What is the process for adding more justices to the SCOTUS?

[SHRED]

I think if and when we regain control of Congress we need to increase the SCOTUS to 11 justices.

[brooklynite]

1. Simple majority vote of the House and Senate...

...and Donald Trump’s signature. Let us know when you have it.

[SHRED]

4. 2020 I hope

[unblock]

5. january 20, 2021, technically.

but as the rules stand now, it would require 60 votes in the senate to overcome a republican filibuster.

a very tall order, especially as we're not likely to get every last democratic senator to agree to this as it would be very controversial.

[shanny]

6. Republicans change the Senate rules at the drop of a hat, to suit their purposes

(like, on approval of SC Justices) but we shouldn't?

[unblock]

9. that's why i said "as the rules stand now"

frankly i'm surprised republicans haven't yanked the filibuster altogether as it is, it's the last thin hold on power we have.

well, i think i know, the problem is their majority in the senate is slim and they have trouble cobbling together a majority on things that aren't purely partisan. look how much trouble they had trying to get a tax cut through, i mean, that's the one thing every damn republican agrees on and they still struggled to get it done.

so they're not eager to take the risk of removing the filibuster as it would work against them once they're in the minority, unless they know they can pass a lot of crap while in the majority.


we would face a similar problem, along with the fact that once it's gone, it's likely gone for a long, long time, if not forever. then if republicans ever regain the majority, we're screwed.

i don't know what the right strategy is for us regarding repealing the filibuster. in any event, it only matters when a party controls the white house and both houses of congress (but with fewer than 60 senators), and if republicans succeed in cementing their takeover, we'll never even get to that point.

[shanny]

18. I think the filibuster was anti-democratic from the git, and should have been gone long ago.

I am POed as hell that a minority in the Senate--a body already so un-democratic that half the members can be elected by about 8% of the population*--can stymie anything the majority wants done. Without that stupid rule, the ACA would have been a far better, and therefore more popular program.




*the 25 least-populous states have about 16% of the total population. In each state, 50% plus one vote elects a Senator.

[unblock]

20. the filibuster is a mixed bag.

i don't disagree that it's anti-democratic. but it's being used in an institution that, as you point out, is already anti-democratic.

and if we got rid of the filibuster now, that anti-democratic minority (republicans at the moment) could get away with murder, including passing laws that would restrict voting rights and access and further entrench their control of congress.

oddly enough, at the moment, this anti-democratic senate rule is the only thing giving the *actual* democratic majority and say in what happens at all....

[shanny]

21. "we" can't get rid of it now; only they can

I'm surprised they haven't, yet, and am sure they will as soon as it suits them.

[unblock]

22. i'm very worried about what they'll do in a lame duck session.

my guess is they will repeal obamacare entirely, or at least repeal the medicare surtax that funds it.

they might kill the filibuster if they have to, then who knows what else they'll try to pass before losing control of the house, if not the senate too....

[shanny]

23. I hear you, but I don't worry about things I can't stop.

They may be motivated to get any damn thing through, or they may be running for cover by that point. I think if they try even nastier crap than they have been doing after being rolled by a blue wave they may not ever surface again, as a party. I would not shed a tear.

We know we will have boatloads of clean-up to do, already. Doing it with an outraged populous at our backs will make it easier. That's the only silver lining here. The only way out of this mess is "through."

It is not just Rump. He is a symptom, not the disease. Getting rid of him, or voting his party out of power entirely, will not cure it. We have to fix what they broke, and we have to fix the long-standing weaknesses in the system, that Rump has so clearly exposed. Requiring presidents and justices to do the appropriate thing by law, instead of just assuming they will divest themselves, recuse themselves; the electoral college; all kinds of voting issues from gerrymandering to secure ballots to IRV; campaign finance, etc. It would be really nice if some of the people on our side were working up a comprehensive plan, like the one the pukes have been following ever since the Powell memo. I am tired of playing defense at the time.

[unblock]

24. thing is, blue wave 2018 only helps us slow them down.

as long as a republican is in the white house, they won't let us fix or repeal anything.

so if they pass some horrible right-wing laws in the lame duck session, we're stuck with them for possibly a long time....

[shanny]

30. As I said, the only way out is through.

Through the Rump presidency, however long it lasts, and through the Democratic minorities.

[sl8]

25. 50% plus one vote would certainly win, but only a plurality is required in nearly all the states. nt

[shanny]

29. Good point.

So, considerably less than 8% of the public can elect half the Senate.

