Trump's Supreme Court just showed why court-packing is necessary to save U.S. democracy

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

As a pair of Supreme Court decisions from the Republican majority showed this week, they feel free to do exactly what they were appointed to do: Impose their far-right ideology on an unwilling public.

The most recent, unsigned opinion was part of the court's "shadow docket," which, as Salon's Igor Derysh explains, is "where the justices hand down largely unsigned short opinions without going through standard hearings, deliberations, and transparency." Typically reserved for uncontroversial or emergency petitions, Derysh reports that "the shadow docket has dramatically grown under the increasingly conservative Supreme Court, alarming legal experts."

For a brief, shining moment early in Joe Biden's presidency, there was a flurry of talk about the exciting possibility of resizing the Supreme Court in response to Donald Trump, despite losing the popular vote, still getting to appoint three justices — one into a seat illegally held open by then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. But that chatter quickly got destroyed by Democratic dream killers Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, both of whom apparently love the filibuster more than human rights.

University of Wyoming law professor Stephen Feldman, however, thinks now is the perfect time to revive the discussion, arguing that court-packing is a vital necessity to save our democracy.

In his new book "Pack the Court!: A Defense of Supreme Court Expansion," Feldman argues that not only is court expansion politically wise, it also fits in with a long history of seeing the courts not as separate from politics, but working within a political system. Feldman spoke with Salon's Amanda Marcotte about his new book and why it's not time to give up on the dream of a better Supreme Court.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trumps-supreme-court-just-showed-why-court-packing-is-necessary-to-save-us-democracy/ar-AANOL6T

[Mme. Defarge]

1. By trying to force the legislative branch to do its job,

the Supreme Court’s conservative justices are doing Republicans in Congress no favor by refusing to give them cover. Make them go on record if they choose to be monsters. And there’s a remedy for that at the ballot box.

Meanwhile, what can be done to expedite the massive amounts of money for rent relief that the federal government has already allocated to state governments into the hands of renters and, ultimately landlords?

[FBaggins]

2. No they didn't

Sure… if you write a book saying that we need to pack the court, you’re obviously going to see every decision as a justification to pump the sake of you book.

But he needs to pick better examples than these two. They simply aren’t that controversial. A better judge might have ruled differently, but they’re not an abuse of their power.

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. 21 seats minimum - dilute SCOTUS so much that the influence of any 1 Justice is minimal

With 21 justices, it will be much harder for predictable right/left coalitions to form, and much less likely that a single president would be able to appoint enough justices to tip the balance of the court (except for Biden, who would get to fill all the vacancies on the newly expanded court).

[RicROC]

5. yes!

[wnylib]

7. I support court expansion,

but 21 is too many, too cumbersome. I'd prefer 13 or 15.

[BigmanPigman]

8. Yes, we must "balance" the SCOTUS

to save our democracy, and do it fast!

[RicROC]

4. not merely to save democracy, but

to save the US citizens from their government.

[mellow]

6. UNpack the court

The court has already been packed. We want to unpack it.

"Pack the court " is almost as bad a message as "defund the police."

[LiberatedUSA]

9. Does it sound good in a chant?

“Pack the Court!”
“Pack the Court!”

Really comes off as we don’t like losing and want to win a few by adding judges that will vote how we want them to. If that is the case, why obey any decision?

Which is really the whole point of the useless sessions of grilling a nominee; to find out how they will vote on things you want passed and blocked. And you can say what you want and vote how you want later. The fact that nobody says it out loud (that the whole process is to find a judge that will vote your side’s way), while at the same time claiming to want an impartial judge, is flat hilarious.