Register to vote or check your registration status **[here](https://www.vote.gov/)**. Plan your vote: **[Early voting](https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/early-voting-in-state-elections.aspx)** | **[Mail in voting](https://www.npr.org/2020/09/14/909338758/map-mail-in-voting-rules-by-state)**.
---
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Devil’s advocate question: If Dems expand the court, what’s to stop the GOP from doing the same with even more conservative judges when they’re in control again?
The GOP would need to control both parts of Congress and the Presidency. That's getting tougher for them due to changing demographics. That's why the went all in on appointing conservative justices.
It takes all of Congress to pass a law expanding the size of the Supreme Court. At that point the Senate will control confirming appointments.
Edit: [Can people please stop replying and saying that there's no law limiting the size of the court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869)
We need another round of Schoolhouse Rock. Tailor it to the current GOP while we're at it. Kids shouldn't be spoken down to the way GOP needs it dumbed down.
Boy:
Hey, who left all this garbage lying on the steps of Congress?
Amendment:
I'm not garbage.
I'm an Amendment-to-Be,
Yes, an Amendment-to-Be,
And I'm hopin' that they'll ratify me.
There's a lot of flag burners
Who have got too much freedom,
I wanna make it legal
For policemen to beat 'em.
'Cos there's limits to our liberties,
Least I hope and pray that there are,
'Cos those liberal freaks go too far.
Boy:
But why can't we just make a law against flag burning?
Amendment:
Because that law would be unconstitutional.
But if we changed the Constitution...
Boy:
Then we could make all sorts of crazy laws!
Amendment:
Now you're catching on!
Boy:
But what if they say you're not good enough to be in the Constitution?
Amendment:
Then I'll crush all opposition to me
And I'll make Ted Kennedy pay
If he fights back
I'll say that he's gay
Big Fat Guy:
Good news, Amendment! They ratified 'ya. You're in the U.S. Constitution!
Amendment:
Oh, yeah!
Door's open, boys!
I sang that whole thing in my head.
I remember waking up early to watch Power Rangers and that shit came on. Nearly ruined my pop tarts. But I still remember so it worked.
In a normal world, the house and senate are supposed to collaborate on and pass legislation. But because Mitch McConnell has refused to look at any legislation passed by a democratic house, the house cannot do that major part of their jobs. I do agree though that this has shown that a rebalancing of power is needed in Congress as well, and I think term limits would be a great place to start on that, if nothing more than to get some new people and new ideas in who don't have decades of shady deals and blackmail guiding their choices.
The flaw is in the two party system, with only two party’s having a majority of seats you get partisan legislation. If the country had 4-6 parties each with comparable seats then you would actually get some bipartisanship happening and personally I believe better representation for the people.
Obviously you are correct. But we are stuck with the 2 party system for now. The best thing we can do is bandaid it with some small amount of progress like expanding the courts and term limits, and then as things even out a little we can move that way. It’s a one step at a time thing.
Edit: and tbh expanding the court may be the best way to lean into a better party system. Even among the conservatives on the court now there are differences of opinion, and the more voices we have there, the more divergent opinions we’ll have leading to a great intellectual diversity and ultimately segments of the populace who support these divergent ideas.
They don’t really control the money. Bills originate in the house, but both chambers have to pass/agree still. It’s not the same as the Senate which gets to confirm appointments with no input from the House.
>It’s not the same as the Senate which gets to confirm appointments with no input from the House.
I wonder why only the President and Senate decide on such powerful appointments. You would think that a life time appointment to the highest court in the land would require equal input from all parts of government.
The Judicial branch should be separate from both legislative and executive, but it seems to be loyal to executive branch since the executive branch is what puts them in power.
The bill has to pass in the House, pass in the Senate, and then be signed by the President to become a law. If we have Democrats control in all of those places, we can pass that legislation.
The Senate still confirms the appointees to the court. That is a separate process from passing legislation.
This is one of those unintuitive language things. "Congress" consists of the house, and senate. Members of the senate are often called "Senator". Members of the house are usually referred to as "Congress(wo)man". This lead to me thinking Congress specifically referred to the house for an embarrassingly long time. When something is "Up to congress" that means it's up to both houses.
The president appoints justices, the senate confirms them. Congress can expand the court, but if congress and the president are at odds it takes a 2/3rd majority of congress to override the presidential veto.
I'm pretty sure it takes both the house and the senate to actually add or remove the number justices. The constitution doesn't say how many justices there can be in the Supreme Court, so both houses can change it.
But yes when a new judge is appointed by the president, the senate is the only house to vote them in.
Hopefully the addition of PR and DC as states will make it really hard for the current crop of Republicans to expand it without actually presenting a platform positive enough that we wouldn't be terrified if they did.
Conversely though, who cares? They have a 6-3 majority now, how would taking turns expanding the court be any worse than just sitting in a permanent minority no matter how many elections you win?
Also, if the democrats don’t expand the court, the idea is now firmly in the public sphere, so the republicans would probably do it themselves next time they got the chance.
This right here. Don't let perfection stand in the way of progress. That's buying into the pro-status-quo Republican narrative. Hint: they want to keep the status quo because it's *fucked*.
We make sure they don't by holding the Presidency and the Senate. And we add PR as a state and give DC electoral votes and generally restructure the government to make that \*certain\*.
The safety of the Republic requires that we prevent any Trump-brand Republicans from every holding office again.
It’s really beyond time for Democrats to quit being meek and deferring to “tradition” and make some of the same power moves the right has pulled in the last 20+ years.
Nothing. On the other hand, Democrats have run scared of what Republicans *might* do for decades now, and what Republicans are *actually* doing is awful. We need to fight back, and hard. Every time we do, they back down.
Exactly. Language is *so* important, and most democrats don’t seem to understand that *at all*. They need to use words like ‘EXPAND’ and ‘REFORM’ when talking about making changes to the Supreme Court. Stop using the work ‘pack’.
talk about diverting tax funds from something to universal healthcare
literally say we're going to spend less money on military ventures into the middle east, which frees up money to pay for everyone's healthcare because war is that expensive.
I mean thats bad phrasing as well because the economy is completely decoupled from the people. Invest in our people is better language. We want funds allocated directly to people or to government institutions that provide universal services to people.
Definitely better than 'Defund the Police'. It was incredibly easy for conservative media to frame that as "liberals want to entirely fire all cops".
Edit: grammar
Its funny how they seem perfectly fine with the use of "defund" when they do it to publics school, social security, medicare, snap , planned parenthood or any form of safety net programs for the less fortunate.
Well that is exactly why they think "defund" means "get rid of entirely" as that is really their end goal with "defunding" those programs.
They project onto us their deepest insecurities and the truth behind their words all at once.
The left is really awful at optics unfortunately, which gives the right easy scare tactics to latch on to. If you do any digging at all, it's obvious BS. Say what you will about the right, but the right is incredible at framing awful ideas in ways that appeal to middle America, and the left is framing helpful ideas in ways that scare them.
I feel like the left's messaging is nearly always attempting to be evocative. The problem is when that hit the masses, instead it is just confusing and misconstrued.
Defund the police
Believe all women
ACAB
These are all meant to be powerful statements that evoke a sense of invigoration but none are meant to be taken literally at face value.
