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

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 11:35 AM Jun 2018

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

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

82 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I heard of a possible PLAN on Morning Joe this a.m. (Original Post) Honeycombe8 Jun 2018 OP
Enlarging #, some history. NOT an easy lift. elleng Jun 2018 #1
Each step is very high risk of course; RePutins rigging elections and SCROTUS enables them to do it. lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #2
It's hard to know the votes required. Honeycombe8 Jun 2018 #18
Sure, and if my aunt had wheels she'd be a pastry cart. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #3
:) Confirming for OP that congress can change the # Hortensis Jun 2018 #40
I hope to be pleasantly rather than unpleasantly surprised, The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #42
I am terribly afraid that we could have to crash Hortensis Jun 2018 #44
FDR tried it already lapfog_1 Jun 2018 #4
I don't think he really wanted the number to increase. Cuthbert Allgood Jun 2018 #30
WE don't want the number to increase, we want exactly the same thing FDR did Hamlette Jun 2018 #46
Interesting. Any sources you can share? KPN Jun 2018 #48
sure Hamlette Jun 2018 #68
I'll check it out. I thought maybe you had a book KPN Jun 2018 #70
I've read quite a few books on fdr over the years but can't think of which might talk about this Hamlette Jun 2018 #72
Was FDR confronted with a GOP that consistently KPN Jun 2018 #75
I think it was a guest or two on the MJ show. Honeycombe8 Jun 2018 #78
Weakened him? Cuthbert Allgood Jun 2018 #71
The Democrats lost more than 70 seats in the 1938 house elections onenote Jun 2018 #73
thanks onenote. I thought it was a disaster. Hamlette Jun 2018 #81
it didn't make it possible because it didn't pass. n/t Hamlette Jun 2018 #80
I would prefer to see Justices limited to 9-year terms... kentuck Jun 2018 #5
requires an amendment DetroitLegalBeagle Jun 2018 #11
I would rather see the rules of conduct enforced. Caliman73 Jun 2018 #15
Maybe if we win back congress they can bring up charges against Thomas now? Maraya1969 Jun 2018 #25
Pretty tough to 86 somebody who's been there for 25+ years The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #43
Many other countries, including my own luvtheGWN Jun 2018 #64
That would require the same # of votes, though. Honeycombe8 Jun 2018 #19
You think it's a good idea to be having a confirmation of a new judge PoindexterOglethorpe Jun 2018 #22
Reconfirmed every nine years it says, at least now it does dunno if changed mr_lebowski Jun 2018 #29
Well, certainly we wouldn't do all 9 in one year. Cuthbert Allgood Jun 2018 #31
No, each re-confirmation would be based on when they were seated ... mr_lebowski Jun 2018 #33
Having even one judge a year reconfirmed would suck. Cuthbert Allgood Jun 2018 #35
I'm just talking about the math involved in the proposal ... mr_lebowski Jun 2018 #37
Here's the challenge no_hypocrisy Jun 2018 #6
The S.Ct. can overturn Roe v Wade. Congress can't. nt Honeycombe8 Jun 2018 #79
It's probably more likely that we'll take back the House and name Hillary speaker. Tatiana Jun 2018 #7
Well that's never going to happen. Cuthbert Allgood Jun 2018 #32
I'd like Lieu or Schiff, myself ... mr_lebowski Jun 2018 #34
I'd like Bustos, Jefferies, or Linda Sanchez Cuthbert Allgood Jun 2018 #38
Chief Justice Barack Obama Freddie Jun 2018 #41
It will never happen, BUT lapucelle Jun 2018 #77
We don't have to do anything other than win congress and Crutchez_CuiBono Jun 2018 #8
How do you propose getting the GOP to agree? FBaggins Jun 2018 #12
It ws a new thing when they did it. Crutchez_CuiBono Jun 2018 #16
+1,000,000,000 vi5 Jun 2018 #21
Nope. It wasn't new at all FBaggins Jun 2018 #24
I agree. We shouldn't even be having this discussion KPN Jun 2018 #53
KPN Crutchez_CuiBono Jun 2018 #58
Judiciary Act of 1869 DetroitLegalBeagle Jun 2018 #9
+1 uponit7771 Jun 2018 #74
Republicans already control the House/Senate and White House FBaggins Jun 2018 #10
The fact that they are literally kicking our ass? Moostache Jun 2018 #17
They didn't get every vote they wanted FBaggins Jun 2018 #26
Because Republicans already had a 5-4 majority on the court NewJeffCT Jun 2018 #56
hmmmm...good (but frightening) question. PearliePoo2 Jun 2018 #23
It isn't likely to get 60 Democrats either FBaggins Jun 2018 #27
This was my thought. dogman Jun 2018 #39
I heard the exact same conversation on Thom Hartmann's show yesterday. peekaloo Jun 2018 #13
I watched this too! Thanks for posting!! Gave me a little hope this morning! PearliePoo2 Jun 2018 #14
Heavy lift onenote Jun 2018 #20
This message was self-deleted by its author greymattermom Jun 2018 #28
Don't Give Trump & The Repugs Any Ideas Here.... global1 Jun 2018 #36
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2018 #49
Increasing SCJ's to 11 is the only way to negate this travesty donkeypoofed Jun 2018 #45
And "IF" we were able to do all of that, world wide wally Jun 2018 #47
In Supreme Court Justices, I'm looking for the wisdom of moderate elders bucolic_frolic Jun 2018 #50
FDR tried that, he got resistance even from his own party. It won't work today, either. George II Jun 2018 #51
FDR tried it and got slapped down workinclasszero Jun 2018 #52
Or.... wryter2000 Jun 2018 #54
I have a PLAN that actually will work. mr_liberal Jun 2018 #55
I would think that Thomas would hold out for as long as possible NewJeffCT Jun 2018 #59
Hard to credit a "plan" as "will work"... FBaggins Jun 2018 #61
How about vote democratic, and legislate and pass federal laws that are constitutional Freethinker65 Jun 2018 #57
This is not a "plan". It's merely a goal, and a major uphill battle. Texin Jun 2018 #60
It's called court-packing. It's possible, but very difficult. TygrBright Jun 2018 #62
I would rather see us work on something murielm99 Jun 2018 #63
It didn't work for FDR because we had real patriotic politicians back then bucolic_frolic Jun 2018 #65
Even if we won enough to begin this process LiberalLovinLug Jun 2018 #66
Thank you. RandomAccess Jun 2018 #67
More justices, more justice! Great idea. oasis Jun 2018 #69
End lifetime appointments. sarcasmo Jun 2018 #76
Better to declare Trump election illegitimate....IMPEACH his nominees. Thunderbeast Jun 2018 #82

