Washington Resistance Army wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:And four new justices is the perfect rebuttal to that. "It would set a terrible precedent" or whatever your objection is, is precisely how Democrats felt about McConnell stealing an appointment from Obama. "Don't you dare do that, we'll slaughter you in the election" but that didn't work out for Democrats did it?
It was constitutional. It was how Republicans got that 5-4 which you don't consider enough. It worked.
Expanding the court by 4 would be constitutional. It would get Democrats to 7-6 (Roberts as an R). It would work.
Tell me again how Democrats expanding the court would be disastrous ...
I already did, and pretty much every Democratic leaning person on this forum who thinks long term agreed. All adding seats would do is cause a death spiral where every new president does it every time they and their party win majority. It'd be Reid's disaster all over again.
I'm sure you you San Lumen on your side ...
A "death spiral" if you don't consider deaths or retirements in the next 8 years. It might be only 11 seats by the time Republicans would strike back, but YOU ASSERT for good reason that Republicans would double the court anyway. When they could add 2 seats, probably regaining the majority PLUS deaths or retirements in their term.
Your argument amounts to "Democrats shouln't increase the court because Republicans will strike back with excessive force" and it amounts to "don't hurt us or we will destroy everything". I'm inclined to call your bluff.
Also note that "Reid's disaster" was to remove the filibuster on appeals court confirmations, and McConnell struck back by removing the filibuster on supreme court confirmations. He didn't do what you're claiming which was strike back with everything possible: the filibuster is still there on regular bills.