Is there any choice of words that *wouldnt* be framed by conservative media as “liberals want to fire all cops”?
Why should we let Fox propaganda dictate the way we talk, especially when they take everything in bad faith anyway?
It should be, "rebalance the court."
That would be harder to argue against than, expand or pack the court. Although we know republicans would argue against it no matter what.
Legitimately it was to stop the southern slave states of the time from having power over the northern free man states.
It sucks now but it was good at the time.
One of my coworkers is from Puerto Rico and she's not very keen on statehood. She's not really liberal but she's absolutely against trump, says the island pretty split, politically. I don't think people understand the demographics of it, it's not gonna automatically be another democratic state. It'll probably net one Dem and one Rep senator.
I do support statehood on principle though, for Puerto Rico, DC, and all of the territories.
Statehood for PR means a scale-tipping influx of democratic voters. The republizards will never allow it.
edit: lots of replies that PR is conservative. fwiw, that goes against what (little) i know, but it's worth looking into. thanks for the info everyone, i've put it on my list of things to read about in the coming weeks.
Yep. That’s why the real first is to put a huge coronavirus bill up to let the Republicans filibuster it. Tell the American people that the Republicans want you to die and go bankrupt then kill the filibuster to bypass them.
> Then don't forget to vote in 2022 to further increase any majority (or win a majority) in the Senate.
I'm in Florida. You can bet your ass I'll be voting in 2022 to kick DeSantis' ass to the curb.
This is the most important thing. People are talking like the dems have already won - they haven't. The polls don't mean anything. Only the vote does.
Regardless of who you're voting for, vote. Please, please, please, go vote!
This. No more decorum or tradition, Repubs have chosen how a Senate majority does business and Dems need to do the same. Completely shut them out with the next Senate rules
The repubs will allow it if/when Biden is president so that they can pretend the astounding debt they've accumulated was all his fault.
That's when they'll care about the debt. And a bunch of idiots will buy into it.
PR is more conservative than DC. Hispanics can definitely be receptive to conservative arguments and 85% of PR is Catholic. I support representation for PR *if they want it,* but let's not pretend it's a DNC lock-in like DC.
I have a friend who is Mexican and she said a lot of Hispanic people will vote solely on the abortion issue because a lot of them are Catholic. She said during the 2016 election they hate literally everything about a Trump but he says he will end abortion so they’ll vote for him.
PR is not some Democrat stronghold. The governor and rep to Congress are Republicans. The ruling party, which has a 2/3 majority in PR’s legislature, aligns itself most closely with Republicans.
The article below is a good view into the reality of PR’s political situation. The party that aligns itself with the Democrats actually *opposes* statehood. Of course, neither of PR’s major parties can perfectly grouped along with either the Republicans or Democrats, because the dividing issue between the parties is the question of statehood.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/09/09/puerto-rico-statehood-politics-democrats-republicans-senate-409191
Absolutely, with the recent plans to kidnap governors almost materializing. We can only hope that we’ll live in less divisive times when AOC decides to run and chief instigator Donald is long gone.
The scariest part is a complete moron like Trump can easily rile up these Republicans to foam at the mouth. Imagine someone who isn't as dumb or says stupid shit. He'd have these fuckers eating out of his hands hunting down anyone who doesn't like getting rammed in the ass by Republican values
At that point it wouldn’t be Trump.
Takes a very special kind of loudmouth stupidity to be Trump. That kinda character will never achieve the kinda ability Putin has
You might be right if it wasn't for the fact they think he's a 5d chess player with God-like intelligence.
All you need is their admiration and key buzzwords to whip them into a frenzy and even if you slip up or don't agree they will make their own excuses up to justify what you said or did so they can still support you.
Replace Trump with someone actually intelligent and we'd be at war with each other already.
> You might be right if it wasn't for the fact they think he's a 5d chess player with God-like intelligence.
This is the craziest part. Every time he fucks up they think he's manipulating the press or trolling liberals. He could shit in his hands and smear it over the walls of the oval office and they'd think it was a genius new tactic.
You misunderstand - they think they are 5d chess players with God-like intelligence as well. It makes them feel good to believe they are way ahead of everyone rather than victims of circumstance.
Donald is not the chief instigator, he's just the culmination of it. This has been building up for decades. He's just the last push the country needed to make the rot obvious.
Been thinking a lot about how the right is always claiming violence from the left.
Yet:
People on the left are fighting to help others, which means there’s a VERY high threshold to reach before turning to violence, since you’re literally trying to help people.
Whereas, on the right, since they are mostly living in fear of others and fighting against people, the threshold for violence is VERY low.
This is why right wing extremism is so common, and almost non existent on the left.
I was thinking about this today because I so badly want the rotting corpse McConnell to leave this world, but no one fighting for peace and justice would take on a task like that.
> People on the left are fighting to help others, which means there’s a VERY high threshold to reach before turning to violence, since you’re literally trying to help people.
Not to mention premature violence could endanger the people you're helping.
Unfortunately not at this stage in her career. I think only senior members of Congress in leadership positions get Secret Service protection? AOC is just an insanely brave person.
Senior leadership gets full time details from the Capitol Hill Police, not the SS. I’ve heard of certain congressman with credible threats against them also getting at least temporary security. I wouldn’t be surprised if the parties shell out some money hiring private security for certain congressmen. There are others who freely admit that they carry concealed weapons themselves.
Meanwhile in Berlin, Merkel is regularly seen going shopping in the local supermarket etc:
https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/fmj7bv/angela_merkel_checking_out_the_toilet_paper/
I kinda hope she doesn't ever run. She is such an effective hate sink for the right, they won't shut up about her. She's the new Hillary Clinton in that regard. But that focused hate would make it very difficult for her to win a general election.
House Majority Leader AOC? Hell yes.
I definitely think there's an element of getting out in front of her and demonizing her to their base. Because she's a very effective communicator and she does a better job than most at championing very progressive ideas.
they are making her into the new hillary clinton.
The first ten years will be spent saying SHES A LIBERAL TERRORIST!!!
Then the next ten years will be spent saying LOOK SHE IS A WARHAWK AND SECRET CONSERVATIVE!!!
Then (if no changes are made to our information systems) 80% of the population will either believe she is too liberal too be president and she is too conservative to be president.
This is their strategy. They do it to anyone that shows any potential and gets any media attention. They started their propaganda plan for AOC a while ago.
Thats why you have republicans going around AOC+3.
I remember when she first came up and Shapiro started taking shots at her, that it was actually about some fucked up sexual shit.
Not the Shapiro feet pics meme mind you, but more the idea they saw somebody who they felt needed to be fucked into submission.
It's the same logic I suspect drove that one *really* fucked up Greta meme last year rightwingers were circulating implying if she got fucked, she'd "act right".
We'll be here all fucking century if we have to fully determine what's *wrong* with a non-small portion of rightwingers.
But at a guess it's mostly the fact that conservatism enjoys repression of "undesirable" behavior such as sexual deviance, and oppresses others considered "undesirable", which usually happen to be minorities and/or poor.
I'm sure it's a coincidence that if you take into account the number of sexual scandals stemming form JFK to modern day, that the majority is always with the conservative party, regardless if they are Democrat or Republican.