[Buckeyeblue]

37. This is the real problem

And I think a great failing of our constitution. When ratified, the 13 states were fairly well apportioned but as the country grew this no longer was the case. Now, 220+ years later a small minority of voters have the biggest voice. How can Wyoming and California have the same number of senators? It doesn't make sense.

We need a constitutional amendment but the small states would never ratify, so, in a sense, we are stuck.

[shanny]

38. I agree, on all counts. nt

[Goodheart]

2. The President nominates somebody

and with a simple majority vote in the Senate he's confirmed.

It's as simple as that.

[shraby]

3. That's my take on it too. I know FDR tried to increase the number but they swatted

him down.

[shanny]

7. He didn't need to.

Yes, there was backlash but the mere threat made the Court see the light...and stop overturning New Deal policies and programs.

These days are not those days. After all the crap they've pulled I have no problem with doing some of the same.

[dalton99a]

33. Yep. His threat made the New Deal possible without court interference

[onenote]

34. Debunked history

The myth that FDR's proposed court-packing plan caused the court to change its views has been debunked by historians with access to historical court records and documents which show that the alleged "switch in time that saved nine" -- Justice Owen Roberts vote in the Parrish case -- was cast before FDR unveiled his court packing plan. That plan never had majority support in the country, even though FDR was very popular. And even though there were over 70 Democratic senators, when it came to a vote (which FDR continued to push for even after the supposed "switch in time&quot it was soundly defeated by a huge bipartisan majority.

[MineralMan]

8. The process is difficult. That's what it is.

And it can't begin until we regain control of both houses of Congress. So, it's something for the future, if we can make that happen. Even then, it's not a sure thing.

[Historic NY]

10. Packing the court will have to wait.

[guillaumeb]

11. What problem is this the solution for?

The House, at 438 members, is similarly dysfunctional, and the Senate, where states like Wyoming have the same number of Senators as California, is also ridiculous in that Senators representing a small minority of the population have a much larger voice than is reasonable.

[LandOfHopeAndDreams]

12. The Democrats Would Never Do That

They're barely able to say the word Impeachment, for a criminal President.

[Totally Tunsie]

28. First things first! We need to get past the mid-terms and get control in House and Senate.

THEN we can start talking impeachment. The Dems are purposely downplaying the "I" word for now so as to not rile up the Repug troops to vote in November. If we p*** them off now, we stand a bigger chance of losing the required seats in November. There's a reason for the Dem silence!

[Johnny2X2X]

13. Impeach them.

Get the House, Senate, and White House in 2020, then in 2021 impeach both SCOTUS justices Trump appointed, change whatever rules you have to, but by then it will be obvious that Trump was not legitimately elected.

In fact, every single judge he seated at any level should be subject to a review. Any appearance that the person was seated for nefarious reasons and they need to be replaced.

Republicans have established that the rules no longer mean anything, no reason not to change them to undo the damage Trump is doing.

[mythology]

14. Impeach for what?

[eleny]

17. Kavanaugh for lying to Congress

[shanny]

19. Congress can impeach for just about anything

even lying about a blow job.

[dalton99a]

32. Impeachment requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate. Expansion requires only a simple majority

if Democrats get rid of the filibuster

[onenote]

35. You think there are going to be 67 Democratic senators in 2021?

Really?

[Tavarious Jackson]

15. I saw Michael Avenatti tweet about this

It's a good motivator for candidate to use.

[DFW]

16. Don't be too eager.

Republicans still control all three branches of government, and they have access to the same ideas we do.

[irresistable]

26. Bad Idea

Don't give Trump any ideas.

[jberryhill]

27. Brilliant! Thus giving Trump 2 MORE nominees!

[Crunchy Frog]

31. We'll have to figure out some way to neutralize the judges that Trump has appointed.

Some way or other, especially if, God forbid, he manages to replace one of the liberal justices.

Otherwise, we could find ourselves living for several decades in a virtual dictatorship run by an extreme RW SC, that has been appointed by a "president" and Senate that were elected by a minority of the voters.

This situation would become simply unsustainable at some point.

I don't know how we're actually going to manage it, but it's something that we need to start thinking about.

[onenote]

36. At the district court level, most of Trump's nominees have been approved unanimously

or nearly unanimously. And the most recent appeals court nominee to be considered (in mid-August) was confirmed by an 81-8 vote. Exactly how will Senators who voted to confirm a Trump nominee over a 18 months after Trump's election justify voting to remove those judges?