Does Biden talk about changing the Supreme Court?

[mysteryowl]

I was wondering if he had any plans for increasing the number of people on the court?

[Firestorm49]

1. I doubt it would happen.

That would open up a can of worms.

[mysteryowl]

3. We can't have leaders being afraid to open up "cans of worms"

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

36. You would think so!! Can think of two bold, unafraid leaders who will make one helluva team...

when elected in 2020:


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[sheshe2]

41. So

Does Biden talk about changing the Supreme Court?
I was wondering if he had any plans for increasing the number of people on the court?

So Bernie has!?

Link.

PS. Warren will never take a second seat anymore than Bernie would. She has accomplished more before she was elected Senator with the CFPB, Consumer Protection Finance Bureau, than he has for all his years in the congress and senate.

If she does not win? She goes back to being the senior Senator from MA and will continue to kick ass. She is my Senator and I love that woman.

[Demsrule86]

2. You don't announce that in advance...or during a primary or general.

[mysteryowl]

4. Then we don't know?

[LongtimeAZDem]

6. Actually, he came out against it, and I agree with him

[Demsrule86]

43. I never thought it would work anyone...just BS to make it seem we can do something about the courts

which we can't really...one thing I will never forgive the fucking Greens for...they enable Republicans and should change their name...noting Green or progressive about them.

[LongtimeAZDem]

5. "No, I'm not prepared to go on and try to pack the court, because we'll live to rue that day"

He understands the danger of such capricious, short-sighted tactics.

https://iowastartingline.com/2019/07/05/joe-biden-interview-talk-about-the-future-in-dem-primary/

[Hav]

7. I'm glad to hear that

Some here are so naive to believe that they can pack the courts to their wishes but that the opposing side wouldn't return the favor.

[mysteryowl]

11. I like Mayor Pete's ideas about restructuring the court.

It is not an us and them, his plan would remedy bipartisan judges.

[Amishman]

44. That plus I'm not sure if we could get the bill passed

Manchin and Tester would be committing political suicide given the composition of their states. I don't see a +5 swing in senate seats to be able to pass it without them.

[mysteryowl]

8. Thanks! I wonder what "rue that day" means?

[LongtimeAZDem]

9. Are you serious?

[Peacetrain]

17. Funny, I had the same reaction

who does not know that??

[Polybius]

24. Most Millennials probably don't

Things go out as the years go by. When it was raining hard, my mother used to say it was teaming outside. No one seems to have heard of that anymore.

[LongtimeAZDem]

27. It's from Shakespeare. It's a literate thing.

[emmaverybo]

32. " A literate thing," though not needing the same degree of accommodation for Millennials I guess

Robert Kennedy’s reference to Aeschylus at the assassination of MLK would need today. We’d be vetting that one for popularity and talking about it as just another indicator that Robert Kennedy was out of touch with young voters.

[Polybius]

23. It means sorta like deeply regret

Like I regret the day. It's a term that seems to be less popular now.

[mysteryowl]

31. Thank you, kindly

I had never heard that phrase before.

[George II]

10. No, and he won't, and they all would be smart to avoid that subject.

[highplainsdem]

19. Exactly.

[StarfishSaver]

21. Thank you

[beachbumbob]

12. not possible as this would create an unmanageable possition whenever GOP has total control

[mysteryowl]

14. It is unmanagable now

[beachbumbob]

15. 9 justices have served the court well.

If wasn't for the "lesser of 2 evils" 2016 mantra, we would have an easy liberal majority

[Autumn]

18. I think the Republicans have more to do with that. It wasn't the 2016 election that blocked

Merrick Garland.

[treestar]

28. It was the 2014 election

[MH1]

34. They wouldn't have kept blocking for 4 more years. It **was** the 2016 election.

As well as 2014 of course. And other elections where Dems have failed to turn out sufficiently to protect our seats in Congress.

[killaphill]

22. They have total control now

There is nothing to stop the GOP from packing the court right now.

[Polybius]

26. The House would stop them

While you only need a simple majority, you do need the House, Senate, and the President's signature to expand it.

[killaphill]

29. The House has nothing to do with it.

The House isn't involved in Judiciary nominees at all. There is no law dictating the number of members on the Supreme Court. If the President nominates someone, and the Senate approves them, they're in. Period.

[tritsofme]

37. You are wrong. The number of justices is set by federal law.

[Polybius]

39. There most certainly is a law

It was called "The Judiciary Act of 1869." If we were to (let's say) try to expand the Supreme Court from 9 to 12, it would need passage in the House and Senate, and require a President to sign it.

I know Judicial nominees are only voted on by the Senate.

[mysteryowl]

16. Really?

Fracking is off topic of this thread, but really? He supports fracking?

[monmouth4]

20. I read that somewhere but I think I will delete it since I don't have a link..n/t

[Polybius]

25. He opposes it

Where do the other major candidates stand on this?

[mysteryowl]

30. Pete Buttigieg's proposal to restructure the court:

"We definitely need to do structural reform on the Supreme Court. Adding justices can be part of the solution but not in and of itself, it’s not enough. It’s neither necessary nor sufficient. What we’ve got to do is depoliticize it and one solution that I’ve been discussing in recent weeks is structuring it with 15 members but five of whom can only be seated by a unanimous consensus of the other 10."

He also suggests that these 10 justices who get to select the others should be selected by presidents from opposite parties. As a practical matter, this means five Democratic appointees and five Republican appointees.

[Polybius]

40. That's a terrible plan, and far too complicated too

"five of whom can only be seated by a unanimous consensus of the other 10." There would be open seats forever. And what does this mean:

"He also suggests that these 10 justices who get to select the others should be selected by presidents from opposite parties. As a practical matter, this means five Democratic appointees and five Republican appointees."

Presidents of opposite parties? We only have one President. Unless he means former Presidents like Bush and Obama would get a vote?

[W_HAMILTON]

33. Sanders also opposes it. Only Warren and Buttigieg support it.

Here is a list of where each of the other candidates stand on the issue: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/voting-changes/supreme-court-packing/

[Joe941]

35. You dont telegraph this. You just do it.

[tritsofme]

38. You would need to control the House/Senate and abolish the filibuster.

And then prepare for the aftermath.

[brooklynite]

42. No, and no serious candidate does...

Bear in mind that, if we change the SC, nothing stops the next Republican President from doing the same...