2020 US General Election Thread VIII: Cs, Ds, and Es

[San Lumen]

Reduce the size is interesting, but I think the retirements would go the other way: oldest first, and it might take a while ...

Forget court packing/reducing, I say we go the nuclear option, repeal the current Judiciary Act and redo the entire court system.

not a bad idea. Perhaps there ought to be required retirement age. We do that in New York for the Court of Appeals our highest court.

[Luna Amore]

Indeed it would be, and it would be exactly what happens.

Why? What's with the doubling stuff? Whichever party is in, only has to add 2 seats to flip a 5-4 to a 5-6

11
13
15
17
19
21
23

That's SIX changes of party. Assuming no 1-term Presidents it's 48 years.

Why do the minimum for a mere majority when you can truly pack it for a supermajority?

The point is, if you are open to adding more justices, why would anyone stop at just two more?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Reduce the size is interesting, but I think the retirements would go the other way: oldest first, and it might take a while ...

Forget court packing/reducing, I say we go the nuclear option, repeal the current Judiciary Act and redo the entire court system.

I think you have to work within the limits of the Constitution.
Impeaching and removing justices is the only way to make the go, right?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Why? What's with the doubling stuff? Whichever party is in, only has to add 2 seats to flip a 5-4 to a 5-6

11
13
15
17
19
21
23

That's SIX changes of party. Assuming no 1-term Presidents it's 48 years.

Why do the minimum for a mere majority when you can truly pack it for a supermajority?

The point is, if you are open to adding more justices, why would anyone stop at just two more?

This^^^ The Republicans would have no reason not to go insane with it and secure a massive majority.

[San Lumen]

Why? What's with the doubling stuff? Whichever party is in, only has to add 2 seats to flip a 5-4 to a 5-6

11
13
15
17
19
21
23

That's SIX changes of party. Assuming no 1-term Presidents it's 48 years.

Why do the minimum for a mere majority when you can truly pack it for a supermajority?

The point is, if you are open to adding more justices, why would anyone stop at just two more?

There is only so much to add before it becomes insane

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Why do the minimum for a mere majority when you can truly pack it for a supermajority?

The point is, if you are open to adding more justices, why would anyone stop at just two more?

This^^^ The Republicans would have no reason not to go insane with it and secure a massive majority.

You're saying Democrats shouldn't do the minimum necessary to tilt the court their way, because it will give Republicans a precedent to go totally ape when it's their turn.

If Republicans are going to do that, they're going to do that. Why not do it first? 4 years or 8 years of tilt their way, which Democrats otherwise wouldn't get.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Why do the minimum for a mere majority when you can truly pack it for a supermajority?

The point is, if you are open to adding more justices, why would anyone stop at just two more?

There is only so much to add before it becomes insane

Exactly why it's a terrible idea with no thought given for the future. You're literally pulling a Harry Reid and the Republicans would just use this to win further.

[Washington Resistance Army]

This^^^ The Republicans would have no reason not to go insane with it and secure a massive majority.

You're saying Democrats shouldn't do the minimum necessary to tilt the court their way, because it will give Republicans a precedent to go totally ape when it's their turn.

If Republicans are going to do that, they're going to do that. Why not do it first? 4 years or 8 years of tilt their way, which Democrats otherwise wouldn't get.

Because the GOP isn't going to pack the court. They do some shitty things to win seats (Scalia/Garland) but the only calls for more seats come from the left, and almost nobody who proposes it thinks about the actual ramifications of such a move.

[Valrifell]

Forget court packing/reducing, I say we go the nuclear option, repeal the current Judiciary Act and redo the entire court system.

I think you have to work within the limits of the Constitution.
Impeaching and removing justices is the only way to make the go, right?

It is within the limits of the Constitution. Article III Section I of the Constitution outlines that there has to be a Supreme Court and inferior courts but leaves it to Congress to actually set up its operations and protocol, which is why the makeup of the Supreme Court has been allowed to change without amendment and why we were allowed to switch of circuit courts to district and appellate courts in 1912, also without amendment.

It's an absolutely radical idea that I proposed in jest, but presuming the Democrats get a majority in Congress there's nothing to prevent them from trying to destroy the current judicial status quo in its entirety and work back up from nothing.

[San Lumen]

You're saying Democrats shouldn't do the minimum necessary to tilt the court their way, because it will give Republicans a precedent to go totally ape when it's their turn.

If Republicans are going to do that, they're going to do that. Why not do it first? 4 years or 8 years of tilt their way, which Democrats otherwise wouldn't get.

Because the GOP isn't going to pack the court. They do some shitty things to win seats (Scalia/Garland) but the only calls for more seats come from the left, and almost nobody who proposes it thinks about the actual ramifications of such a move.

the court was expanded in the past. It hasn't always been nine seats.

[United States of Devonta]

https://twitter.com/amandawgolden/status/1307296601271078918?s=20

Lines are very long for the second day of Early voting in Virginia. Many voters saying RBG's death motivated them to vote.

Remember RBG should be our war cry as we vote in November.

[San Lumen]

https://twitter.com/amandawgolden/status/1307296601271078918?s=20

Lines are very long for the second day of Early voting in Virginia. Many voters saying RBG's death motivated them to vote.

Remember RBG should be our war cry as we vote in November.

I like that.

[Ifreann]

Why do the minimum for a mere majority when you can truly pack it for a supermajority?

The point is, if you are open to adding more justices, why would anyone stop at just two more?

There is only so much to add before it becomes insane

Why do you think that matters? Do you really believe there would ever come a point when Republicans can take more power, but would think "No, this is too far, we should just let the Democrats legalise abortion and gay marriage again"?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Because the GOP isn't going to pack the court. They do some shitty things to win seats (Scalia/Garland) but the only calls for more seats come from the left, and almost nobody who proposes it thinks about the actual ramifications of such a move.

the court was expanded in the past. It hasn't always been nine seats.

