Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
73 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Judiciary Act adds four seats to the Supreme Court (Original Post) vlyons Nov 2022 OP
Desperately needed to restore justice. nt SunSeeker Nov 2022 #1
And does anyone believe this will pass a Republican road block? packman Nov 2022 #2
Nothing ventured, nothing gained vlyons Nov 2022 #3
Amen packman Nov 2022 #14
There is that. calimary Nov 2022 #20
Yup. 👍 electric_blue68 Nov 2022 #46
No, it won't pass Republicans, but I'm glad it was put out there anyway. panader0 Nov 2022 #6
The only raod blocks are the filibuster and a few rogue Democrats in the Senate. Mr.Bill Nov 2022 #8
One other important thing too InstantGratification Nov 2022 #18
Judicial nominees only need 51 votes in the Senate...right? n/t Prairie_Seagull Nov 2022 #19
Correct. Mr.Bill Nov 2022 #36
If we gain only 2 senate seats, no. ColinC Nov 2022 #25
Assuming the usual two problem Senators won't vote yes and vote no, Mr.Bill Nov 2022 #38
Biden said on June 25th that he opposes adding more Justices Polybius Nov 2022 #40
June 25th is eons ago Mr.Bill Nov 2022 #41
But he said it the day after Dobbs was decided Polybius Nov 2022 #42
And watch them give state legislatures Mr.Bill Nov 2022 #43
Well, we need to pick up two Senate seats and hold the House Polybius Nov 2022 #44
Vote! Mr.Bill Nov 2022 #45
I will on Tuesday Polybius Nov 2022 #48
Yes, basically I feel Mr.Bill Nov 2022 #49
I hope you're right Polybius Nov 2022 #50
1850's that is. electric_blue68 Nov 2022 #47
This current court wants to take this country into a dictatorship. Dark n Stormy Knight Nov 2022 #64
We don't have 48 votes now Zeitghost Nov 2022 #71
True, but the landscape may look Mr.Bill Nov 2022 #73
And what if this passes SCantiGOP Nov 2022 #62
About the same inthewind21 Nov 2022 #65
Any bill(s) that ultimately pass will be under the auspices of Hortensis Nov 2022 #4
K&R spanone Nov 2022 #5
President Biden and Democrats in Congress have to realize Mr.Bill Nov 2022 #7
The theft of those two SC seats was the most nakedly undemocratic act of MConnell's career. sop Nov 2022 #10
+1,000,000 wnylib Nov 2022 #59
I would argue it was 3 seats. AllyCat Nov 2022 #61
You are correct, but who knew at the time about Manchin & Siema? This is not an autocracy and with Hestia Nov 2022 #60
Just wish this happened a month ago vlyons Nov 2022 #9
It happened 18 months ago. former9thward Nov 2022 #31
Id imagine its an incentive for democrats to get out and vote Mr. Sparkle Nov 2022 #11
It was introduced 18 months ago. former9thward Nov 2022 #32
Good to know, thanks! Mr. Sparkle Nov 2022 #54
When was the last time the SCOTUS was expanded? I'm thinking FDR but not sure. Evolve Dammit Nov 2022 #12
FDR threatened to do it... reACTIONary Nov 2022 #15
The largest court was 10 justices... reACTIONary Nov 2022 #16
And FDR's plan backfired so badly Wednesdays Nov 2022 #37
Thanks very much! Evolve Dammit Nov 2022 #55
An even number could be a good idea iemanja Nov 2022 #68
I think a super majority for any constitutional decision... reACTIONary Nov 2022 #70
It's about time! Liberty Belle Nov 2022 #13
I see a much needed case that must go to this new USSC. jaxexpat Nov 2022 #17
Ho-LEE-CRAP! lindysalsagal Nov 2022 #21
That would inthewind21 Nov 2022 #66
I like it republianmushroom Nov 2022 #22
From 2021. SuperCoder Nov 2022 #23
not a biggie NJCher Nov 2022 #29
Yeah, why is this being reported here like it's actual news? ShazzieB Nov 2022 #30
Love it! Sogo Nov 2022 #24
Hallelujah! catrose Nov 2022 #26
Introduced a year ago. Referred to Committee. Hasn't even gotten a hearing. onenote Nov 2022 #27
Introduced a year ago. Referred to Committee. Hasn't even gotten a hearing. onenote Nov 2022 #28
This was introduced in 2021. Is something new going on KPN Nov 2022 #33
Pack the supreme court? markodochartaigh Nov 2022 #34
Yes, please Warpy Nov 2022 #35
Meh... brooklynite Nov 2022 #39
You should state up front that this is from over 18 months ago. It is not new news at all. Celerity Nov 2022 #51
what can go wrong? rampartc Nov 2022 #52
Even if four seats were added, it might not help. JustABozoOnThisBus Nov 2022 #53
I completely argee with this and it should be done with new judges seated before the new year. cstanleytech Nov 2022 #56
Is there a danger that the senate may place additional repubs if it flips? Willis88 Nov 2022 #57
Of course inthewind21 Nov 2022 #67
in my mind, we need a ground swell both in citizenry and in congress. Prairie_Seagull Nov 2022 #58
Couldn't they have waited until...Wednesday? Grins Nov 2022 #63
This is many months old iemanja Nov 2022 #72
This should have been shouted all over for the last 18 months by every Democrat. Autumn Nov 2022 #69

