Court expansion

[Proud liberal 80]

When Biden is sworn in and the Dems have control of the senate, their justifiable plan to expand the SCOTUS will receive extreme backlash. The minority Republican Party will cry and complain, the MSM will cover it as being something sinister (wish they would have covered the way the Republicans have acted over this last decade regarding the courts with the same passion that they will eventually cover the Dems), polls will show that it’s unpopular, ‘concerned’ Americans will protest in the street (think the tea party marches of 2009 over health care), we will have a few pain in the neck Dem Senators (think Manchin, Feinstein).....

But saying all that, Joe Biden and the Democrats better not back down!

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. We will have to hold their feet to the fire. Nt

[Claustrum]

2. I don't know if there would be a "huge" backlash

We need to change narrative and call it "unpacking the court". "Expanding" implies we are doing something new. "Unpacking" is a direct reaction to republicans packing the court for years.

Also, I am a moderate who was against any idea of adding justices the day before the death of RGB. You would get a backlash from me if you don't "unpack the court" if we get a trifecta now. I think there are many moderate/independent who are in the same boat as me. But we definitely need to change the narrative so republicans' framing on the issue won't take hold.

[Proud liberal 80]

4. I should have expanded on my OP

I think the backlash will happen in the beginning....but once the Dems expand the court let’s say by 6... and then you actually put nominees forth who represent a diverse America, then the backlash would go away....put a qualified black woman, black man, Latino man, Asian woman/man, and someone who is LGBQT all on the court

[BComplex]

8. I'd love to see Neal Katyal on the supreme court.

He's had lots of experience bringing cases before the court, and he's been a clerk, etc. He's paid his dues, and he really cares about doing the law correctly. AND HE'S YOUNG!! He'd be there a long time!

[Claustrum]

11. If you are talking about 6, then I see where the backlash would come

I think 2 is most likely while 4 is the max we could possibly get and make a reasonable case for.

[lastlib]

26. Easy way to make a case for adding four:

There are thirteen judicial circuits, counting DC. Circuits are supervised by a SCOTUS Justice, so four Justices are currently supervising two circuits. That's TOO MUCH of a workload--Each justice should only have to supervise one circuit, so we need four more justices to properly distribute the load.

[misanthrope]

9. Agreed

My feelings on increased SCOTUS justices were the same as yours until I witnessed the procedure to ramrod through this woefully unqualified nominee based on little more than her religious extremism. It wouldn't be unreasonable to infer from her committee hearings that some unrevealed agreement or quid pro quo might lurk as well.

After reading discussions from several folks more versed in legal matters than myself, I don't think it would be preposterous to have one SCOTUS for each of our federal circuits.

[Botany]

3. How many people are on the court now that should not be there?

C. Thomas ... they had 3 other women who did not know each other all of whom had stories that
were the same as Anita Hill's

Roberts .... see Bush v Gore and Ohio 2004

Alito ... see Bush v Gore and Ohio 2004

Mereck Garland blocked from even getting a hearing by Mitch McConnell

Goursch, Kavanaugh, and now Barrett .... see USA/Russia 2016 elections

[Proud liberal 80]

5. And this should be the Democrats talking point

On how the Republicans have been packing the court for decades

[stopwastingmymoney]

7. And!

I still want to know why Kennedy decided to retire so suddenly

[lastlib]

6. I prefer a different approach...

Create a National Court of Appeals. (Pack it with 25 good young progressive judges.) All appeals from district & appeals courts go to it. Strip the Supreme Court of all appellate jurisdiction (yes, Congress can do this) and leave it with just its constitutional original jurisdiction.

We get the judges, Clarence can take all the naps he wants, BeerBoy can have his hangovers, and we get justice. Problem solved. No worries about tRump's packed lower courts.

Expanding the Supreme Court may need to be done, but I think there would be an enormous backlash to it. There may be blow-back to this idea, too, but I think it's more do-able than expanding SCOTUS.