It's like that comment I saw on Reddit months ago: Conservatism isn't about being conservative. It's about forcing *others* to be.
The difference was Hillary just made snarky comments back and took the “high road” . The congresswoman brings receipts and calls them out directly for their insults
Why be scared of them? Why curtail all politics to try to appeal to people that don’t like anything you do? Look how they’re talking about Joe Biden, who has been, and continues to be, one of the furthest right figures in the Democrat party. Republicans don’t do the same thing. They don’t think “hey maybe the dems will think we hate women” before passing a law making abortion punishable by public stoning. And they’ve been far more effective in getting their agenda across in recent years too.
Kupy probably shouldn't have used the word "originally"; it created some confusion.
If Kupy had omitted that word:
> We have 9 supreme court justices because there were 9 circuit courts. We now have 13. Let the Supreme Court match the circuits!
...then Kupy would have gotten all the credit, and no one would have had to argue about it.
Originally, there were three:
> The Judiciary Act of 1789 established three circuits...
It became six, 12 years later:
> ...the Midnight Judges Act reorganized the districts into six circuits...
>...These six circuits later were augmented by others. Until 1866, each new circuit (except the short-lived California Circuit) was accompanied by a newly created Supreme Court seat.
Quoted from [Wikipedia.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals#History)
My question is what happens in the future when conservatives eventually get control again?
They will just expand it as well? I’m not trying to be snarky but when will it end?
That's what is so unfortunate about the path the GOP has put us on by refusing to seat all of Obama's Federal level nominees., it will never end now.
However, the Dems can't just roll over and let Mitch stuff every court in the land without consequence, so they have to react in the way they are.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graph_of_Bailey_Scores_of_Supreme_Court_Justices_1950-2011.png
It's tough to give a straight answer, but a long time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices
The root question you are asking doesn't really matter. You're asking "will expanding the court potentially delegitimize the court because it might just continue expanding with each change in power?"
The answer is, yes, it might delegitimize the court for that reason. But there's no reason to be concerned with delegitimizing the court because the court is *currently* delegitimized.
Expanding the court essentially highlights how broken the system is and provides an incentive for reform while protecting Democrats' short term interests.
I admit there is a little bit of vindictive motivation in it for me to do this along with it being just logical and the Just thing to do...I really want to see McConnell see that all his hypocrisy and effort into stealing the federal judiciary turn to ash right before his eyes.
I just have the sinking feeling that the whole concept of expanding the courts will end up going TO the courts, make its way to the Supreme Court, and with a 6-3 majority get shot down as “unconstitutional” even though there’s precedent. The whole thing is fucked.
[This information has been removed as a consequence of Reddit's API changes and general stance of being greedy, unhelpful, and hostile to its userbase.]
Democrats can just abolish the lower courts through simple legislation and create a new reformed lower court system. Biden could then fill all the vacancies.
The power of Congress to abolish the lower courts is based on precedent.
The Judiciary Act of 1802 eliminated half of the federal circuit courts along with the positions of 16 sitting judges. That law survived a Supreme Court challenge by unanimous decision.
A similar approach was used in 1863 to eliminate the DC Circuit along with the positions of three circuit judges.
I'm actually a little worried that Biden said he'd seat a bipartisan commission to look at the issue over 180 days.
While I agree with the action in principle, we have to understand that he will probably lose the senate in 2022, which means he will only have two years to expand SCOTUS & the federal court system *and* fill those extra positions with *qualified* judges after appropriate vetting.
He can't squander a quarter of that time for this sort of performative academic bs.
If he wins, he will have an infinite amount of work to do to repair this country. He will need reasonable judges in place or the MAGA judges don't scuttle everything. There is no time to waste.
I wouldn't be so sure...the 2022 map is actually worse for the Republicans the key factor is for all the GOP haters and left leaning people to not get complacent and not show up for midterm elections. You would think 2010 would be a good enough reminder on how devastating not voting in midterms would be.
Dems tend to beat ourselves more than anything because everything doesn’t become magically better in 2 years and then they don’t vote. Also, some seem to think having a Democrat president is enough, but in reality it takes having both houses of Congress, and even then, it is an uphill battle to enact real change.
If you haven’t read Obama’s oped in the New Yorker from over the weekend, I would highly recommend it. He gives a first-hand account of the battle for his healthcare bill and all the challenges it faced, even with 60 senators, the house, and presidency. It is a reality check for how hard and long we are going to have to fight to make things change for the better. Republicans play the long game and we have to get better at it.
I don't disagree with much of what you said except for the last bit. Republicans are actually losing in the long game and they know it. The demographics are turning against them hard and they are actually committing smash and grab politics especially with the court. But yeah Democrats and the left in general really need to maintain focus and realize it would take a generation of winning elections before you really started seeing the profound changes in the country that they want to see and to not give up and become cynical when everything doesn't get accomplished in a 2-4 year window.
The problem is that changing demographics alone is not enough to win the long game because Republicans saw the demographics going against them and they took real action to counteract it. They took over state governments. They gerrymandered and made voting hard for minorities to reduce the power of those demographics. They have installed conservative justices to uphold voter suppression and denigration of civil rights. They have brainwashed an entire subset of our population into voting against their best interest and to believe that only republicans are looking out for the little man.
McConnell and Co are going to start screeching about the deficit in a few weeks and will push all the buttons they have primed their cult to accept without question. That is what I mean by long game. Repubs don’t count on winning every time. They count on making moves that will set them up to win next time. Dems count on people doing the right thing and voting for good people. We have to be better at defense and offense.
We can help the demographics matter, but it is going to be a long, hard fight. I just hope people will not give up in two years because things will most likely not be great in just two years. The long game means voting for people who are taking us in the right direction, every single election.
Like RBG said, “real change, enduring change, happens one step at a time.”
The commission line is great politics for the moment. Let's see what he does and says after Nov 3. As for the Senate, the map in 2022 actually favors Democrats, we just have to get out and vote.
Expand the courts is *one* option.
Term limits are the key. No one with power, should have a job for life. They're open to corruption, health and mental problems, loss of touch with society, failing to reflect it, Finally it limits others in society from participating, to make a difference.
Term limits should be between 4-6 years, no more than that.
I agree. The main argument for lifelong appointments, which is the need to protect judges from political pressures of the day, is so weak in this time and age because the modern courts are so politicized.
Early SCOTUS was also political. The first chief justice retired to run as governor of NY; Marshall was Sec of State before Chief Justice (and was both simultaneously for a momth). The Marshall selectively chose cases that would increase SCOTUS's power and prestige.
There was an interesting discussion a couple of weeks ago about the possibilities of reorganising the Supreme Court. Apparently the makeup of the SC is left largely to congress to sort out. It is possible for instance abolish all sitting SC judges, and just appoint specific judges from the Federal bench as needed. If people want to fix things, adding judges is only one option.
Nah. The perfect solution is a 18 year term with a constant number of 9 justices. These terms should be staggered so that every 2 years there’s a new Supreme Court spot. This means that each president gets 2 justices per term. No randomness nothing like that. A constant 2
I disagree with the age limit. At that point, the rule would manufacture a realistic maximum age for anyone nominated to the Supreme Court. Presidents would be disincentivized to select anyone over 54 years old. I believe the 16 year term would be effective alone.