lagomorph777

(30,613 posts)
2. Each step is very high risk of course; RePutins rigging elections and SCROTUS enables them to do it.
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 11:38 AM
Jun 2018

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

(37,648 posts)
18. It's hard to know the votes required.
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 11:47 AM
Jun 2018

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

(114,541 posts)
3. Sure, and if my aunt had wheels she'd be a pastry cart.
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 11:38 AM
Jun 2018

"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

(58,785 posts)
40. :) Confirming for OP that congress can change the #
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 12:36 PM
Jun 2018

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

(114,541 posts)
42. I hope to be pleasantly rather than unpleasantly surprised,
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 12:40 PM
Jun 2018

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

(58,785 posts)
44. I am terribly afraid that we could have to crash
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 12:46 PM
Jun 2018

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.

Cuthbert Allgood

(4,753 posts)
30. I don't think he really wanted the number to increase.
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 12:01 PM
Jun 2018

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

(15,377 posts)
46. WE don't want the number to increase, we want exactly the same thing FDR did
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 01:21 PM
Jun 2018

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.

Hamlette

(15,377 posts)
68. sure
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 06:14 PM
Jun 2018
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

(15,535 posts)
70. I'll check it out. I thought maybe you had a book
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 10:26 PM
Jun 2018

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

(15,377 posts)
72. I've read quite a few books on fdr over the years but can't think of which might talk about this
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 10:50 PM
Jun 2018

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

(15,535 posts)
75. Was FDR confronted with a GOP that consistently
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 11:29 PM
Jun 2018

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

(37,648 posts)
78. I think it was a guest or two on the MJ show.
Sat Jun 30, 2018, 12:01 AM
Jun 2018

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

onenote

(42,002 posts)
73. The Democrats lost more than 70 seats in the 1938 house elections
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 10:57 PM
Jun 2018

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.

kentuck

(110,859 posts)
5. I would prefer to see Justices limited to 9-year terms...
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 11:39 AM
Jun 2018

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

Caliman73

(11,641 posts)
15. I would rather see the rules of conduct enforced.
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 11:46 AM
Jun 2018

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

(22,356 posts)
25. Maybe if we win back congress they can bring up charges against Thomas now?
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 11:56 AM
Jun 2018

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

(114,541 posts)
43. Pretty tough to 86 somebody who's been there for 25+ years
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 12:42 PM
Jun 2018

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

luvtheGWN

(1,336 posts)
64. Many other countries, including my own
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 02:26 PM
Jun 2018

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

(37,648 posts)
19. That would require the same # of votes, though.
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 11:49 AM
Jun 2018

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

(25,597 posts)
22. You think it's a good idea to be having a confirmation of a new judge
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 11:51 AM
Jun 2018

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

I don't.