It's been, what, a century since that's happened. Do you really think it could happen nowadays with no bad repercussions? You're living in a fantasy if so.

[San Lumen]

There is only so much to add before it becomes insane

Why do you think that matters? Do you really believe there would ever come a point when Republicans can take more power, but would think "No, this is too far, we should just let the Democrats legalise abortion and gay marriage again"?

There would be massive public outcry if the court overturned both. on the latter you'd have to show the 14th amendment doesn't apply to LGBT people.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

If we're talking about what should ideally be done to the court, we should pass a constitutional amendment to fix its size and to implement fixed, staggered terms (say, 18 years) for justices instead of lifetime appointments. The McConnell rule should be either codified in law or removed. None of this "we can have our cake and eat it too" nonsense.

Expanding the court to some arbitrary size in order to pack it is too much of an escalatory step.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Why do the minimum for a mere majority when you can truly pack it for a supermajority?

The point is, if you are open to adding more justices, why would anyone stop at just two more?

There is only so much to add before it becomes insane

Well quite right. The court can also be reduced in size again, when one or both parties stop being fuckwits about it.

I know. That will be never. 48 years is a long time, think how different the US is now, to 48 years ago.

Maybe, if the number is at 15 say, and a justice dies, and we have in place a "no new justices until number sinks below 13" rule, one of the other justices will retire to make the odd number. The court tends not to hear serious or divisive cases when they have an even number, because deadlocking and sending the case back down doesn't please anyone. I imagine getting to an odd number right away (by a retirement) would be an attractive option.

[Estanglia]

Because the GOP isn't going to pack the court. They do some shitty things to win seats (Scalia/Garland) but the only calls for more seats come from the left, and almost nobody who proposes it thinks about the actual ramifications of such a move.

the court was expanded in the past. It hasn't always been nine seats.

The trouble is the current climate.

Considering how polarised America is, there's pretty much no reason for the Republicans not to add more seats if the Democrats do. If the precedent of "you can add more seats until the court's in your favour if you hold the senate" is set, there's pretty much no reason for the parties to not use that precedent to own the other side.

[San Lumen]

If we're talking about what should ideally be done to the court, we should pass a constitutional amendment to fix its size and to implement fixed, staggered terms (say, 18 years) for justices instead of lifetime appointments. The McConnell rule should be either codified in law or removed. None of this "we can have our cake and eat it too" nonsense.

Expanding the court to some arbitrary size in order to pack it is too much of an escalatory step.

or perhaps a required retirement age.

[Ifreann]

Why do you think that matters? Do you really believe there would ever come a point when Republicans can take more power, but would think "No, this is too far, we should just let the Democrats legalise abortion and gay marriage again"?

There would be massive public outcry if the court overturned both. on the latter you'd have to show the 14th amendment doesn't apply to LGBT people.

What does public outcry matter to the party of disenfranchisement and voter suppression?

[San Lumen]

There would be massive public outcry if the court overturned both. on the latter you'd have to show the 14th amendment doesn't apply to LGBT people.

What does public outcry matter to the party of disenfranchisement and voter suppression?

They would be screwed in future elections. Even a majority of Republicans support LGBT rights at this point.

[Picairn]

If we're talking about what should ideally be done to the court, we should pass a constitutional amendment to fix its size and to implement fixed, staggered terms (say, 18 years) for justices instead of lifetime appointments. The McConnell rule should be either codified in law or removed. None of this "we can have our cake and eat it too" nonsense.

Expanding the court to some arbitrary size in order to pack it is too much of an escalatory step.

Or pass an amendment to let the American Bar Association or an independent committee to handle SC confirmations. No more politicking to get unfair unadvantages, no more partisanship in the court.

The SC became Congress' Third Chamber when the Founders allowed the President and the Senate (inherently partisan politicians) to do the confirmations.

[San Lumen]

If we're talking about what should ideally be done to the court, we should pass a constitutional amendment to fix its size and to implement fixed, staggered terms (say, 18 years) for justices instead of lifetime appointments. The McConnell rule should be either codified in law or removed. None of this "we can have our cake and eat it too" nonsense.

Expanding the court to some arbitrary size in order to pack it is too much of an escalatory step.

Or pass an amendment to let the American Bar Association or an independent committee to handle SC confirmations. No more politicking to get unfair unadvantages, no more partisanship in the court.

The SC became Congress' Third Chamber when the Founders allowed the President and the Senate (inherently partisan politicians) to do the confirmations.

That would possibly require an amendment to the constitution.

[Valrifell]

the court was expanded in the past. It hasn't always been nine seats.

It's been, what, a century since that's happened. Do you really think it could happen nowadays with no bad repercussions? You're living in a fantasy if so.

The last time the Court was expanded was through the Judiciary Act of 1869 (nice.), primarily because having eight justices led to ties and cases being kicked back down which nobody liked.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

You're saying Democrats shouldn't do the minimum necessary to tilt the court their way, because it will give Republicans a precedent to go totally ape when it's their turn.

If Republicans are going to do that, they're going to do that. Why not do it first? 4 years or 8 years of tilt their way, which Democrats otherwise wouldn't get.

Because the GOP isn't going to pack the court. They do some shitty things to win seats (Scalia/Garland) but the only calls for more seats come from the left, and almost nobody who proposes it thinks about the actual ramifications of such a move.

I'm suspicious. If Democrats do a minimal packing, Republican will double the court with packing.

But Republicans would never do it first. Hobo should chill and stop worrying until suddenly Republicans do it.

You're really worried about Democrats doing it aren't you?