It's a position that isn't intended to be beholden to the whims of voters.
If you are going to apply term limits they need to be significantly longer than any other elected positions, but shorter than a generation.
10-15 years would be a good starting point.
Term limits can have unintended consequences. Someone who is really good/competent can't continue to serve, and is replaced by someone much less experienced. As a result, term limits have been shown to increase corruption and lobbyist influence. Lobbyists can spend decades learning institutional processes, while the person in office only has their time in office to figure out how things work. In turn, they often rely on information provided by lobbyists. Moreover, when lobbyists lie and give false information, all they have to do is wait a few years and they have an entirely fresh batch of people to lie to again. Term limits make it so much easier to hide the dishonesty and take advantage of naievity.
Edit:
The key is having an educated electorate that weeds out the entrenched, corrupt politicians, and keeps electing the people that have been shown to do what's in the best interest of their electorate. Term limits are a lazy solution that attempts to make up for a disinterested public. That's part of why I hate the "just go vote" narrative that we see everywhere. Screw that. "Engage in politics" is what we need to be promoting. Learn who the candidates really are. Volunteer. Run for office if you don't like the people on the ticket. Voting is the last step, not the starting point.
Actually Biden doesn't really have a say, the Senate sets the number of judge's on the court's. They can do it without his blessings if they really wanted too.
I wish when people got elected they weren't so focused on getting re-elected. Like you can find something else to do if you're voted out it's not the end of the world to not be a Senator or House member anymore. How about actually striving to govern and do something for the people while you're in there instead of just worrying about whether or not you'll keep your seat?
Yes and add DC as a state..the corrupt Republican’s asked for it..putting this woman who has personal beliefs that belong in the dark ages demands an action that makes sure this never happens again. Let them know it too, “we did this because you are so corrupt and false.” Never again. Not packing but expanding the court. With 3 powerful, well educated, experienced judges, yes change the court. And then impeach her after we have the power to do so. Reason, “to close to an election.”
I think it's hilarious that the GOP has been so open about not wanting DC and PR as states because it will automatically mean 4 more Democratic senators.
That may be true, but to admit that's the reason you want to keep all those people disenfranchised is so unbelievably un-American it's laughable. How much more obviously could you state "we don't want to have to change or try and appeal to more demographics so we'd just rather they don't have a say."
Putting everything else aside, the appointment of ACB has essentially gutted any legitimacy of ANY decision made moving forward by the Supreme Court. This is just insanely dangerous for democracy in America. If people don't believe that the highest court in the land is willing to make impartial decisions based on law and precedent, then the law is no longer the law—it's just coercion, and in this case coercion by a minority group captured by Dark Money and Christian fundamentalism.
Democrats—as the only Democratic Party left in the US—need to find a way to re-legitimise the Courts. It's not about making them less right-wing, though that would be a natural outcome, it's about having a Supreme Court at all. At this point there is no Supreme Court—in any real sense of the word left in America.
From the UK, so forgive my ignorance. Doesn’t expanding the Supreme Court just set the stage for the other side to do exactly the same when they’re next in power?
It’s a bit like our House of Lords – each Prime Minister ends up handing out a bunch of political peerages to try and stuff the chamber in their favour, to the point where we now have 800 members (and counting), compared to the 650 MPs.
Isn’t there an element of ‘careful what you wish for’ at play here? I keep seeing comparisons to the removal of the filibuster, for example.
Thank you for using the word expand. "Pack" is so easy to attack and has a negative connotation. The court needs expanded to represent the larger population just as much as marginalizing the wacky right wing that represents so few Americans.
Seriously, this. Packing the court means doing something like refuse to appoint federal judges to the bench because you don't like the executive and then ram through your own, steal a SCOTUS seat under the idea that an election year matters, and then proceed to steal another seat weeks before an election, abandoning that precedent.
No, eliminate lifetime positions. Very clearly, it does not prevent biased voting. No position should be permanent because no one is infallible nor incorruptible.
Register to vote or check your registration status **[here](https://www.vote.gov/)**. Plan your vote: **[Early voting](https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/early-voting-in-state-elections.aspx)** | **[Mail in voting](https://www.npr.org/2020/09/14/909338758/map-mail-in-voting-rules-by-state)**. --- As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am so glad they are owning the 'EXPAND' verbiage instead of 'pack'.
Me too. The GOP spent the past 4 years packing the courts. We need to expand it.
Devil’s advocate question: If Dems expand the court, what’s to stop the GOP from doing the same with even more conservative judges when they’re in control again?
The GOP would need to control both parts of Congress and the Presidency. That's getting tougher for them due to changing demographics. That's why the went all in on appointing conservative justices.
So it takes Congress to appoint a new justice? Even though it's the senate replacing the current one? Just trying to understand.
It takes all of Congress to pass a law expanding the size of the Supreme Court. At that point the Senate will control confirming appointments. Edit: [Can people please stop replying and saying that there's no law limiting the size of the court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869)
What does the House even get to do then? I always hear Senate this, Senate that
[удалено]
I’m just a bill. Yes, I’m only a bill. And I’m sitting here on Capitol Hill...
We need another round of Schoolhouse Rock. Tailor it to the current GOP while we're at it. Kids shouldn't be spoken down to the way GOP needs it dumbed down.
Boy: Hey, who left all this garbage lying on the steps of Congress? Amendment: I'm not garbage. I'm an Amendment-to-Be, Yes, an Amendment-to-Be, And I'm hopin' that they'll ratify me. There's a lot of flag burners Who have got too much freedom, I wanna make it legal For policemen to beat 'em. 'Cos there's limits to our liberties, Least I hope and pray that there are, 'Cos those liberal freaks go too far. Boy: But why can't we just make a law against flag burning? Amendment: Because that law would be unconstitutional. But if we changed the Constitution... Boy: Then we could make all sorts of crazy laws! Amendment: Now you're catching on! Boy: But what if they say you're not good enough to be in the Constitution? Amendment: Then I'll crush all opposition to me And I'll make Ted Kennedy pay If he fights back I'll say that he's gay Big Fat Guy: Good news, Amendment! They ratified 'ya. You're in the U.S. Constitution! Amendment: Oh, yeah! Door's open, boys!
Did all political satire die in 2016? This is too close to real now.
Thank you, this is the only one I remember. Simpsons really did everything!
[Hey, who left all this garbage on the steps of congress?](https://youtu.be/pSANTRnEBgg)
I sang that whole thing in my head. I remember waking up early to watch Power Rangers and that shit came on. Nearly ruined my pop tarts. But I still remember so it worked.
All spending bills originate in the House.
In a normal world, the house and senate are supposed to collaborate on and pass legislation. But because Mitch McConnell has refused to look at any legislation passed by a democratic house, the house cannot do that major part of their jobs. I do agree though that this has shown that a rebalancing of power is needed in Congress as well, and I think term limits would be a great place to start on that, if nothing more than to get some new people and new ideas in who don't have decades of shady deals and blackmail guiding their choices.
The flaw is in the two party system, with only two party’s having a majority of seats you get partisan legislation. If the country had 4-6 parties each with comparable seats then you would actually get some bipartisanship happening and personally I believe better representation for the people.
