Liberal groups back plan to expand Supreme Court

[brooklynite]

Source: Politico

The movement on the left to pack the Supreme Court is gaining momentum.

A group of progressive organizations is for the first time supporting the proposal to add justices to the court in hopes of weakening the conservative majority, according to a memo provided to POLITICO. The move comes weeks before the Supreme Court is expected to hand down opinions on several hotly contested issues, including President Donald Trump’s tax returns, abortion rights and the fate of “Dreamers.”

The Progressive Change Institute, Be a Hero, Friends of the Earth, Presente and 350 are among those groups that are newly joining the call, according to organizers. Take Back the Court, Demand Justice and the Sunrise Movement, which previously backed the idea, also signed onto the open letter.

“Trump and the Republicans in Congress have used aggressive tactics, including eliminating the filibuster, to pack the courts with conservative ideologues and prevent the will of the people from being heard,” said Erich Pica, president of the environmental group Friends of the Earth. “From the fight for racial justice to efforts to stop climate change and protect our clean air and water, the current configuration of the court has consistently stood in the way of progress. We simply do not have a generation’s worth of time to replace judges.”

Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/11/liberal-groups-expand-supreme-court-plan-313037

---

Good thing Republicans can't change the numbers the next time THEY control Congress....right?

(I don't support this; neither does Biden).

[RKP5637]

1. IMO SCOTUS is far too powerful, far too political and so easily slanted for decades. n/t

[dalton99a]

2. So you're just going to let RW judges shit on the American people?

The Supreme Court is not some sacred temple of law and equity. It is a political institution.

Republicans are using the judicial branch as a means to maintain veto power over Democrats and to perpetuate minority rule.

[jimfields33]

5. Only two on the court

[dalton99a]

7. Add two or three new justices to the court.

[jimfields33]

8. No thank you. Two trump judges are enough.

[lagomorph777]

53. ??? 5 on the court, right?

Anybody who voted for Citizens United or Bush v Gore, in addition to the Trumpies, is a RWNJ.

[jimfields33]

60. Good grief. Read the full thread on what I was replying to.

[lagomorph777]

62. Yup re-read it and your brief cryptic title is still inscrutable.

[jimfields33]

63. Tough. What I wrote is perfect and accurate.

[lagomorph777]

64. You rock dude; you are indeed perfect.

Thanks for clarifying.

[jimfields33]

65. Have a great day!!!!!

By the way, I get many things wrong by the hour.

[Kingofalldems]

72. I second that.

[totodeinhere]

28. We need to win the November election. Then as vacancies occur we can appoint progressive judges.

That's how it's supposed to work. If we pack the Court then the next time the Republicans gain power they will have the green light to pack the Court with more conservative ideologues. Let's not make the same mistake that FDR made.

[dalton99a]

61. FDR did not make a mistake. His threat of adding justices was enough to swing votes for the New Deal

[George II]

3. I suggest they crack open a history book before they waste time and money on this....

Plus, who wrote that headline? Some here like to point out that "liberals" and "progressives" are different things.

Being Politico, I think this is just more pot stirring and water carrying for trump.

[csziggy]

12. As soon as they wrote "pack the Supreme Court" I discounted the article

That seems to imply that Mitch McConnell did not "pack" SCOTUS when he refused to allow Merrick Garland's nomination to even be considered. Or that McConnell's actions in "packing" the lower courts is not a problem.

The language could be changed to "balance the Supreme Court" since the Republicans have managed to slant the court to support their biases views.

[George II]

14. Getting into the guts of the article, it turns out to be just another "progressive" shot at Biden...

...and Democrats.

For example: "Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden does not support it."

If you follow the writer on Twitter, the agenda is obvious.

[JonLP24]

84. Actually Bernie Sanders doesn't support packing the court either

Sanders is also old-fashioned about the Supreme Court. Four months ago, at a debate in Ohio, Buttigieg proposed to term-limit justices or add six more of them to the court. “I’m not talking about packing the court just with people who agree with me,” said Buttigieg, though the obvious underlying motive was liberal exasperation at the court’s conservative tilt. Warren expressed interest in these ideas, but Sanders said nothing. Without naming names, Buttigieg noted that “some folks” regarded such ideas as “too bold to even contemplate.”

