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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TexasTowelie

(111,287 posts)
Sun Oct 14, 2018, 06:38 AM Oct 2018

Future Democrats should consider nuclear option to 'un-pack' the Supreme Court

By Kevin McDermott, St. Louis Post-Dispatch


Immediately after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, as the political world observed somber niceties, Mitch McConnell was being Mitch McConnell — which is to say, he robotically pivoted to consolidate Republican power, giving no more thought to the good of the country or democracy than a frog snapping up a fly.

Hours after Scalia’s death, the Republican Senate leader announced he would refuse to consider any replacement nominee from President Barack Obama. He’d instead wait almost a year for the next, yet-unchosen president.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,” said McConnell, ghosting the majority of Americans who selected Obama twice.

Having snatched a court seat from a president most Americans chose, McConnell handed it to one most didn’t. Asterisk President Donald Trump then got to seat a second justice, after Mitch “Let the People Decide” McConnell rushed a contentious Senate hearing process so voters couldn’t register their choice via the upcoming midterms.

Read more: https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/columnists/mcdermott-future-democrats-should-consider-nuclear-option-to-un-pack/article_c269f9ee-797d-54e6-a92a-a307319e6dc7.html
11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Future Democrats should consider nuclear option to 'un-pack' the Supreme Court (Original Post) TexasTowelie Oct 2018 OP
If we don't take back control now of the Senate duforsure Oct 2018 #1
He can't force out the lefter ones. yurbud Oct 2018 #10
He's making the same mistake every other court-packing suggestion makes FBaggins Oct 2018 #2
No Mistake DarthDem Oct 2018 #5
Nope. FBaggins Oct 2018 #6
Yep. DarthDem Oct 2018 #8
Apologies... did you perhaps provide the wrong link? FBaggins Oct 2018 #9
The Democrats should end the filibuster, secret holds, and all that bullshit. yurbud Oct 2018 #11
The packed court should unpack if reasonable term limits are adopted Cicada Oct 2018 #3
FDR actually came pretty close to enlarging the court, and who knows... TreasonousBastard Oct 2018 #4
A simple majority can do it dalton99a Oct 2018 #7

duforsure

(11,882 posts)
1. If we don't take back control now of the Senate
Sun Oct 14, 2018, 07:00 AM
Oct 2018

Mitch would remain in control of it, and trump could then force out two more justices like he did to Kennedy , and pick two more justices for life to the Supreme Court. That should be more than enough to scare everyone . Vote them out of office people, if we still can.

FBaggins

(26,693 posts)
2. He's making the same mistake every other court-packing suggestion makes
Sun Oct 14, 2018, 07:27 AM
Oct 2018

He thinks we can do it once we control Congress and the WH again.

He misses that we would need 60 votes in the Senate.

And no... there is no “nuclear option” for legislation (nor do I think Senate Dems would be willing to do it if it were - given the painful lesson we learned from the last nuclear exchange).

DarthDem

(5,253 posts)
5. No Mistake
Sun Oct 14, 2018, 08:45 AM
Oct 2018

The filibuster can be discarded for any sort of vote, with a simple majority vote beforehand.

As for the analysis of the "last exchange," it ignores that Rethugs would have done away with the filibuster for nominees themselves. That was an example of Democrats fighting just as dirty as their good friends across the aisle.

FBaggins

(26,693 posts)
6. Nope.
Sun Oct 14, 2018, 08:51 AM
Oct 2018

Getting rid of the filibuster for legislation would have to survive a filibuster.

The reason it could be “nuked” for appointees as because it could be argued that the rule was never meant for them and/or that the constitution required the senate to play the advice/consent role. In adjudicating that debate, a simple majority could rule that the filibuster did not apply (meaning that it had never applied)...

But there is no parallel argument for legislation. It takes only a simple majority to change the rule, but that action can be filibustered.

I would also bet that there are two dozen or more Democrats who would never be stupid enough to vote for it.

FBaggins

(26,693 posts)
9. Apologies... did you perhaps provide the wrong link?
Sun Oct 14, 2018, 01:21 PM
Oct 2018

This one shows that Trump agrees with you... and that plenty of republicans wish that it didn’t apply... and even proposals on what might be a better structure...

... but no support for how it could happen in the face of opposition from the other party.

You pointed out Reid’s move wasn’t really as wrongheaded as it seemed because republicans were going to do it anyway... so Reid was just proactively playing their game... but how does that argument fly in the current situation? You’re forced to deal with the fact that they didn’t get rid of the filibuster for legislation despite wanting to pack the courts... kill the ACA... etc.

Is that because they’re too nice to ever try such a thing? Or simply that they can’t?

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
11. The Democrats should end the filibuster, secret holds, and all that bullshit.
Mon Oct 15, 2018, 04:38 PM
Oct 2018

The Republicans use it too much and the Democrats almost never use it--except as an excuse to hide behind Republican obstruction.

Cicada

(4,533 posts)
3. The packed court should unpack if reasonable term limits are adopted
Sun Oct 14, 2018, 07:47 AM
Oct 2018

I think a law expanding the number of supremes should include a provision that it unpacks if the constitution is changed to limit Supreme Court terms. That gives conservatives incentive to support a constitutional amendment fixing the size of the court and reasonable term limits.

TreasonousBastard

(43,049 posts)
4. FDR actually came pretty close to enlarging the court, and who knows...
Sun Oct 14, 2018, 07:56 AM
Oct 2018

what would have happened if Senate Majority Leader Robinson hadn't died.

The political situation wasn't so different then from what we have now, with extremes on both sides. The big differences were the Depression, of course, and that the President wasn't an asshole. And the alignments were more complex, with Southern Democrats almost a third party in themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

There is a fair amount of sentiment for expanding the Court, and good arguments on either side. Nothing stopping it but inertia. But, be careful what you wish for. More than one Justice modified philosophy a bit when actually on the Court.

dalton99a

(81,065 posts)
7. A simple majority can do it
Sun Oct 14, 2018, 10:26 AM
Oct 2018
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jan/22/nuclear-option-senate-fiibuster-donald-trump/
Could the nuclear option get rid of the filibuster entirely? Checking Trump's tweet
By Louis Jacobson on Monday, January 22nd, 2018 at 2:09 p.m.

The gist is that the majority party would move to change the supermajority rule through a series of votes that require only a simple majority.

The majority would try to cut off debate, also called invoking cloture. It would fail, because 60 senators do not vote for it. The chair would rule the motion not agreed to. A member of the majority would make a point of order saying that this is inconsistent with the rules. The chair would reject that argument, because it is consistent with precedent and procedure. At that point, the senator would appeal the chair’s ruling to the entire body. Then, the Senate would vote, needing only 51 votes to overturn the chair's ruling. This would establish a new procedural norm that invoking cloture only takes 51 votes rather than 60.


Also see
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42929.pdf
Procedures for Considering Changes in Senate Rules
Richard S. Beth | Congressional Research Service | January 22, 2013


Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Future Democrats should c...