panader0

(25,816 posts)
6. No, it won't pass Republicans, but I'm glad it was put out there anyway.
Sun Nov 6, 2022, 07:40 PM
Nov 2022

It will certainly get their attention.

Mr.Bill

(24,462 posts)
8. The only raod blocks are the filibuster and a few rogue Democrats in the Senate.
Sun Nov 6, 2022, 07:45 PM
Nov 2022

Both of those can be overcome if we pick up a few seats in the Senate.

18. One other important thing too
Sun Nov 6, 2022, 08:43 PM
Nov 2022

It would also require holding the House. Changing the filibuster rules just needs 51 votes in the Senate. Adding to the Supreme Court requires legislation that passes both houses of Congress and gets signed by the President.

So it would take holding the House with enough of a majority to overcome any democrats that oppose expanding the SC and it would take picking up enough seats in the Senate to overcome Manchin, Sinema and any other Dem that might be opposed to ditching the filibuster. Get those done on Tuesday and you get the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Mr.Bill

(24,462 posts)
36. Correct.
Sun Nov 6, 2022, 10:26 PM
Nov 2022

That's why it's important to hold the Senate. If we lose the senate, Joe Biden has appointed hos last judge for this term. And we need 52 seats because we have a few Senators that like to go against their party when it's most important.

Mr.Bill

(24,462 posts)
38. Assuming the usual two problem Senators won't vote yes and vote no,
Sun Nov 6, 2022, 10:30 PM
Nov 2022

That means a 50-50 tie with the VP casting the tie-breaking vote. That's assuming we hold 52 seats. Of course more would be better.

Mr.Bill

(24,462 posts)
41. June 25th is eons ago
Mon Nov 7, 2022, 01:23 AM
Nov 2022

in today's political climate. No one will criticize him for changing his opinion. This current court wants to take this country and people's rights back to the 50s.

Polybius

(16,308 posts)
42. But he said it the day after Dobbs was decided
Mon Nov 7, 2022, 01:26 AM
Nov 2022

If ever there was a time ripe for supporting adding Justices, it was then. Maybe wait to see if he's re-elected?

Mr.Bill

(24,462 posts)
43. And watch them give state legislatures
Mon Nov 7, 2022, 01:31 AM
Nov 2022

the right to name any electors they want? Watch them take away same sex marriage? Even inter-racial marriage? That's exactly what these six Cristofascists intend to do. We may never have this chance again. We may never have elections again. It's time to play hardball or wake up two years from now in a Theocracy.

Polybius

(16,308 posts)
48. I will on Tuesday
Mon Nov 7, 2022, 01:49 AM
Nov 2022

I think that if everything goes our way, we can maybe gain one seat. You think two is possible?

Mr.Bill

(24,462 posts)
49. Yes, basically I feel
Mon Nov 7, 2022, 01:53 AM
Nov 2022

like there.is a surprise or two out there. Can't be specific, just a feeling I have.

electric_blue68

(15,771 posts)
47. 1850's that is.
Mon Nov 7, 2022, 01:44 AM
Nov 2022
GOOOOOOOO, DEMS






👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍
🗳️ 🗳️ 🗳️ 🗳️ 🗳️ 🗳️ 🗳️ 🗳️

Dark n Stormy Knight

(9,852 posts)
64. This current court wants to take this country into a dictatorship.
Mon Nov 7, 2022, 02:54 PM
Nov 2022

Failure to recognize that fact and act on it is helping the Nazi/fascist takeover.