One of those people was Sanders. Last April, he warned that if Democrats were to put more justices on the court, “the next time the Republicans are in power, they will do the same thing.” At a debate in June, Sanders stipulated, “I do not believe in packing the court.” Two weeks ago, he predicted that such a move could destroy the judiciary: Eventually, we’d “have 87 members of the Supreme Court. And I think that delegitimizes the court.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/bernie-sanders-closet-conservative-socalist.amp

[George II]

85. Who was talking about Bernie Sanders? We're talking about the possibility of our next President...

...doing so, and that won't be Bernie Sanders.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that increasing the size of the Supreme Court isn't a good idea. That's one of the big reasons why, even in 1937 (83 years ago) with super majorities in both the House and Senate, FDR didn't do it.

[JonLP24]

88. You made this into Progressive vs Biden thing

I was pointing out the progressive in the race has the same position as Biden. This is a position floated by Democrats like Buttigieg who also supported removing the filibuster which Sanders doesn't as well.

It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to criticize Trump to explain why conservative columnists & Romney are popular with Democrats.

[George II]

89. "Progressive" is a moving target/definition. MANY Democrats consider Biden to be a "progressive"....

...and there were many more than just a single "progressive" running for the Democratic nomination earlier this year.

To be honest, of our candidates in 2020, there were FIVE Senators who were rated by Progressive Punch in this session as more "progressive" than the one you mentioned, in order:

Gillibrand
Klobuchar
Harris
Booker
Warren

Over their entire careers there were FOUR:

Harris
Warren
Gillibrand
Booker

https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?topic=&house=senate&sort=crucial-current&order=down&party=

So, your assumption that I was referring to Sanders was obviously incorrect.

[JonLP24]

90. Sanders is rated as the most liberal Senator out of Senators that served 10 years

He usually comes in second place recently. Warren was most liberal in 2017. Gillibrand was most liberal in 2018. It may come as a surprise to progressives but Kamala Harris was the most liberal for 2019. Sanders was #2 all three years.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2019/senate/ideology

[George II]

91. Sorry, no he isn't. You obviously didn't check my link. Have a great evening.............

[totodeinhere]

31. No, "packing" the Court means adding additional members to the Court.

Mitch did not pack the court. He did not add additional members. He torpedoed President Obama's pick, which was wrong, but it's not the same tactic as packing the Court.

[lagomorph777]

68. Moscow Mitch didn't pack it; he stole it.

[totodeinhere]

73. Yes, that's one way of putting it. n/t

[mahina]

92. Yep. " Being Politico, I think this is just more pot stirring and water carrying for trump."

[jimfields33]

4. Republicans only changed the Supreme Court filibuster

Senator Reid changed the lower courts to stop republican blocks. I wish at least the article was accurate. We definitely need to get proofreaders back to all media places.

[George II]

15. The article has an underlying anti-Democratic agenda.

[ArizonaLib]

22. I agree with you - the constitution says congress regulates that court, anyway.

This is why qualified immunity is targeted in the proposed legislation on systemic racial bias reform. With Democratic eyes on the presidency this January, it doesn't make sense for ideologically lefty's to consider this. The last time increasing the court was proposed it was because the court kept striking down constitutionally sound new deal legislation - legislation designed to promote the general welfare, etc.

This article would have been topical 87 years ago. Maybe next week Politico will break a story on this new music called Rock-n-Roll.

[George II]

26. The Tara Reade "incident" didn't work, "defunding the police" isn't working, this is just another...

...in a line of bashing the Democrats that slowly but surely is eroding our position to the point that frighteningly will re-elect trump.

[ArizonaLib]

49. Good to see those jerks on the run

They are desperate. I hope when the pendulum is on our side, we stick it to them with everything Nancy has been sending to the Senate over the years.

[jimfields33]

30. Thanks. Sounded like it.

[totodeinhere]

32. Correct, Harry Reid's actions, which were widely supported at DU at the time, gave the Republicans

the green light to also eliminate the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations. And I see a parallel here. If the Democrats pack the SCOTUS, just you wait. The next time the Republicans gain power they will double down on that and pack the Court even more with conservative judges.