[Phoenix61]

13. Interesting idea. How do we prevent it from

being undone?

[lastlib]

16. Keep a majority in Congress....

or at least one house. It would take both houses plus the president to un-do it. By the time repubs regain ascendancy, it's almost set in stone. Maybe by then we would have a majority on SCOTUS, and we could let it back in the game.

[phylny]

15. Interesting idea.

What would the function of the Supreme Court be if this plan was enacted?

[lastlib]

17. They would still have their supervisory function over the inferior courts,

plus their original jurisdiction as outlined in Article III--cases between States, cases involving ambassadors, etc.

[ancianita]

25. Interesting idea.

With a month's media coverage, Dems can slap down all Murdoch noise and move forward. However.

Let's face the history and reality of Republican ruckus.

It sounds no more doable than going the whole way, mainly because the ruckus will be just as loud and bad no matter what move the Democratic majority makes.

[Statistical]

10. I don't think the backlash will last long.

70%+ of voters said Mitch should have called a vote on Garland. Mitch said fuck them and did what gave the GOP power. He blocked it gambling Trump might win the election (and if Clinton had won there was talk of blocking everything for 4 years too).

Voters "disapproved" in a Susan Collins concerned kind of way and then within days went on with their lives. Mitch got the Supreme Court seat. Four years later he pulled another scam and voters disapproved and his still got another Supreme Court seat. Voters are often disprove about a lot but most of it doesn't last. Expanding the court will be no different.

If the voters give you power in both branches and the Presidency then for God's sake USE IT. If you don't know for damn sure if the GOP can under the letter of the law do something they absolutely will the opinion of voters with short memories won't stop them.

[Proud liberal 80]

12. I agree

Republicans always do shit that doesn’t poll well, but they got a fuck it attitude....We always blow it when we are in charge because we are trying to have consensus and bipartisanship.

[MarcA]

14. If Dems get the Senate, 100 Days for Court Reforms to be completed. n/t

[Blue_true]

18. Someone posted a very important Tweet.

The last time the Court was expanded, the expansion was done so that the number of Justices would match the number of Circuit Courts. A Supreme Court Justice also covers one of the Circuits (they used to have to physically travel to the Circuit). According to the Tweet, the Court was last expanded from 7 to 9 because the number of Circuit Courts had grown to 9. The country now has 13 Circuit Courts.

The same rational can be used to expand Appeals Courts, that the number of Federal Courts under them have grown, so Appeals Judges need to be added.

If Democrats use that rationale and do a good job of educating the public, it will be almost impossible for republicans to justify undoing the changes.

[ancianita]

24. Educating the public about that will require a big buy up of right wing radio networks.

[mvd]

19. I'm so unhappy about Barrett, but a couple things help

1) they broke all rules and norms, so when Biden gets in, anything should be on the table

2) it feels like the last gasp of an extremist party trying to hold onto power

[Poiuyt]

20. It wouldn't hurt for the Dems to undertake a PR/Educational campaign about this

The repubs and the MSM will hammer them hard if they try. Dems will need to do some preemptive crusading to persuade the population.

[Proud liberal 80]

21. The Dems suck at that

While the Republicans (with the help of the MSM) are good at it.

[Poiuyt]

27. I believe George Lakoff, the linguist, offered to help the Democrats with

their messaging, but they weren't interested. Dems are too independent while Repubs can stay on message and are consistent with their talking points. That's why their talking points take hold with the general public and with the media.

[ancianita]

22. After all that party has put this country through, not one Democrat will be excused for cowing.

They will need to turn off their social media, have communications screened by staff, and not expose themselves to on-the-run interviews until they vote.

Big Fossil, Big Pharma, and thousands of lobbying pests will go after them. They'll have to expand the SCOTUS first thing, then get Citizens United overturned, then restructure new election finance and corporate lobbying laws.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves here.

[oasis]

23. It's best that r-wingers get used to the idea. Because it is coming.