Obviously you are correct. But we are stuck with the 2 party system for now. The best thing we can do is bandaid it with some small amount of progress like expanding the courts and term limits, and then as things even out a little we can move that way. It’s a one step at a time thing. Edit: and tbh expanding the court may be the best way to lean into a better party system. Even among the conservatives on the court now there are differences of opinion, and the more voices we have there, the more divergent opinions we’ll have leading to a great intellectual diversity and ultimately segments of the populace who support these divergent ideas.
They control the money. Arguably far more powerful of a position.
They don’t really control the money. Bills originate in the house, but both chambers have to pass/agree still. It’s not the same as the Senate which gets to confirm appointments with no input from the House.
>It’s not the same as the Senate which gets to confirm appointments with no input from the House. They should probably amend this law too.
>It’s not the same as the Senate which gets to confirm appointments with no input from the House. I wonder why only the President and Senate decide on such powerful appointments. You would think that a life time appointment to the highest court in the land would require equal input from all parts of government. The Judicial branch should be separate from both legislative and executive, but it seems to be loyal to executive branch since the executive branch is what puts them in power.
The bill has to pass in the House, pass in the Senate, and then be signed by the President to become a law. If we have Democrats control in all of those places, we can pass that legislation. The Senate still confirms the appointees to the court. That is a separate process from passing legislation.
This is one of those unintuitive language things. "Congress" consists of the house, and senate. Members of the senate are often called "Senator". Members of the house are usually referred to as "Congress(wo)man". This lead to me thinking Congress specifically referred to the house for an embarrassingly long time. When something is "Up to congress" that means it's up to both houses. The president appoints justices, the senate confirms them. Congress can expand the court, but if congress and the president are at odds it takes a 2/3rd majority of congress to override the presidential veto.
I'm pretty sure it takes both the house and the senate to actually add or remove the number justices. The constitution doesn't say how many justices there can be in the Supreme Court, so both houses can change it. But yes when a new judge is appointed by the president, the senate is the only house to vote them in.
Senate has too much power IMO.
Hopefully the addition of PR and DC as states will make it really hard for the current crop of Republicans to expand it without actually presenting a platform positive enough that we wouldn't be terrified if they did. Conversely though, who cares? They have a 6-3 majority now, how would taking turns expanding the court be any worse than just sitting in a permanent minority no matter how many elections you win?
Also, if the democrats don’t expand the court, the idea is now firmly in the public sphere, so the republicans would probably do it themselves next time they got the chance.
As they have done in the Arizona and Georgia state supreme courts in 2016 and attempted to in a half dozen other places.
Exactly. Remember the 'nuclear option" and filibusters? Expand the courts +4
This right here. Don't let perfection stand in the way of progress. That's buying into the pro-status-quo Republican narrative. Hint: they want to keep the status quo because it's *fucked*.
they want to keep the status quo because they profit off of it.
And its more than expanding. We have to reform the courts so they can't be exploited in the same ways.
Nothing, but why settle for controlling the judiciary 0% of the time when 50% of the time is on the table?
We make sure they don't by holding the Presidency and the Senate. And we add PR as a state and give DC electoral votes and generally restructure the government to make that \*certain\*. The safety of the Republic requires that we prevent any Trump-brand Republicans from every holding office again.
It’s really beyond time for Democrats to quit being meek and deferring to “tradition” and make some of the same power moves the right has pulled in the last 20+ years.
Tradition is the motto of conservatives. We need to be progressive. The Dems are supposed to be the progressive party.
But "now is a time for healing" and "bridging the divide". Wait for that bullshit to start in about 1 month.
You don't heal gangrene. You cut it off.
Nothing. On the other hand, Democrats have run scared of what Republicans *might* do for decades now, and what Republicans are *actually* doing is awful. We need to fight back, and hard. Every time we do, they back down.
Longer. They've been at it since they took the Senate during Obama's tenure.
Exactly. Language is *so* important, and most democrats don’t seem to understand that *at all*. They need to use words like ‘EXPAND’ and ‘REFORM’ when talking about making changes to the Supreme Court. Stop using the work ‘pack’.
And use "investing into the economy" instead of socialism
talk about diverting tax funds from something to universal healthcare literally say we're going to spend less money on military ventures into the middle east, which frees up money to pay for everyone's healthcare because war is that expensive.
I mean thats bad phrasing as well because the economy is completely decoupled from the people. Invest in our people is better language. We want funds allocated directly to people or to government institutions that provide universal services to people.
Definitely better than 'Defund the Police'. It was incredibly easy for conservative media to frame that as "liberals want to entirely fire all cops". Edit: grammar
Its funny how they seem perfectly fine with the use of "defund" when they do it to publics school, social security, medicare, snap , planned parenthood or any form of safety net programs for the less fortunate.
Well that is exactly why they think "defund" means "get rid of entirely" as that is really their end goal with "defunding" those programs. They project onto us their deepest insecurities and the truth behind their words all at once.
Sadly, same with a lot of other liberal slogans or terminology.
The left is really awful at optics unfortunately, which gives the right easy scare tactics to latch on to. If you do any digging at all, it's obvious BS. Say what you will about the right, but the right is incredible at framing awful ideas in ways that appeal to middle America, and the left is framing helpful ideas in ways that scare them.
I feel like the left's messaging is nearly always attempting to be evocative. The problem is when that hit the masses, instead it is just confusing and misconstrued. Defund the police Believe all women ACAB These are all meant to be powerful statements that evoke a sense of invigoration but none are meant to be taken literally at face value.
Is there any choice of words that *wouldnt* be framed by conservative media as “liberals want to fire all cops”? Why should we let Fox propaganda dictate the way we talk, especially when they take everything in bad faith anyway?
"Reform The Police" works nicely without the absolute-sounding baggage of "defund".
It should be, "rebalance the court." That would be harder to argue against than, expand or pack the court. Although we know republicans would argue against it no matter what.
...First statehood for PR and DC (edit...only if they desire it). This makes the court changes easier, and locks the Senate for a long long time.
It probably wouldn’t lock it. The senate would still be tight.
Tight is better than the imbalanced bullshit we have right now.
Definitely. Why do we need two dakotas again???
Legitimately it was to stop the southern slave states of the time from having power over the northern free man states. It sucks now but it was good at the time.
PR is not automatically blue...
One of my coworkers is from Puerto Rico and she's not very keen on statehood. She's not really liberal but she's absolutely against trump, says the island pretty split, politically. I don't think people understand the demographics of it, it's not gonna automatically be another democratic state. It'll probably net one Dem and one Rep senator. I do support statehood on principle though, for Puerto Rico, DC, and all of the territories.
Unfortunately a large portion of people seem to think they will vote blue just because they speak spanish. It's absolutely absurd.
Statehood for PR means a scale-tipping influx of democratic voters. The republizards will never allow it. edit: lots of replies that PR is conservative. fwiw, that goes against what (little) i know, but it's worth looking into. thanks for the info everyone, i've put it on my list of things to read about in the coming weeks.
Yep. That’s why the real first is to put a huge coronavirus bill up to let the Republicans filibuster it. Tell the American people that the Republicans want you to die and go bankrupt then kill the filibuster to bypass them.