[jimfields33]

33. For sure they would. Next thing you know we'll have 100 Supreme Court judges.

A little hyperbole but it’s be in double digest for sure.

[NurseJackie]

6. I'm very much in favor of this... OR, term limits of 10 years.

[dalton99a]

10. Absolutely.

[RKP5637]

16. At least term limits of 10 years. n/t

[cstanleytech]

20. 12 years with the option after that to make it lifetime but only if

90% of those in the House not the Senate approve.

[Blue_playwright]

87. Only if we do it right...

We would have to split the new justices with the Pukes. Then move forward. Otherwise, we spend the next 100 years having it twisted every election cycle.

I’m not for term limits for scotus or Congress. There are many advantages to having experienced folks in those positions. The key is to get corporate money out of politics so they aren’t owned and paid outside of the govt.

[rampartc]

9. great idea.

the next repub will expand the court to about 900

[Dawson Leery]

11. If Trump gets another appointment, you will feel differently.

[janterry]

13. Fair enough to want reforms to the court BUT

I have no interest in court packing.

I know what the republicans have done. But somehow we need to get back to core values of democracy - not just pack the court.

[CaptainTruth]

17. No. If we add more, Republicans will add more as soon as they can.

That sort of back & forth court packing won't solve the fundamental problems in our country.

[Lucky Luciano]

38. Each restacking has less potency. 5-4, 6-5, are way different than 15-14.

[FreeState]

43. We need to follow Buttigieg's plan on it

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/inside-pete-buttigieg-s-plan-overhaul-supreme-court-n1012491

Under the plan, most justices would continue serving life terms. Five would be affiliated with the Republican Party and five with the Democratic Party. Those 10 would then join together to choose five additional justices from U.S. appeals courts, or possibly the district-level trial courts. They’d have to settle on the nonpolitical justices unanimously — or at least with a “strong supermajority.”

They final five would serve one-year, nonrenewable terms. They’d be chosen two years in advance, to prevent nominations based on anticipated court cases, and if the 10 partisan justices couldn’t agree on the final five, the Supreme Court would be deemed to lack a quorum and couldn’t hear cases that term.

The idea is similar to what’s used in commercial arbitration, a system to resolve business disputes, in which each side gets to pick one arbitrator they trust, and those two arbitrators then jointly pick a third neutral arbitrator who acts as the swing vote.

[Lucky Luciano]

67. This seems well thought out.

Only issue I have is what if there is a multi year stalemate based on partisanship because they can’t agree on the neutral members? Could easily happen in these polarized environments. That needs to be thought through a bit more, but overall, I like the general idea.

[NewJeffCT]

18. What would be a far better tactic, IMHO

would be to expand the federal circuit courts and appellate courts. That is where Donny and Moscow Mitch have done the most damage - heck, even the 9th circuit now has a majority of Republican appointees there now. You can say it's a judicial emergency and sell it that way.

I also like Glenn Kirschner's idea of a special court to handle inter-branch governmental disputes on an expedited basis - so, if the House or Senate sues DOJ or State, one side can't run out the clock like Team Trump is doing with all their appeals on Trump's taxes and emoluments.

It would be almost IMPOSSIBLE to pass a law to expand SCOTUS - you would first need to repeal the law that set SCOTUS at 9 justices that came into being some time right after the Civil War. Then, you would need to pass a new law that expands it to 11 or 13 or whatever. FDR had veto proof majorities in both Houses and couldn't get it done in the 1930s - the media pushback was too great.

[jimfields33]

34. President Biden will be able to add judges just as easily as trump

No need to add. Reagan, Bush and Clinton judges are getting up in age and will be retiring in the next four to eight years giving Biden plenty of opportunity to have picks.

[aggiesal]

19. If Merrick Garland had been confirmed it would be 5 democratic appointees ..

versus 4 republican appointees.
Instead the stolen seat makes it 5 republican and 4 democratic appointees.

We wouldn't need to add 2 if Garland had his "Day in Court" so to speak.

Yes, we should add 2.
Thus making it 6 democratic and 5 republican.

