

Why didn't they add a few seats as soon as Trump was "elected"? More than a few cases went against them.

[NewJeffCT]

56. Because Republicans already had a 5-4 majority on the court

so perhaps didn't feel it was needed? And yes, they lost a few rulings in the beginning, but this past week has been a RWers wet dream with rulings favoring the Muslim ban and destroying public unions.

I'd be surprised if expanding the court is considered even if Dems win the presidency in 2020 and have decent majorities in the House & Senate. The number of seats hasn't changed since the 1860s, though FDR did propose the idea.

[PearliePoo2]

23. hmmmm...good (but frightening) question.

Maybe because the Senate doesn't presently have 60 RePukes?

Anyone know the answer?

[FBaggins]

27. It isn't likely to get 60 Democrats either

This strategy requires the next Democratic majority to nuke the filibuster for legislation too.

[dogman]

39. This was my thought.

T-Rump will hear this and do it now if possible. We would be even deeper in shit.

[peekaloo]

13. I heard the exact same conversation on Thom Hartmann's show yesterday.

baby steps.........

[PearliePoo2]

14. I watched this too! Thanks for posting!! Gave me a little hope this morning!

Hopefully someone with more skills than I have can find the video on Youtube.

Do you remember who the man was that had the suggestion?

[onenote]

20. Heavy lift

The size of the Court actually changed with some frequency in the first 100 years of the nation, but it has been nearly 150 years since it last changed, despite efforts, particularly those of FDR, to change it.

History of the Court's size:

1789: 6
1801: 5
1802: 6
1807: 7
1837: 9
1863: 10
1866: 7
1867: 8
1869: 9

[global1]

36. Don't Give Trump & The Repugs Any Ideas Here....

or they will move to enlarge SCOTUS before the Dems get a chance.

[donkeypoofed]

45. Increasing SCJ's to 11 is the only way to negate this travesty

People.have to take to the streets, call their governmental officials and voice their displeasure at how things are, and the tidal wave can shift; also framing it as Spanky appointing a Justice who will soon have a case to deal with that a about him.

Increasing the SC to 11 Justices is a viable chance to change the course and wouldn't it be a satisfying "fuck you" to MM?!

[world wide wally]

47. And "IF" we were able to do all of that,

Republicans would filibuster.

[bucolic_frolic]

50. In Supreme Court Justices, I'm looking for the wisdom of moderate elders

not 45 year old ideologues, and not for life terms. There is a time. Also seeking to limit the appointees of each elected President, but also want to see each elected President get at least one, even if it means temporary expansion of the number of justices, or retirement by statute.

We need elder wisdom. We're not getting it. We have right wing party hacks, business law enthusiasts, and libertarian property rights proponents. What happened to civil rights attorneys?

[George II]

51. FDR tried that, he got resistance even from his own party. It won't work today, either.

[workinclasszero]

52. FDR tried it and got slapped down

It would be a tall order for sure.

[wryter2000]

54. Or....

Go back to six and get rid of Thomas, Alito, and Goresuch.

[mr_liberal]

55. I have a PLAN that actually will work.

Hope no more supreme court justices retire and then win the presidency in 2020 get reelected in 2024.

Replace Ginsburg and Breyer, and when Clarence Thomas (70 years old now) retires replace him with a liberal.

That would make it a 5 vote liberal majority: 1.Kagan, 2. Sotomayor, 3. Ginsburg replacement, 4. Breyer replacement, 5. Thomas replacement.

It actually is still possible to save the court, but nobody seems to realize it.

[NewJeffCT]

59. I would think that Thomas would hold out for as long as possible

if there is a Democratic president. I don't think he'd retire. Only death would get him out if there was a Democrat in the White House.

I'd also like to see Democrats pass a law that says that hearings and a vote for a SCOTUS must be held within 90 days of the president making the nomination, or else the senate is considered to have waived their right to advise and consent. I'd also like that implemented for all federal judge nominations, as McConnell has fast tracked RW judges under Trump, but abused senate norms and procedures under Obama to block/slow walk federal judiciary positions.

[FBaggins]

61. Hard to credit a "plan" as "will work"...

... when it starts with the word "Hope"

If Republicans hold the Senate and Thomas likes what he sees from the new pick... he probably retires two years from now. Then we're still left "hoping" that Ginsburg and Breyer can both hold out at least another two and a half years.

[Freethinker65]

57. How about vote democratic, and legislate and pass federal laws that are constitutional

[Texin]

60. This is not a "plan". It's merely a goal, and a major uphill battle.

It's good to have goals, but the plan should be solely about getting Dems elected in November and thereafter. Changing the fabric of the SCOTUS is merely a pipedream at this point, but it's something to aim for certainly.

[TygrBright]

62. It's called court-packing. It's possible, but very difficult.

And even the attempt often creates a hella backlash that ends up doing all the harm over all the time the original Court would have done.

wearily,
Bright

[murielm99]

63. I would rather see us work on something

that has widespread support and would not backfire on us down the road.

We should abolish the electoral college. It would take a long time to change the Constitution, and we would need to get a majority first, in Congress and in the state houses. This is more important, and we could do it.

[bucolic_frolic]

65. It didn't work for FDR because we had real patriotic politicians back then

Now, you could pass anything and a way can be found to explain, obfuscate, lie, cheat, steal, stall, gerrymander, lobby, and propagandize.

I know. Dems should never do that.

But that's what got us into the current situation. We had no plan to deal the the other side doing those things. We must remain competitive. Fight fire with fire. Do what you have to do to get it done.

Sometimes I think we in the rank and file were more aware than our leadership. We knew the court was politicized in Bush v. Gore. We knew we could say nothing right on Fox News. We thought we didn't stroke the media enough, so we caved some more.

Has anyone had enough yet? What did your ethics get you? Politics is a Machiavellian enterprise. We need to learn it.

[LiberalLovinLug]

66. Even if we won enough to begin this process

You have to talk about the RW media fighting back. Fox News and RW radio would be on this from the day it was first known in the works. 24/7 screaming about traitors and cheaters and don't let them do it. The now Trumpified base, probably listening to a still-tweeting Donald, would probably be egged on into a violent uprising.

At the very least it would mean a short lived gain as many moderate Rs and Independents, and maybe even some Democrats, would be convinced by RW media propaganda that this was an abomination, and we'd get a new R President and R majorities again in the following cycle who would no doubt find a way to reverse it, or simply add even more judges.

[RandomAccess]

67. Thank you.

I needed this.

A lot.

And yes, it's possible.

[oasis]

69. More justices, more justice! Great idea.

[sarcasmo]

76. End lifetime appointments.

[Thunderbeast]

82. Better to declare Trump election illegitimate....IMPEACH his nominees.