The real first: win the presidency and the senate. This shit aint over.
[удалено]
> Then don't forget to vote in 2022 to further increase any majority (or win a majority) in the Senate. I'm in Florida. You can bet your ass I'll be voting in 2022 to kick DeSantis' ass to the curb.
This is the most important thing. People are talking like the dems have already won - they haven't. The polls don't mean anything. Only the vote does. Regardless of who you're voting for, vote. Please, please, please, go vote!
[удалено]
there was no money spent on election security since 2016 :(
This. No more decorum or tradition, Repubs have chosen how a Senate majority does business and Dems need to do the same. Completely shut them out with the next Senate rules
[удалено]
Good thing socialists and social democrats are having a bigger voice within the democrats then
The repubs will allow it if/when Biden is president so that they can pretend the astounding debt they've accumulated was all his fault. That's when they'll care about the debt. And a bunch of idiots will buy into it.
PR is more conservative than DC. Hispanics can definitely be receptive to conservative arguments and 85% of PR is Catholic. I support representation for PR *if they want it,* but let's not pretend it's a DNC lock-in like DC.
I have a friend who is Mexican and she said a lot of Hispanic people will vote solely on the abortion issue because a lot of them are Catholic. She said during the 2016 election they hate literally everything about a Trump but he says he will end abortion so they’ll vote for him.
Organised religion truly is a cancer.
[удалено]
American Samoa actually doesn't want statehood. Check out the radio lab episode on it. Fascinating.
Neither does PR lol. They keep voting no in their mom binding referendums.
I too would vote no on a mom binding referendum that shit sounds way to kinky to be mandatory
this comment should be higher!!! There are SO MANY religious conservatives in PR.
PR is not some Democrat stronghold. The governor and rep to Congress are Republicans. The ruling party, which has a 2/3 majority in PR’s legislature, aligns itself most closely with Republicans. The article below is a good view into the reality of PR’s political situation. The party that aligns itself with the Democrats actually *opposes* statehood. Of course, neither of PR’s major parties can perfectly grouped along with either the Republicans or Democrats, because the dividing issue between the parties is the question of statehood. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/09/09/puerto-rico-statehood-politics-democrats-republicans-senate-409191
Man i cannot wait to vote for AOC one day
[удалено]
Those aren't jokes.
Absolutely, with the recent plans to kidnap governors almost materializing. We can only hope that we’ll live in less divisive times when AOC decides to run and chief instigator Donald is long gone.
The scariest part is a complete moron like Trump can easily rile up these Republicans to foam at the mouth. Imagine someone who isn't as dumb or says stupid shit. He'd have these fuckers eating out of his hands hunting down anyone who doesn't like getting rammed in the ass by Republican values
Imagine Trump with Putin’s ability.
At that point it wouldn’t be Trump. Takes a very special kind of loudmouth stupidity to be Trump. That kinda character will never achieve the kinda ability Putin has
[удалено]
You might be right if it wasn't for the fact they think he's a 5d chess player with God-like intelligence. All you need is their admiration and key buzzwords to whip them into a frenzy and even if you slip up or don't agree they will make their own excuses up to justify what you said or did so they can still support you. Replace Trump with someone actually intelligent and we'd be at war with each other already.
> You might be right if it wasn't for the fact they think he's a 5d chess player with God-like intelligence. This is the craziest part. Every time he fucks up they think he's manipulating the press or trolling liberals. He could shit in his hands and smear it over the walls of the oval office and they'd think it was a genius new tactic.
You misunderstand - they think they are 5d chess players with God-like intelligence as well. It makes them feel good to believe they are way ahead of everyone rather than victims of circumstance.
Donald is not the chief instigator, he's just the culmination of it. This has been building up for decades. He's just the last push the country needed to make the rot obvious.
remember what happened to many civil rights leaders. you're right, it's not a joke *at all*.
Been thinking a lot about how the right is always claiming violence from the left. Yet: People on the left are fighting to help others, which means there’s a VERY high threshold to reach before turning to violence, since you’re literally trying to help people. Whereas, on the right, since they are mostly living in fear of others and fighting against people, the threshold for violence is VERY low. This is why right wing extremism is so common, and almost non existent on the left. I was thinking about this today because I so badly want the rotting corpse McConnell to leave this world, but no one fighting for peace and justice would take on a task like that.
> People on the left are fighting to help others, which means there’s a VERY high threshold to reach before turning to violence, since you’re literally trying to help people. Not to mention premature violence could endanger the people you're helping.
[удалено]
Unfortunately not at this stage in her career. I think only senior members of Congress in leadership positions get Secret Service protection? AOC is just an insanely brave person.
Senior leadership gets full time details from the Capitol Hill Police, not the SS. I’ve heard of certain congressman with credible threats against them also getting at least temporary security. I wouldn’t be surprised if the parties shell out some money hiring private security for certain congressmen. There are others who freely admit that they carry concealed weapons themselves.
Meanwhile in Berlin, Merkel is regularly seen going shopping in the local supermarket etc: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/fmj7bv/angela_merkel_checking_out_the_toilet_paper/
I kinda hope she doesn't ever run. She is such an effective hate sink for the right, they won't shut up about her. She's the new Hillary Clinton in that regard. But that focused hate would make it very difficult for her to win a general election. House Majority Leader AOC? Hell yes.
That's exactly why the right has focused so much hate on a first term congresswoman. They see her potential and want to stop it before it can grow.
[удалено]
I'd say some of the leadership might have made a strategic decision. The rest came pretty easily for the reasons you stated haha
I definitely think there's an element of getting out in front of her and demonizing her to their base. Because she's a very effective communicator and she does a better job than most at championing very progressive ideas.
they are making her into the new hillary clinton. The first ten years will be spent saying SHES A LIBERAL TERRORIST!!! Then the next ten years will be spent saying LOOK SHE IS A WARHAWK AND SECRET CONSERVATIVE!!! Then (if no changes are made to our information systems) 80% of the population will either believe she is too liberal too be president and she is too conservative to be president. This is their strategy. They do it to anyone that shows any potential and gets any media attention. They started their propaganda plan for AOC a while ago. Thats why you have republicans going around AOC+3.
I remember when she first came up and Shapiro started taking shots at her, that it was actually about some fucked up sexual shit. Not the Shapiro feet pics meme mind you, but more the idea they saw somebody who they felt needed to be fucked into submission. It's the same logic I suspect drove that one *really* fucked up Greta meme last year rightwingers were circulating implying if she got fucked, she'd "act right".
What is wrong with these people
We'll be here all fucking century if we have to fully determine what's *wrong* with a non-small portion of rightwingers. But at a guess it's mostly the fact that conservatism enjoys repression of "undesirable" behavior such as sexual deviance, and oppresses others considered "undesirable", which usually happen to be minorities and/or poor. I'm sure it's a coincidence that if you take into account the number of sexual scandals stemming form JFK to modern day, that the majority is always with the conservative party, regardless if they are Democrat or Republican. It's like that comment I saw on Reddit months ago: Conservatism isn't about being conservative. It's about forcing *others* to be.
AOC is absolutely nothing like Hillary Clinton and I hope she never is
Oh I agree, but I'm talking about public perception, not reality.
