Y'all know how Obama appeared to be against gay marriage?

[canetoad]

Until one day he wasn't.

I'm hoping that Joe's reluctance to endorse increasing the SC is a similar situation. When the public outcry turns to a roar of outrage, he may just change his mind.

[Justice]

1. Joe can't do it without majorities in the House and Senate - need to pass a law

If we could get enough members of Congress to be in favor, that would help.

[iemanja]

2. I don't think Obama appeared to be against gay marriage

He was, however, reluctant to legalize it.
Biden's been clear on not wanting the court to expand. He's not going to save us, and he knows it couldn't get through the Senate anyway. We'll have to work to get Democrats elected at all levels of government. It will take at least a generation to put the courts' right.

[hedda_foil]

3. The country won't hold together for another generation.

[In It to Win It]

4. Here's the thing

Joe Biden ran on being the centrist reasonable one and he has to keep that appeal. The right will clearly bash him for anything he does. Everything is about optics.

If Congress delivers a bill to his desk expanding the number of justices, I feel pretty confident that he would sign it. I would prefer him not say that out loud though because he has to maintain, or perhaps even rebuild, that large coalition of blue wall voters like us, along with some squishy moderates. Joe Biden doesn't need to come out so strong on issues that we would absolutely love. The Party leaders in Congress should be the ones pushing for expanding the Court. The power lies with them, figuratively and literally. They should be the ones leading that charge on that if that's something the Party wants.

[canetoad]

5. Thank you for your post

Nothing I could not agree with.

So what's the best chance of Congress sending that bill to him?

[In It to Win It]

8. Near zero percent

Probably less than zero.

Unfortunately, the size of the Court, and also the entire judiciary is a political issue now. It didn't used to be. Republicans had a first mover advantage.

Objectively, the size of the entire judiciary needs to be expanded. We have less than 1,000 federal judges interpreting and shaping law that will govern 330 million people. Cases take years to work their way through the system. To me, that is unsustainable. However, politics is required to address that and therefore this will be turned into a political issue, even though objectively, expansion of the courts needs to happen. The parties can't compromise on this because neither side wants the other picking the judges, and therefore this problem will continue to go unsolved.

[SCantiGOP]

6. Hope you're right

The number has changed 6 times over 200+ years.
It was set at 9 in 1869 because there were 9 federal circuit courts.
Today there are 13 circuits.

[canetoad]

7. And that to me

As an outsider, seems the best argument in favour.

[solara]

9. Agreed

I'm not an outsider, but if We The People speak logically about SCOTUS expansion, like we need 13 to represent all 13 Circuits, it may move what appears to be immovable.