Our talking point should be, we are reclaiming Garland's appointment.

[JudyM]

23. Best would be if we had legal grounds to invalidate every seat that was blocked by McConnell.

A girl can dream...

[HootieMcBoob]

27. I agree

If it wasn't for the Merrick Garland debacle I wouldn't be for this but that was an egregious abuse of power and has done tremendous damage to the legitimacy of the court.

[Calista241]

47. You make it seem like Garland is a liberal judge.

he's firmly a centrist. Obama made that part of his selection criteria to try and put pressure on the Repub Senate at the time. If you make our talking point about Garland, you're almost obligated to actually nominate Garland to the court. Garland is much closer ideologically to Roberts and Kennedy than he is to Sotomayor or RBG.

If Biden wins, I expect RBG to retire almost immediately. The risk of Repubs recapturing the Senate in 2022 is way too high. With 1 and possibly 2 nominations in his first 2 years, that will probably take the immediate pressure off to do something about the court.

[Polybius]

58. What if she doesn't retire?

Suppose she stays in relatively similar health, and 4 years from now she's still here? I wouldn't count her out.

Also, suppose we don't take the Senate?

[aggiesal]

59. No I don't. I specifically did not use Liberal .vs. Conservative judges ...

I had to change it to Democratic .vs. Republican Appointees,
because I knew that Garland leaned more conservative than Liberal.

Garland was Obama choice to appease the Conservative Senate
knowing he would never get a Liberal judge confirmed.

[jorgevlorgan]

21. it cannot happen unless we get a huge majority in the Senate, right?

But yeah, I would support this.

[Fiendish Thingy]

45. Nope, just 50 votes +1 nt

[Calista241]

48. The Senate Dems will have to remove the filibuster entirely to pass legislation expanding the USSC.

And that carries significant medium / long term risk. Risk that many Senators will hesitate to take, especially any Senators in Repub or non-left wing states.

[Fiendish Thingy]

69. At this late stage in the American Experiment, the risk is worth it nt

[jorgevlorgan]

74. it would be worth the sacrifice.

...getting the supreme court back I guess?

[roamer65]

78. The filibuster isn't in the Constitution.

Nuke it.

Getting rid of it is just a change in a Senate rules.

[Gore1FL]

24. We need to undo the court-stacking nt

[Lonestarblue]

25. I think we need a look at the entire federal court system.

It takes far too long for important issues to work their way through the courts. If Democrats had waited to impeach Trump to get the courts to force subpoenaed witnesses to appear, impeachment would not have happened. If the courts are so clogged that a case may take two years to resolve, justice is not being done expeditiously. Either the federal courts have too many cases or too few judges. One way to address the issue is to create more appellate districts (we currently have 12 plus DC) by splitting some of the larger ones, which logically should require a larger Supreme Court to oversee new districts.

[onetexan]

29. something has to be done. Not sure if expanding will work but if it does, i'm in.

[Lucky Luciano]

35. There are two stolen Supreme Court seats. That must be fixed.

[George II]

36. At the beginning of his second term Roosevelt proposed "packing" the Supreme Court...

...when the 75 Congress opened in 1937.

At that time Democrats held 333 seats in the House, republicans only 89. In the Senate the Democrats held a 76-16 seat advantage.

Even so, the idea of "packing" the court was criticized and never happened.

If it couldn't happen with those majorities, any idea of doing so now it fruitless and in my opinion only an attempt to further divide the Democratic Party.

[moonseller66]

37. Maybe it's time to "Even" the Scotus

We've seen too many decisions that were the result of ONE and ONLY ONE deciding vote changing America.

Let's have 4 Democrats and 4 Republicans on a 8 person court. There will be ties but to get a decent decision at least one member of the opposite party would need to agree to break a tie.

In the event of ties, send it back to lower courts to rewrite the challenge then resubmit, hopefully with better language.

Still could be one vote but odds are better that discussion would be more balanced.

Not perfect but might be better than what we have now.

[moonseller66]

39. Decision #285 from SCOTUS 2035 A.D...

By a 183 to 176 vote the Supreme Court today ruled tissue on toilet paper rolls MUST fall from the top toward the sitee!