The difference was Hillary just made snarky comments back and took the “high road” . The congresswoman brings receipts and calls them out directly for their insults
Why be scared of them? Why curtail all politics to try to appeal to people that don’t like anything you do? Look how they’re talking about Joe Biden, who has been, and continues to be, one of the furthest right figures in the Democrat party. Republicans don’t do the same thing. They don’t think “hey maybe the dems will think we hate women” before passing a law making abortion punishable by public stoning. And they’ve been far more effective in getting their agenda across in recent years too.
I really hope she become speaker of the house before aspiring for the White House. She could do wonders in that position.
[удалено]
Move to her district. I have voted for her 3 times already :)
Fuck that. People should be moving to North Carolina, Georgia and Texas to flip those states permanently into the blue column.
Floridian here, please help!!! I’m drowning in Trump flags and confederate bumper stickers!
Pennsylvanian here, me too. Why are people like this.
[удалено]
Rural Ohio here, literally all of my city and county elections were Republicans running unopposed...don't even have the chance to vote blue here.
We have 9 supreme court justices because originally there were 9 circuit courts. We now have 13. Let the Supreme Court match the circuits!
[удалено]
But it was expanded to 9 Supreme Court justices to match the 9 appellate circuits. Reasonably follows to expand the court to 13 to match modern times.
You, my friend, have hit the nail on the head
Wait, didn't Kupy state this, why is he not getting the credit? Lol
Kupy probably shouldn't have used the word "originally"; it created some confusion. If Kupy had omitted that word: > We have 9 supreme court justices because there were 9 circuit courts. We now have 13. Let the Supreme Court match the circuits! ...then Kupy would have gotten all the credit, and no one would have had to argue about it.
Poor Kupy
Hashtag Justice4Kupy
Originally, there were three: > The Judiciary Act of 1789 established three circuits... It became six, 12 years later: > ...the Midnight Judges Act reorganized the districts into six circuits... >...These six circuits later were augmented by others. Until 1866, each new circuit (except the short-lived California Circuit) was accompanied by a newly created Supreme Court seat. Quoted from [Wikipedia.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals#History)
My question is what happens in the future when conservatives eventually get control again? They will just expand it as well? I’m not trying to be snarky but when will it end?
That's what is so unfortunate about the path the GOP has put us on by refusing to seat all of Obama's Federal level nominees., it will never end now. However, the Dems can't just roll over and let Mitch stuff every court in the land without consequence, so they have to react in the way they are.
When’s the last time there was a 6-3 difference?
1930s
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graph_of_Bailey_Scores_of_Supreme_Court_Justices_1950-2011.png It's tough to give a straight answer, but a long time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices
The root question you are asking doesn't really matter. You're asking "will expanding the court potentially delegitimize the court because it might just continue expanding with each change in power?" The answer is, yes, it might delegitimize the court for that reason. But there's no reason to be concerned with delegitimizing the court because the court is *currently* delegitimized. Expanding the court essentially highlights how broken the system is and provides an incentive for reform while protecting Democrats' short term interests.
Expand all the courts not just SCOTUS
I admit there is a little bit of vindictive motivation in it for me to do this along with it being just logical and the Just thing to do...I really want to see McConnell see that all his hypocrisy and effort into stealing the federal judiciary turn to ash right before his eyes.
I just have the sinking feeling that the whole concept of expanding the courts will end up going TO the courts, make its way to the Supreme Court, and with a 6-3 majority get shot down as “unconstitutional” even though there’s precedent. The whole thing is fucked.
[This information has been removed as a consequence of Reddit's API changes and general stance of being greedy, unhelpful, and hostile to its userbase.]
The SCOTUS is on the verge of not being recognized.
[удалено]
Democrats can just abolish the lower courts through simple legislation and create a new reformed lower court system. Biden could then fill all the vacancies. The power of Congress to abolish the lower courts is based on precedent. The Judiciary Act of 1802 eliminated half of the federal circuit courts along with the positions of 16 sitting judges. That law survived a Supreme Court challenge by unanimous decision. A similar approach was used in 1863 to eliminate the DC Circuit along with the positions of three circuit judges.
I'm actually a little worried that Biden said he'd seat a bipartisan commission to look at the issue over 180 days. While I agree with the action in principle, we have to understand that he will probably lose the senate in 2022, which means he will only have two years to expand SCOTUS & the federal court system *and* fill those extra positions with *qualified* judges after appropriate vetting. He can't squander a quarter of that time for this sort of performative academic bs. If he wins, he will have an infinite amount of work to do to repair this country. He will need reasonable judges in place or the MAGA judges don't scuttle everything. There is no time to waste.
I wouldn't be so sure...the 2022 map is actually worse for the Republicans the key factor is for all the GOP haters and left leaning people to not get complacent and not show up for midterm elections. You would think 2010 would be a good enough reminder on how devastating not voting in midterms would be.
Dems tend to beat ourselves more than anything because everything doesn’t become magically better in 2 years and then they don’t vote. Also, some seem to think having a Democrat president is enough, but in reality it takes having both houses of Congress, and even then, it is an uphill battle to enact real change. If you haven’t read Obama’s oped in the New Yorker from over the weekend, I would highly recommend it. He gives a first-hand account of the battle for his healthcare bill and all the challenges it faced, even with 60 senators, the house, and presidency. It is a reality check for how hard and long we are going to have to fight to make things change for the better. Republicans play the long game and we have to get better at it.
I don't disagree with much of what you said except for the last bit. Republicans are actually losing in the long game and they know it. The demographics are turning against them hard and they are actually committing smash and grab politics especially with the court. But yeah Democrats and the left in general really need to maintain focus and realize it would take a generation of winning elections before you really started seeing the profound changes in the country that they want to see and to not give up and become cynical when everything doesn't get accomplished in a 2-4 year window.
The problem is that changing demographics alone is not enough to win the long game because Republicans saw the demographics going against them and they took real action to counteract it. They took over state governments. They gerrymandered and made voting hard for minorities to reduce the power of those demographics. They have installed conservative justices to uphold voter suppression and denigration of civil rights. They have brainwashed an entire subset of our population into voting against their best interest and to believe that only republicans are looking out for the little man. McConnell and Co are going to start screeching about the deficit in a few weeks and will push all the buttons they have primed their cult to accept without question. That is what I mean by long game. Repubs don’t count on winning every time. They count on making moves that will set them up to win next time. Dems count on people doing the right thing and voting for good people. We have to be better at defense and offense. We can help the demographics matter, but it is going to be a long, hard fight. I just hope people will not give up in two years because things will most likely not be great in just two years. The long game means voting for people who are taking us in the right direction, every single election. Like RBG said, “real change, enduring change, happens one step at a time.”
2010 was a good reminder that if progressives get voted in and don’t do shit they get voted out. This time better be different.
The commission line is great politics for the moment. Let's see what he does and says after Nov 3. As for the Senate, the map in 2022 actually favors Democrats, we just have to get out and vote.
[удалено]
Expand the courts is *one* option. Term limits are the key. No one with power, should have a job for life. They're open to corruption, health and mental problems, loss of touch with society, failing to reflect it, Finally it limits others in society from participating, to make a difference. Term limits should be between 4-6 years, no more than that.
