I think Republicans are still going to ram this through, but at least it gives Dems a reason to increase the size of the SC in 2020 when they have the WH and both houses of Congress.
I think Republicans are still going to ram this through, but at least it gives Dems a reason to increase the size of the SC in 2020 when they have the WH and both houses of Congress.
"the protracted legislative battle over the Court-packing bill blunted the momentum for additional reforms, divided the New Deal coalition, squandered the political advantage Roosevelt had gained in the 1936 elections, and gave fresh ammunition to those who accused him of dictatorship, tyranny, and fascism. When the dust settled, FDR had suffered a humiliating political defeat at the hands of Chief Justice Hughes and the administration's Congressional opponents
That was in 1935 when FDR had just started his administration. Circumstances are pretty different now. If we were in a different situation, and not following the wildly (and increasingly)...
That was in 1935 when FDR had just started his administration. Circumstances are pretty different now. If we were in a different situation, and not following the wildly (and increasingly) unpopular dumpster fire of the Trump administration then it wouldn't necessarily be a possibility. However we are in extraordinary circumstances and extraordinary solutions are required.
Eliminating the filibuster was the only way to get anything done in the face of extraordinary Republican obstructionism. They had changed the rules previously so that to do a filibuster only...
Eliminating the filibuster was the only way to get anything done in the face of extraordinary Republican obstructionism. They had changed the rules previously so that to do a filibuster only required requesting time, the senator or representative didn't even have to speak. Were you aware of that or just ignoring it to try and make a point?
I think their point was simply that now what was used as to tool by the Democrats to "get anything done in the face of extraordinary Republican obstructionism" is now being used against them.
I think their point was simply that now what was used as to tool by the Democrats to "get anything done in the face of extraordinary Republican obstructionism" is now being used against them.
Yet another instance of changing the rules for partisan ends leading to poor outcomes for the nation... Which is exactly what you suggest.
They had changed the rules previously so that to do a filibuster only required requesting time, the senator or representative didn't even have to speak.
Yet another instance of changing the rules for partisan ends leading to poor outcomes for the nation... Which is exactly what you suggest.
My goodness, but what if the Whigs come to power and pack it! What other technology from the 1870s do we use unchanged today? I am surprised it's even controversial to suggest that perhaps the...
My goodness, but what if the Whigs come to power and pack it!
What other technology from the 1870s do we use unchanged today?
I am surprised it's even controversial to suggest that perhaps the body that makes the final decision on all national legislation should be more than 9 people. Don't even get me started on lifetime appointments.
I don't think expanding the supreme court is particularly controversial. The controversial part is throwing out 149 years of stability to suggest expanding the court in bad faith. By that I mean...
I don't think expanding the supreme court is particularly controversial. The controversial part is throwing out 149 years of stability to suggest expanding the court in bad faith. By that I mean the suggestion to expand the court not because it will improve it but to help one side in politics.
How is it in bad faith, when for one I never suggested a method of expansion? Does anyone honestly think the Democrats would appoint anyone other than stale centrist corporatists and maybe a few...
How is it in bad faith, when for one I never suggested a method of expansion? Does anyone honestly think the Democrats would appoint anyone other than stale centrist corporatists and maybe a few very visibly minority, well-qualified individuals? Further, does anyone dispute that we are living in an era of bad faith governance? What do you call it when Clarence Thomas rules against a law his wife is being paid to lobby against? What else do you call the aborted Merrick Garland nomination? What else do you call probably-blackmailing Kennedy to step down? How is fixing this also in bad faith? What would you suggest? If the only winning move is not to play, then we need to drastically change the game.
The answer seems pretty obvious to me: expand the Supreme Court (at least 27, but the bigger the better IMO), with 15-20 year appointments, and a code of ethics that they have to follow or be removed from the court.
The mechanics of how the expansion should work is something we never even really got in to because of the knee-jerk reaction to preserve the status quo.
As an operational definition I defined bad faith as expanding the court for purely political purposes. Which was controversial and what I thought we were talking about. Or did I misunderstand your...
How is it in bad faith, when for one I never suggested a method of expansion?