[jalan48]

40. Bad idea. Let's focus on winning elections in November before we start talking about changing

the number of SC Justices.

[cstanleytech]

41. I would not object but we would have to make rather

significant gains in this election both at the state and federal level and that much of a gain is unfortunately very unlikely.

[Thirties Child]

42. Didn't FDR try to add to the SCOTUS? Or want to.

[Steelrolled]

54. He wanted to but didn't get too far

Way back when I was in high school, it was taught as one of the more shameful parts of his presidency. I don't know if that view has changed.

[cstanleytech]

75. Given the actions of the Republicans in packing the court I think its warranted this time.

That aside do I think it likely to happen? No.
Atleast not unless there was a huge increase in Democrats gaining clear majority control of the government both at the state and federal level this election which is about as likely as me winning the powerball lottery this week.

[Steelrolled]

79. I think another attempt at it would be shameful

Without a doubt, it would bring on a constitutional crisis. I don't believe Pres Biden would touch it. Trump might have tried but the Senate would never go along.

[cstanleytech]

80. Again the actions of the Republicans have already brought shame this would bring balance but

that aside its not likely to happen anytime soon if ever.

[Fiendish Thingy]

44. Yup, take it up to 12 seats, don't care if GOP does the same

Although Congress could pass a law limiting seats, which would create an obstacle only over come by having control of WH and both houses.

IMO, expanding SCOTUS dilutes the power of any one justice, and the damage they can do, and reduces the power a single vote can have.

Take it up to 24 seats, I don’t care. Maybe Congress will pass better laws, or better yet, Constitutional Amendments.

The American Experiment is on its lasts legs anyway, this can’t hurt.

[Steelrolled]

56. "The American Experiment is on its lasts legs anyway"

What makes you think that? In my view the Trump "experience" has shown that our government is more resilient than we thought.

[Fiendish Thingy]

70. The reality of the past three years is evidence enough that America is on its last legs

Certainly, the last 40 years brought us to the point where the last 3 years accelerated America’s decline to the point where we are just one manipulated election away from ending the American experiment.

After a failed impeachment trial and successful stonewalling of Congress by the executive branch, I’d be interested to see your evidence on the resilience of the American government. The only reason anything is changing right now is because thousands of people are in the streets.

[Steelrolled]

77. Trump has little power

His accomplishments were small (mainly the tax cut). He has accomplished some things by executive order, but the more extreme things were blocked by the supreme court. The fools in the media obsess about his tweets, and ignore how little substance there is behind them.

We are now in the normal deadlocked government where little gets done unless there is a crisis (and it did move very quickly, for COVID stimulus). I see very little that Trump has done that can't be fixed (much of it quickly) by Biden.

The rest of the world sees us a little more unpredictable than before, but they should -- that is reality - the US does tend to swing back and forth. This is part of a bigger shift in international relations.

So given how extreme a case Trump is, I am very pleased to see how well we have held up. Pres Biden will have his work cut out for him, but the foundations of government are still there.

[Fiendish Thingy]

82. "The foundations of government are still there"; how naive

If the foundations of government were still functioning, we wouldn’t have an administration full of grifters, Trump’s toadies wouldn’t get away with ignoring subpoenas, Gorsuch would be on SCOTUS, the election in Georgia yesterday would have gone smoothly, the bankers who brought down the world economy would be in jail, as would the war criminals from the Bush/Cheney regime.

I could go on, but I’m sure you think our “foundations” are just fine...

[TygrBright]

46. Reducing is a better strategy. Reduce the Court to 7. Last hired, first fired. n/t

[LiberalFighter]

50. Expand the conservates to a remote island.

[melm00se]

51. I have posted this before and will post it again.

This article examines the vote count distribution on Supreme Court decisions from 2000-2016.

Summary (in case you can't see the article)

2000-2016 terms:
9-0 decisions = 36% of cases
8-1 or 7-2 = ~15% of cases
5-4 decisions = 19% of cases
Remainder of vote counts = 30%

for the 2016-17 term, the number of unanimous decisions increased to 57% and the 5-4 (or 5-3) votes decreased to 14%.