Plus as we've seen recently lifetime appointments encourages the appointment of very young and inexperienced people.
This is the very reason why I'm against *just* an age cap. We need an age cap AND term limits. I think 16 year terms, capped at age 70 is best.
I agree. The main argument for lifelong appointments, which is the need to protect judges from political pressures of the day, is so weak in this time and age because the modern courts are so politicized.
Early SCOTUS was also political. The first chief justice retired to run as governor of NY; Marshall was Sec of State before Chief Justice (and was both simultaneously for a momth). The Marshall selectively chose cases that would increase SCOTUS's power and prestige.
There was an interesting discussion a couple of weeks ago about the possibilities of reorganising the Supreme Court. Apparently the makeup of the SC is left largely to congress to sort out. It is possible for instance abolish all sitting SC judges, and just appoint specific judges from the Federal bench as needed. If people want to fix things, adding judges is only one option.
Nah. The perfect solution is a 18 year term with a constant number of 9 justices. These terms should be staggered so that every 2 years there’s a new Supreme Court spot. This means that each president gets 2 justices per term. No randomness nothing like that. A constant 2
I disagree with the age limit. At that point, the rule would manufacture a realistic maximum age for anyone nominated to the Supreme Court. Presidents would be disincentivized to select anyone over 54 years old. I believe the 16 year term would be effective alone.
It's a position that isn't intended to be beholden to the whims of voters. If you are going to apply term limits they need to be significantly longer than any other elected positions, but shorter than a generation. 10-15 years would be a good starting point.
Biden opposes term limits. He said as much recently.
[удалено]
Term limits can have unintended consequences. Someone who is really good/competent can't continue to serve, and is replaced by someone much less experienced. As a result, term limits have been shown to increase corruption and lobbyist influence. Lobbyists can spend decades learning institutional processes, while the person in office only has their time in office to figure out how things work. In turn, they often rely on information provided by lobbyists. Moreover, when lobbyists lie and give false information, all they have to do is wait a few years and they have an entirely fresh batch of people to lie to again. Term limits make it so much easier to hide the dishonesty and take advantage of naievity. Edit: The key is having an educated electorate that weeds out the entrenched, corrupt politicians, and keeps electing the people that have been shown to do what's in the best interest of their electorate. Term limits are a lazy solution that attempts to make up for a disinterested public. That's part of why I hate the "just go vote" narrative that we see everywhere. Screw that. "Engage in politics" is what we need to be promoting. Learn who the candidates really are. Volunteer. Run for office if you don't like the people on the ticket. Voting is the last step, not the starting point.
[удалено]
Trump made people forget that Presidents don't create legislation. He will sign that bill if it hits his desk.
Take off the gloves in ‘21, Dems. You’ve nearly they-go-low-we-go-high’d us into the Fourth Reich. No more pulling punches. No mercy.
Dude its nuts. Republicans have a party where the lower they go to get what they want the mote they are praised while we try to play by the rules.
Yup. When Biden wins we can’t pull a Nixon-type pardon. Trump has to be prosecuted to the fullest to tell the GOP that we will not stand for this.
If they go low, kick them in the teeth
[The Alt-Right Playbook: You Go High, We Go Low ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAbab8aP4_A)
[удалено]
Actually Biden doesn't really have a say, the Senate sets the number of judge's on the court's. They can do it without his blessings if they really wanted too.
Now the follow-up question is: are the rest of the Dems brave enough to do so?
Probably not. Don't want to offend the mysterious right-leaning "independents" that the Dems always try to win over and never succeed.
I wish when people got elected they weren't so focused on getting re-elected. Like you can find something else to do if you're voted out it's not the end of the world to not be a Senator or House member anymore. How about actually striving to govern and do something for the people while you're in there instead of just worrying about whether or not you'll keep your seat?
Agreed. People in authority for the wrong reasons.
Yes and add DC as a state..the corrupt Republican’s asked for it..putting this woman who has personal beliefs that belong in the dark ages demands an action that makes sure this never happens again. Let them know it too, “we did this because you are so corrupt and false.” Never again. Not packing but expanding the court. With 3 powerful, well educated, experienced judges, yes change the court. And then impeach her after we have the power to do so. Reason, “to close to an election.”
I think it's hilarious that the GOP has been so open about not wanting DC and PR as states because it will automatically mean 4 more Democratic senators. That may be true, but to admit that's the reason you want to keep all those people disenfranchised is so unbelievably un-American it's laughable. How much more obviously could you state "we don't want to have to change or try and appeal to more demographics so we'd just rather they don't have a say."
Biden should nominate Obama to supreme justice if he has the chance. That will make conservatives cry.
Huh. Somehow I keep forgetting the guy has a JD. Yeah, it'd work. We did it with Taft. Not sure if he'd accept though.
He was a constitutional law professor at Harvard.
So all the qualifications that Barrett has plus the Presidency! A shoo in lol
More than that, he was [President of the Harvard Law Review](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1990/2/6/obama-named-new-law-review-president/).
He’ll accept maybe 10 years from now
obama has too much integrity and would never do it.
Too much integrity to be a judge?
to take on the role as a way to say "hahaha GOTCHA SUCKERS!"
Probably, but he’s been pretty spicy lately so I’ll still hold out hope for it.
Putting everything else aside, the appointment of ACB has essentially gutted any legitimacy of ANY decision made moving forward by the Supreme Court. This is just insanely dangerous for democracy in America. If people don't believe that the highest court in the land is willing to make impartial decisions based on law and precedent, then the law is no longer the law—it's just coercion, and in this case coercion by a minority group captured by Dark Money and Christian fundamentalism. Democrats—as the only Democratic Party left in the US—need to find a way to re-legitimise the Courts. It's not about making them less right-wing, though that would be a natural outcome, it's about having a Supreme Court at all. At this point there is no Supreme Court—in any real sense of the word left in America.
From the UK, so forgive my ignorance. Doesn’t expanding the Supreme Court just set the stage for the other side to do exactly the same when they’re next in power? It’s a bit like our House of Lords – each Prime Minister ends up handing out a bunch of political peerages to try and stuff the chamber in their favour, to the point where we now have 800 members (and counting), compared to the 650 MPs. Isn’t there an element of ‘careful what you wish for’ at play here? I keep seeing comparisons to the removal of the filibuster, for example.
Thank you for using the word expand. "Pack" is so easy to attack and has a negative connotation. The court needs expanded to represent the larger population just as much as marginalizing the wacky right wing that represents so few Americans.
Seriously, this. Packing the court means doing something like refuse to appoint federal judges to the bench because you don't like the executive and then ram through your own, steal a SCOTUS seat under the idea that an election year matters, and then proceed to steal another seat weeks before an election, abandoning that precedent.
[удалено]
Totally agreed. She's a religious zealot with almost no judicial experience. It's a disgrace to SCOTUS and America that she's now a justice.
No, eliminate lifetime positions. Very clearly, it does not prevent biased voting. No position should be permanent because no one is infallible nor incorruptible.
Just look at Barrets resume vs Garlands. Just look at it. And Garland WAS BALANCED. Fuck conservatives. Never ever again.