If Kavanaugh is confirmed, these hearings have justified, nay, mandated the Democrats eventually

[RockRaven]

changing the number of seats on SCOTUS and "packing" the court. Any argument about some fictitious apolitical noble institution were utterly torn asunder today.

[Meadowoak]

1. I think SCOTUS should be expanded to 25 justices.

[RKP5637]

6. I think at minimal there should be term limits. n/t

[onenote]

14. Why not 125

I mean if we're going to be silly about it, why hold back?

[SkipG]

2. How about impeachment if we take the Congress?

I think it would be easy to prove he lied under oath.

[dalton99a]

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

[onenote]

15. Plus abandoning the filibuster

I"m not sure you get a majority of Democrats to support abandoning the filibuster for any reason, let alone for a court packing plan.

[RockRaven]

7. If you can get 67 Senators, great. Today's hearing shows Repukes think the seat is "theirs"

And if they don't care about rape, why would they care about perjury?

[Ccarmona]

3. I Made the Same Proposal

That was roundly poo pooed by other members of the DU. I agree with you.

[eleny]

4. Two more ought to be supported by us all for the good of the country

I'm with you.

[fescuerescue]

11. Well DU isn't exactly the arbiter of SC appointments

So I wouldn't worry about that much.

[Grasswire2]

8. yep, impeach Kavanaugh after the midterms...

....and pack the court.

Also allow Puerto Rico statehood.

[Lucky Luciano]

9. Yes indeed! Pack the courts!! nt

[fescuerescue]

10. That's the real nuclear option.

But politics swing back and forth.

And if that happens, Then Republicans will add a bunch, then Democrats, then Republicans.

In a generation, the SC building will be a stadium of judges.

[RockRaven]

13. Is that worse than letting the GOP and corporate donor class own SCOTUS in perpetuity?

Serious question.

[fescuerescue]

18. I'm suggesting that it's not a solution.

Having hundreds and thousands of Supreme Court justices is no assurance that the GOP won't own that the court.

If they can own it at 9, they can own at 11, 15 21, 109. This was an idea that FDR realized was a bad one and back down mind you.

The solution lies in making sure that the correct President is doing the nominating.

[RockRaven]

19. Certainly a larger court could also be captured by the 0.1% just as readily as the current one.

But whether or not you expand the court might effect the chances of the 99.9% capturing it back or not. Or the time -- measured in decades or generations -- required for such a reclamation to occur.

I think it is worth considering seriously. Making no change is also an affirmative choice, and should be treated as such.

[roamer65]

12. We will need to nuke the filibuster first.

Then the door will be wide open for it in 2021.

[RockRaven]

16. There's a small chance they could get to 60 in 2020, and not need to nuke the filibuster.

But admittedly the red state Dems probably would not go for it.

They could also partial nuke from 60 to 55. There's no magic in the 60 number. It was 67 before that, and 75 before that.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. I have always thought that a larger court would be less likely to be packed.

I also think lifetime appointments should be gone. A single, non-renewable 10 year term sounds about right to me.