 

mr_lebowski

(33,643 posts)
29. Reconfirmed every nine years it says, at least now it does dunno if changed
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 12:01 PM
Jun 2018

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

Cuthbert Allgood

(4,753 posts)
31. Well, certainly we wouldn't do all 9 in one year.
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 12:02 PM
Jun 2018

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

 

mr_lebowski

(33,643 posts)
33. No, each re-confirmation would be based on when they were seated ...
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 12:03 PM
Jun 2018

That would be what would start the clock.

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

Cuthbert Allgood

(4,753 posts)
35. Having even one judge a year reconfirmed would suck.
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 12:06 PM
Jun 2018

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

(33,643 posts)
37. I'm just talking about the math involved in the proposal ...
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 12:13 PM
Jun 2018

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

(45,317 posts)
6. Here's the challenge
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 11:40 AM
Jun 2018

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?

Tatiana

(14,167 posts)
7. It's probably more likely that we'll take back the House and name Hillary speaker.
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 11:40 AM
Jun 2018

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

Cuthbert Allgood

(4,753 posts)
32. Well that's never going to happen.
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 12:03 PM
Jun 2018

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

lapucelle

(17,965 posts)
77. It will never happen, BUT
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 11:58 PM
Jun 2018

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

(7,725 posts)
8. We don't have to do anything other than win congress and
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 11:41 AM
Jun 2018

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

(26,578 posts)
12. How do you propose getting the GOP to agree?
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 11:44 AM
Jun 2018
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

(7,725 posts)
16. It ws a new thing when they did it.
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 11:47 AM
Jun 2018

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

(13,305 posts)
21. +1,000,000,000
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 11:50 AM
Jun 2018

"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

(26,578 posts)
24. Nope. It wasn't new at all
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 11:56 AM
Jun 2018

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

(15,535 posts)
53. I agree. We shouldn't even be having this discussion
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 01:35 PM
Jun 2018

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

(7,725 posts)
58. KPN
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 01:53 PM
Jun 2018

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

(1,896 posts)
9. Judiciary Act of 1869
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 11:41 AM
Jun 2018

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.

FBaggins

(26,578 posts)
10. Republicans already control the House/Senate and White House
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 11:41 AM
Jun 2018

What keeps them from doing that right now?

Moostache

(9,895 posts)
17. The fact that they are literally kicking our ass?
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 11:47 AM
Jun 2018

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

(26,578 posts)
26. They didn't get every vote they wanted
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 11:58 AM
Jun 2018

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

NewJeffCT

(56,825 posts)
56. Because Republicans already had a 5-4 majority on the court
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 01:45 PM
Jun 2018

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

(7,768 posts)
23. hmmmm...good (but frightening) question.
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 11:51 AM
Jun 2018

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

Anyone know the answer?

FBaggins

(26,578 posts)
27. It isn't likely to get 60 Democrats either
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 11:59 AM
Jun 2018

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

dogman

(6,073 posts)
39. This was my thought.
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 12:19 PM
Jun 2018

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

PearliePoo2

(7,768 posts)
14. I watched this too! Thanks for posting!! Gave me a little hope this morning!
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 11:46 AM
Jun 2018

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

(42,002 posts)
20. Heavy lift
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 11:49 AM
Jun 2018

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

Response to Honeycombe8 (Original post)

global1

(25,105 posts)
36. Don't Give Trump & The Repugs Any Ideas Here....
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 12:12 PM
Jun 2018

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

Response to global1 (Reply #36)

donkeypoofed

(2,187 posts)
45. Increasing SCJ's to 11 is the only way to negate this travesty
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 01:03 PM
Jun 2018

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?!

bucolic_frolic

(42,130 posts)
50. In Supreme Court Justices, I'm looking for the wisdom of moderate elders
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 01:33 PM
Jun 2018

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?

 

mr_liberal

(1,017 posts)
55. I have a PLAN that actually will work.
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 01:43 PM
Jun 2018

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

(56,825 posts)
59. I would think that Thomas would hold out for as long as possible
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 01:54 PM
Jun 2018

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

(26,578 posts)
61. Hard to credit a "plan" as "will work"...
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 01:55 PM
Jun 2018

... 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.

Texin

(2,574 posts)
60. This is not a "plan". It's merely a goal, and a major uphill battle.
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 01:54 PM
Jun 2018

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

(20,697 posts)
62. It's called court-packing. It's possible, but very difficult.
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 01:59 PM
Jun 2018

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

(30,563 posts)
63. I would rather see us work on something
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 02:11 PM
Jun 2018

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

(42,130 posts)
65. It didn't work for FDR because we had real patriotic politicians back then
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 02:33 PM
Jun 2018

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

(14,137 posts)
66. Even if we won enough to begin this process
Fri Jun 29, 2018, 02:44 PM
Jun 2018

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I heard of a possible PLA...