SCantiGOP

(13,943 posts)
62. And what if this passes
Mon Nov 7, 2022, 01:27 PM
Nov 2022

And the GOP Senate turns down all of Biden’s nominees and then they win the White House in 2024?
How long would it take to change the 10-3 hard right majority that would result?

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
4. Any bill(s) that ultimately pass will be under the auspices of
Sun Nov 6, 2022, 07:38 PM
Nov 2022

party leaders and have developed a critical mass of house and senate support. It's not time yet because we just don't have the power in either chamber to pass it. So, no critical mass of Democratic congressmen passionately insisting on passage now!

It's so hard waiting for time and other critical factors to come together. If only we at least still had the large Democratic house caucus of 2018 to build on. And more senators of course.

But re-touting this Judiciary Act of (April) 2021 will get some media attention right before election day and hopefully help some who are issuing public statements and not hurt others.

Tuesday! We'll get see what we'll have to work with for the next two years.

Mr.Bill

(24,462 posts)
7. President Biden and Democrats in Congress have to realize
Sun Nov 6, 2022, 07:42 PM
Nov 2022

that the bullshit McConnell pulled with the Supreme Court is a big part of why we voted for them and allowed them to control both houses in Congress. The fact they have not fixed this yet is shameful, even if the blame can only be placed on a few of them. They know who they are. If we lose one or both houses, it will be part of the reason why. We elected you to do something. Do it.

If you don't, and we lose Congress, this country is over.

sop

(10,965 posts)
10. The theft of those two SC seats was the most nakedly undemocratic act of MConnell's career.
Sun Nov 6, 2022, 07:53 PM
Nov 2022

It must be set right.

AllyCat

(16,516 posts)
61. I would argue it was 3 seats.
Mon Nov 7, 2022, 12:42 PM
Nov 2022

He colluded with the orange anus to get Kennedy to retire and appoint the 3rd.

 

Hestia

(3,818 posts)
60. You are correct, but who knew at the time about Manchin & Siema? This is not an autocracy and with
Mon Nov 7, 2022, 12:25 PM
Nov 2022

the numbers in both chambers so close, we have to wait. We need at least 5 more senators, 61 would be fantastic. Even if filibuster isn't overturned, then number holds in our favor. Last time was the 5 months in 2010 when we did have the senate majority.

(Remember when Al Franken won but his opponent kept filing lawsuit after lawsuit to overturn that vote? THAT is why we had senate majority for 5 months, then everyone started losing their teabagger minds and GQP won majority.)

vlyons

(10,252 posts)
9. Just wish this happened a month ago
Sun Nov 6, 2022, 07:51 PM
Nov 2022

So Dems would have time to make it a talking point for the mid-term election. Especially in light of SCOTUS gutting Roe. Oh well ---

Mr. Sparkle

(3,005 posts)
11. Id imagine its an incentive for democrats to get out and vote
Sun Nov 6, 2022, 07:57 PM
Nov 2022

Their saying, give us the numbers and we will pass the legislation. Though they should have announced it earlier so more people can hear about it.

reACTIONary

(5,858 posts)
15. FDR threatened to do it...
Sun Nov 6, 2022, 08:14 PM
Nov 2022

... but didn't. The threat helped, though. They started to moderate their decisions.

reACTIONary

(5,858 posts)
16. The largest court was 10 justices...
Sun Nov 6, 2022, 08:23 PM
Nov 2022

The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since. In 1937, in an effort to create a court more friendly to his New Deal programs, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow a new justice to be added to the court—for a total of up to 15 members—for every justice over 70 who opted not to retire. Congress didn’t go for FDR’s plan.

https://www.history.com/news/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court

Wednesdays

(18,242 posts)
37. And FDR's plan backfired so badly
Sun Nov 6, 2022, 10:29 PM
Nov 2022

it (along with the 1937 dip in the economy) helped the GOP to make significant gains in the 1938 elections.

iemanja

(53,333 posts)
68. An even number could be a good idea
Mon Nov 7, 2022, 03:37 PM
Nov 2022

That would avoid split decisions by only one justice and would require more compromise.

reACTIONary

(5,858 posts)
70. I think a super majority for any constitutional decision...
Mon Nov 7, 2022, 07:44 PM
Nov 2022

.... would be a big improvement, regardless of the number.

