Is it too late to expand the Supreme Court and have it

[Laura PourMeADrink]

be retroactive to the abortion issue?

[SoCalDavidS]

1. How Ya Gonna Expand The Court?

That's impossible to begin with, let alone the fantasy of going back to a case already ruled upon.

[standingtall]

5. Not impossible to expand the court it's been expanded it through out it's history

Just have to have Presidency, the congress and a big enough majority in the Senate and you can change the makeup of the court.

[SoCalDavidS]

10. About That "Enough Majority" In The Senate

How close are we to that? Like I said, IMPOSSIBLE.

[standingtall]

19. I don't don't think the poster said expand the court immediatley

That would be impossible. I would guess we are about 3 to 5 Democratic Senators away from being able to get rid of the filibuster and then we could expand the court.

[Hugin]

13. Isn't that what they are doing with Roe?

Going back to a case already ruled upon?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

22. Good, very good point H!!!!

[Hugin]

24. I expect a yahbut any minute now.

Somehow precedent only hamstrings democrats.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

31. Wanted Desperately: Visionaries

[uponit7771]

41. No its not, make those against it stand and show their votes ... period.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

2. Yes

It's too late.

[TheRealNorth]

3. Pretty sure its too late

I don't think a new SCOTUS member can weigh in on a case once it has started to be heard by SCOTUS.

[Mr.Bill]

7. No, but they can be involved

in a future decision that will reverse this one.

[Polybius]

38. It would take decades to reverse

Fastest would be 2041, which was the time to too Roe to get reaffirmed in Casey (1973 and 1992). Usually, it takes much longer, like Brown.

[wanda4rafi]

45. No it wouldn't.

It would just take the right case in a lower court to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

[Polybius]

49. No SC case has ever been decided then overturned within a year or two

Plus if the SC rules that Roe is gone, the lower court is supposed to go by that.

[mcar]

4. Um, yes

[Laura PourMeADrink]

8. Um ok. You got a better idea mcar?

[mcar]

21. How, exactly, would your idea be accomplished?

My idea was to vote for Democrats, including the Democratic nominee in 2016 who told us that SCOTUS and Roe were on the line.

Alas, too many so-called Democrats "voted their conscience" and voted for Jill fcking Stein because they decided that SCOTUS wasn't important and that HRC was a warmonger and worse than Trump.

Until tonight, I've been hearing here and on social media that people would vote 3rd party in November unless Biden erased student loan debt. On several threads about that issue here over the last 6 months I have, at times, posited that the very real possibility of women's rights being eradicated was more important. I was told that was "speculative" and thus, not as important as forgiving the student loans of young doctors.

I'm very angry right now, Laura. Forgive me if I'm not quite coherent.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

33. Yup. It's one of those sad, effed up nights mcar. That really

happened? Dems saying they would abandon ship over student debt? Wow. However not surprised at all that we could be fractured with many thinking there is no where else to go.

[gldstwmn]

6. We could get rid of Clarence Thomas.

It would be well within reason.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

12. +1

[TwilightZone]

14. No, we couldn't.

Requires 2/3 of the Senate to convict.

[gldstwmn]

17. It only takes him to resign.

[TwilightZone]

20. And why would he do that?

If he won't even recuse himself from obvious conflict-of-interest cases, you really think he's going to resign?

Not happening.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

26. You are right! Nothing was don'e about his wife's

Craziness - cleaning that up .Conflict of interest

[gldstwmn]

27. Let him know that his finances are going to be investigated and so is his wife.

Maybe that will get him going in the right direction.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

34. +1

[Polybius]

39. He ain't going anywhere until this abortion case is decided

After it's decided, it won't make a difference if he resigns or not (for abortion, at least).

[JudyM]

44. Wondering if a recusal can be enforced...?

Not sure what the enforcement procedure would be, but…

28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
U.S. Code
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

The honor system isn’t working for this, hasn’t in many years (Scalia in Bush v Gore), it’s beyond time to put some teeth in it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

46. +1......., Let's try it!!!!

[herding cats]

9. How are we going to expand the Supreme Court in first place?

Manchin and Sinema aren't going to go for that. I'm really confused at the people thinking that was a viable option with our slim majority.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

18. Uninformed as I must be... Just looking at any option. :(

[herding cats]

25. I get it.

I'm spinning around trying to come up with something here, too.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

29. +1

[dflprincess]

15. Too late regarding the current case

not too late for a future case that would reinstate Roe and the right to privacy in general.

[In It to Win It]

16. In the unlikely hypothetical that SCOTUS is expanded, a new case would have to come before

the court on the issue of abortion, and the court would have to reverse what is near-guaranteed to become precedent in the coming days, or weeks ahead.

[In It to Win It]

23. Seperately, the entire judiciary should have been expanded within the last two decades

The population of the country is too high for the rather small federal judiciary that we have.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

30. Very good point. In retrospect. Banning nukes should

have been a #1 priority too. In our instant culture so hard to get anyone to focus on the future. Is that the way it will all be... Breaking News... This just happened.

[uponit7771]

42. +1,

[Celerity]

32. Manchin and Sinema are NO's for sure, probably some others as well (Feinstein is iffy, for example)

Centrist Democrat says he won't back expanding Supreme Court

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/10/politics/joe-manchin-supreme-court-packing-cnntv/index.html


Sen. Kyrsten Sinema opposes 'court-packing,' as some Democrats would like

https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2020/10/14/sen-kyrsten-sinema-opposes-court-packing-some-democrats-want/3645042001/

[Laura PourMeADrink]

35. Thanks. Be interesting to know after tonight, if they feel the same way?

Ok grasping at straws Celerity

[Celerity]

36. I give it almost no chance that Manchin would flip, Sinema perhaps, but like I said, there are

perhaps others too.

Obergefell, Loving, Casey, and Griswold are all in the crosshairs now as well.

IF we fail to gain a net one or (much better) two seats in the Senate in 2022, then it is going to come down to the 2024 House and POTUS races for the future of the nation (no hyperbole), as the 2024 Senate Map (we have as many as 14 vulnerable seats, the Rethugs only have TEN seats up in toto, and all but one (FL) are in DEEP Red states, with Scott in FL the only remote shot at a flip) is disastrous for us.

IF we lose the House or Senate (or both, with the Senate being a huge key as Biden and all future Dem POTUS's will never again get to place a SCOTUS justice with a Rethug controlled Senate, they will deny hearings/votes even if it takes years) in 2022, and fail to keep or hold both in 2024, then a Rethug POTUS (Trump or DeSantis atm), which would give Rethugs almost complete Federal control (Judiciary, House, Senate, POTUS) almost guarantees (especially if the Rethugs have 52 or more Senate seats and a large House majority post 2024) attempts at national bans for abortion, interracial marriage (yes they are that crazy), birth control, and most LGBTQ rights.

Hopefully we can hold off the christofascist wave in 2022 and 2024. As the number of fundie evangelical Latinos explodes this makes it harder to do so. They are the fastest growing religious group in the USA by far, and are also far more likely to vote Rethug (Biden is, atm, massively underwater with Latinos as a whole in significant (not total) part due to this) For the first time ever on the planet, a large group of Latinos, the US ones, are less than 50% Catholic now, and unlike other groups (who are far more complex in terms f diverse outcomes), the Latinos are, when they leave the Catholic church, becoming even more batshit cray RW.

[dalton99a]

37. "NINE justices" is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution

[former9thward]

43. No, but it has been federal law since 1869.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

47. Minor detail:)

[Dial H For Hero]

40. That's not how it works.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

48. Protesting at SC already!

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=HL4WcWr15VPSj7WkibBuHw