As an operational definition I defined bad faith as expanding the court for purely political purposes. Which was controversial and what I thought we were talking about. Or did I misunderstand your initial reasonaing where you said.
I think Republicans are still going to ram this through, but at least it gives Dems a reason to increase the size of the SC in 2020 when they have the WH and both houses of Congress.
I interpreted this as you wanting Democrats to pack the supreme court to dilute the power of the conservative justices trump appointed. If that's not what you meant I think we need to clarify why the democrats would need to expand the supreme court.
As for the rest of your comment, if I thought your changes to the supreme court were good ideas (they seem reasonable). The contentious part is that once you start changing the rules you'll have to face the other side doing the same thing when they gain power. This creates instability and I think we want to avoid that as much as possible. Which means trying to preserve as many norms as we can. If the republicans have the power to destroy our institutions and norms so be it. But to fight that by doing the same thing is a mistake in my view.
If you are so in favor of adding more Justices, then surely you must support Trump adding 10 more justices right now? Oh wait, you only support it if it can help you achieve your political goals.
If you are so in favor of adding more Justices, then surely you must support Trump adding 10 more justices right now?
Oh wait, you only support it if it can help you achieve your political goals.
Well part of the reason is that it's a response to Trump's own bad faith governance, and the other part is that it would fix an outdated part of our government. It should be obvious why Trump...
Well part of the reason is that it's a response to Trump's own bad faith governance, and the other part is that it would fix an outdated part of our government. It should be obvious why Trump can't remedy his own bad faith governance, and I don't trust him to remedy outdated parts of our government. So no I wouldn't, and I don't think it's hypocritical either.
No, my suggestion is to fight this nomination (and let's be real, the next nominee after Kavanaugh) with every possible means. But once you start justifying changing the rules of the game in order...
No, my suggestion is to fight this nomination (and let's be real, the next nominee after Kavanaugh) with every possible means. But once you start justifying changing the rules of the game in order to benefit your side, you open yourself up to the other side doing the same, and degradation of political norms are a key part of the decline of a republic
I didn't mean to make that implication. Anyone who has watched this circus today cannot possibly come away with that impression. That said, I fail to see any circumstance where "Well, we don't...
You're implying that what's going on with the Supreme Court right now isn't also deeply damaging to American society
I didn't mean to make that implication. Anyone who has watched this circus today cannot possibly come away with that impression.
That said, I fail to see any circumstance where "Well, we don't like that the Supreme Court will remain conservative for decades so let's add X more judges (while we have control of the White House)" leads to anything positive for more than the time it takes for the Republicans to get back control and impeach or pack the court, or whatever -- hence, this isn't really a choice.
If the OP had said:
This is why the Democrats should implement term limits for all new appointees
Or
We should add many more judges, but make the selection process non-partisan
we wouldn't be arguing about this. But no, the idea proposed was a clear partisan power grab, which we know my feelings on.
I fear that we've entirely given up on legislative efforts -- want to make sure that abortion remains legal? Pass a constitutional amendment (or at the very least, a law) and make it so. Don't rely on decades old court rulings for things that are so important if they can be easily overturned.
I think Republicans are still going to ram this through, but at least it gives Dems a reason to increase the size of the SC in 2020 when they have the WH and both houses of Congress.
Yes, that's clearly a great idea that can't backfire in any meaningful way.
Such moves are generally so well received, what could possibly go wrong?
That was in 1935 when FDR had just started his administration. Circumstances are pretty different now. If we were in a different situation, and not following the wildly (and increasingly) unpopular dumpster fire of the Trump administration then it wouldn't necessarily be a possibility. However we are in extraordinary circumstances and extraordinary solutions are required.
Yes, circumstances are seemingly always extraordinary when they support your goals, and never backfire.
Eliminating the filibuster was the only way to get anything done in the face of extraordinary Republican obstructionism. They had changed the rules previously so that to do a filibuster only required requesting time, the senator or representative didn't even have to speak. Were you aware of that or just ignoring it to try and make a point?