I am certain some will say "but but but", you, however, cannot argue with numerical data which shows quantitatively that the Supreme Court votes in a politically unbiased way far more often than not.

As to packing the court: that should have a giant red neon blinking sign on it saying "WARNING WARNING WARNING". FDR tried it, his own party told him "No way". While this was going on, FDR saw a significant slip in his approval numbers (IIRC something north of a 20% drop). Fortunately for FDR, his numbers were pretty damn high that he could absorb that. His Congressional cohorts didn't fare so well.

FDRs proposed the change in 1937. It died in late 1937 and in 1938, Democrats got their asses handed to them in the midterm elections in 1938: lost 72 seats in the House (a drop of 22%) and 7 seats in the Senate (22% of the seats in play).

I seem to recall something that being doomed to repeat history?

[Steelrolled]

52. Isn't this a never ending game, like executive orders?

Whenever the president/senate changes control, they pack the court a little more?

[Fullduplexxx]

55. Pack ? Dems packing the court did that fuck of a report just say pack the court

What makes you think they wouldnt .. they would and so should we ... they can add more when the take the congress well wouldnt that be a motivator for people to vote?

[More_Cowbell]

57. In 2018, Time Magazine said the court needs 27 justices

https://time.com/5338689/supreme-court-packing/

"Just as a 9-person Congress would be highly undemocratic, dangerously powerful, and ultimately ineffective, a 9-person court is no better. Larger bodies have some inherent features that are more democratic and effective: they are more representative, and they can include a more diverse group; they can do more work; their splits are less likely to be narrow and therefore arbitrary; they have more regular, natural turnover, and any one vacancy would not dominate the political scene as it does today."

[SunSeeker]

66. This is the only way we will be able to end gerrymandering and have true democracy.

The current SCOTUS majority will always vote to keep Republicans in power in important voting rights cases.

[W T F]

71. Let's just hope that there isn't a "next time" that they control Congress. If we take control,

This time, we will need to consolidate our power, because they’re trying to do the same.

[roamer65]

76. We will also need to eliminate the filibuster in the Senate.

Congress can change the number of justices on the Supreme Court, but it will take a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Or we just nuke the filibuster completely.

[stopwastingmymoney]

81. While I think generally that this is getting ahead of ourselves

Last edited Thu Jun 11, 2020, 09:46 PM - Edit history (1)

It is interesting to consider

I think a sensible argument could be made that the current system takes much too long to reach decision, there are clearly too few judges and the system should be expanded. I think the average person would agree with that in theory.

I also think that Kavanaugh should be impeached for lying to Congress and why not go after Thomas on the same grounds? That would be fun

[JonLP24]

83. Neither did Bernie Sanders

(Snip)

Sanders is also old-fashioned about the Supreme Court. Four months ago, at a debate in Ohio, Buttigieg proposed to term-limit justices or add six more of them to the court. “I’m not talking about packing the court just with people who agree with me,” said Buttigieg, though the obvious underlying motive was liberal exasperation at the court’s conservative tilt. Warren expressed interest in these ideas, but Sanders said nothing. Without naming names, Buttigieg noted that “some folks” regarded such ideas as “too bold to even contemplate.”

One of those people was Sanders. Last April, he warned that if Democrats were to put more justices on the court, “the next time the Republicans are in power, they will do the same thing.” At a debate in June, Sanders stipulated, “I do not believe in packing the court.” Two weeks ago, he predicted that such a move could destroy the judiciary: Eventually, we’d “have 87 members of the Supreme Court. And I think that delegitimizes the court.”

Slate
https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/bernie-sanders-closet-conservative-socalist.amp

[Yeehah]

86. I'm all for it, personally

Citizens United must be reversed.

[FakeNoose]

93. Take away the "lifetime" appointment

Every federal judge and every Supreme Court Justice needs to be appointed for a defined period. Make the term 10 years or whatever, but don't make it a "lifetime" appointment for anyone.

That's been our underlying problem with the Supreme Court, plus the fact that they aren't required to renounce political party affiliation once they accept the appointment. We don't need more Justices we just need better ones, and the ability to remove bad ones.