Liberty Belle

(9,576 posts)
13. It's about time!
Sun Nov 6, 2022, 08:03 PM
Nov 2022


Let's hope the elections go well for Dems so that there will be enough votes to actually get this passed and save our democracy.

jaxexpat

(7,200 posts)
17. I see a much needed case that must go to this new USSC.
Sun Nov 6, 2022, 08:39 PM
Nov 2022

Let them rule on the motion to remove judges who have betrayed their testimony before the senate. An 8-10 member majority in a 13 member court should work wonders.

NJCher

(36,489 posts)
29. not a biggie
Sun Nov 6, 2022, 09:24 PM
Nov 2022

lots of bills sit around for just the right time.

I am glad these elected representatives have this ready to go.

ShazzieB

(17,227 posts)
30. Yeah, why is this being reported here like it's actual news?
Sun Nov 6, 2022, 09:27 PM
Nov 2022

I had a reply all ready to go, based on this being current news. Then I noticed that the article is dated April 15, 2021, and went "Wtf?"

Expanding the Supreme Court is something I think desperately needs to happen, but this article is more than a year and a half old. Don't tantalize me like this, doggone it!

onenote

(43,404 posts)
27. Introduced a year ago. Referred to Committee. Hasn't even gotten a hearing.
Sun Nov 6, 2022, 09:20 PM
Nov 2022

Don't hold your breath.

onenote

(43,404 posts)
28. Introduced a year ago. Referred to Committee. Hasn't even gotten a hearing.
Sun Nov 6, 2022, 09:22 PM
Nov 2022

Don't hold your breath.

markodochartaigh

(1,449 posts)
34. Pack the supreme court?
Sun Nov 6, 2022, 09:54 PM
Nov 2022

The supreme court has already been packed. Since the Republicans showed the way to zip through justice Barrett, the Democrats should pass the Judiciary Act and approve four more justices before the end of November. They should try and get the most qualified people, but they also should not worry about setting the bar too high. If justice Kavanaugh can be poured over the bar, almost anyone should qualify.

Warpy

(112,166 posts)
35. Yes, please
Sun Nov 6, 2022, 10:24 PM
Nov 2022

There are now 13 district courts instead of the nine when the number was last modified. There is nothing in the constitution that limits the USSC to a set number of seats, only that each Justice oversees a district court.

Wingnuts will scream, they hate change of any type. Even ifBiden pledges to appoint only 2 Justices this term, the court will be a little less skewed toward the theocratic/fascist far right.

It's overdue, WAY overdue.

rampartc

(5,757 posts)
52. what can go wrong?
Mon Nov 7, 2022, 06:09 AM
Nov 2022

we expand to 13 justices (not unreasonable 1 per judicial district) but not effective until trump "47" picks the new justices

JustABozoOnThisBus

(23,551 posts)
53. Even if four seats were added, it might not help.
Mon Nov 7, 2022, 07:58 AM
Nov 2022

With only 48 reliable Senate votes, we wouldn't be able to seat four justices of the stature of RBG. The seats would remain open, and the next senate may not be as favorable as the current one. If the Reps take the senate, no Biden candidates will have a hearing.

We could end up with an additional four Barretts and Cavanaughs. Maybe eve a Thomas or two. Herschel Walker may be available. Or Sidney Powell.

cstanleytech

(26,546 posts)
56. I completely argee with this and it should be done with new judges seated before the new year.
Mon Nov 7, 2022, 10:08 AM
Nov 2022

At least then we will have some reassurance that the Supreme Court will not be a court made up of justices that render rulings based on their personal political views.

Willis88

(124 posts)
57. Is there a danger that the senate may place additional repubs if it flips?
Mon Nov 7, 2022, 10:19 AM
Nov 2022

I’m thinking this should be done when house and senate are on more solid footing.

Prairie_Seagull

(3,412 posts)
58. in my mind, we need a ground swell both in citizenry and in congress.
Mon Nov 7, 2022, 10:43 AM
Nov 2022

Maybe it's already started. Maybe we are helping. Now we need to hit the gas, um i mean accelerator. Ha

Grins

(7,467 posts)
63. Couldn't they have waited until...Wednesday?
Mon Nov 7, 2022, 01:36 PM
Nov 2022

That all the mouth-breathers need to hear before an election.

Autumn

(45,436 posts)
69. This should have been shouted all over for the last 18 months by every Democrat.
Mon Nov 7, 2022, 03:44 PM
Nov 2022

That it wasn't make me wonder why.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Judiciary Act adds four s...