I think their point was simply that now what was used as to tool by the Democrats to "get anything done in the face of extraordinary Republican obstructionism" is now being used against them.
Yet another instance of changing the rules for partisan ends leading to poor outcomes for the nation... Which is exactly what you suggest.
Has the Supreme Court always been nine judges?
No, the size was only fixed at 9 in 1869.
It's been at 9 justices for the last 149 years
My goodness, but what if the Whigs come to power and pack it!
What other technology from the 1870s do we use unchanged today?
I am surprised it's even controversial to suggest that perhaps the body that makes the final decision on all national legislation should be more than 9 people. Don't even get me started on lifetime appointments.
I don't think expanding the supreme court is particularly controversial. The controversial part is throwing out 149 years of stability to suggest expanding the court in bad faith. By that I mean the suggestion to expand the court not because it will improve it but to help one side in politics.
How is it in bad faith, when for one I never suggested a method of expansion? Does anyone honestly think the Democrats would appoint anyone other than stale centrist corporatists and maybe a few very visibly minority, well-qualified individuals? Further, does anyone dispute that we are living in an era of bad faith governance? What do you call it when Clarence Thomas rules against a law his wife is being paid to lobby against? What else do you call the aborted Merrick Garland nomination? What else do you call probably-blackmailing Kennedy to step down? How is fixing this also in bad faith? What would you suggest? If the only winning move is not to play, then we need to drastically change the game.
The answer seems pretty obvious to me: expand the Supreme Court (at least 27, but the bigger the better IMO), with 15-20 year appointments, and a code of ethics that they have to follow or be removed from the court.
The mechanics of how the expansion should work is something we never even really got in to because of the knee-jerk reaction to preserve the status quo.
As an operational definition I defined bad faith as expanding the court for purely political purposes. Which was controversial and what I thought we were talking about. Or did I misunderstand your initial reasonaing where you said.
I interpreted this as you wanting Democrats to pack the supreme court to dilute the power of the conservative justices trump appointed. If that's not what you meant I think we need to clarify why the democrats would need to expand the supreme court.
As for the rest of your comment, if I thought your changes to the supreme court were good ideas (they seem reasonable). The contentious part is that once you start changing the rules you'll have to face the other side doing the same thing when they gain power. This creates instability and I think we want to avoid that as much as possible. Which means trying to preserve as many norms as we can. If the republicans have the power to destroy our institutions and norms so be it. But to fight that by doing the same thing is a mistake in my view.
If you are so in favor of adding more Justices, then surely you must support Trump adding 10 more justices right now?
Oh wait, you only support it if it can help you achieve your political goals.
Well part of the reason is that it's a response to Trump's own bad faith governance, and the other part is that it would fix an outdated part of our government. It should be obvious why Trump can't remedy his own bad faith governance, and I don't trust him to remedy outdated parts of our government. So no I wouldn't, and I don't think it's hypocritical either.
So is your suggestion to like, let it go? Lol.
No, my suggestion is to fight this nomination (and let's be real, the next nominee after Kavanaugh) with every possible means. But once you start justifying changing the rules of the game in order to benefit your side, you open yourself up to the other side doing the same, and degradation of political norms are a key part of the decline of a republic
I didn't mean to make that implication. Anyone who has watched this circus today cannot possibly come away with that impression.
That said, I fail to see any circumstance where "Well, we don't like that the Supreme Court will remain conservative for decades so let's add X more judges (while we have control of the White House)" leads to anything positive for more than the time it takes for the Republicans to get back control and impeach or pack the court, or whatever -- hence, this isn't really a choice.
If the OP had said:
Or
we wouldn't be arguing about this. But no, the idea proposed was a clear partisan power grab, which we know my feelings on.
I fear that we've entirely given up on legislative efforts -- want to make sure that abortion remains legal? Pass a constitutional amendment (or at the very least, a law) and make it so. Don't rely on decades old court rulings for things that are so important if they can be easily overturned.
Don't put that devil curse on RBG man!
Long live RBG! -- I was thinking they would withdraw Kav after Ford's testimony... and then... yeah, that happened.
Lord knows where we're headed now.