Jump to content

Open Club  ·  42 members  ·  Free

OOB v2.0

House Democrats Revive Their Court-Packing Push


Muda69
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://reason.com/2022/07/20/house-democrats-revive-their-court-packing-push/

Quote

On Monday, eight House Democrats held a press conference on the Capitol steps to advocate for a court-packing scheme that would expand the number of U.S. Supreme Court justices from nice to 13, thus allowing President Biden to add four more judges to the court. Four more judges, it just so happens, is exactly the number Democrats need to overturn the Court's current 6-3 conservative majority.

The announcement comes in the wake of several Supreme Court decisions that have angered Democratic lawmakers and progressive activists. "Weeks after schoolchildren were massacred in Texas, they took away protections against gun violence," said Sara Lipton, the executive director of Take Back the Court Action Fund during Monday's press conference. "During the hottest summer on record, they made it harder for the EPA to combat climate change. And in a year where state houses across the country pushed hateful anti-trans legislation, the court eviscerated the boundary between church and state, opening the door to discrimination and violence."

 

Rep. Hank Johnson Jr. (D–Ga.) and the other speakers called for the passage of the court-packing Judiciary Act of 2021, which would expand the court to 13 justices. Johnson, a sponsor of the bill, said at the press conference that conservative Justice Clarence Thomas is a "74-year-old spry individual who's getting to the point where he wants to wreak his havoc on Americans," and that "you can see the gleam in [Samuel Alito's] eye as he thinks about what he wants to do to decimate the rights of people and put us back into the Dark Ages."

The bill is currently in the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet. According to The Hill, it is unlikely to go anywhere.

Court-packing advocates seldom acknowledge the downsides of expansion. As Reason Senior Editor Damon Root wrote in February 2021, "Court packing is a naked power grab and an attack on the independence of the judiciary. It is a tit-for-tat race to the bottom. One party expands the size of the bench for nakedly partisan purposes, so the other party does the same (or worse) as soon as it gets the chance."

On Monday, Bill Scher argued in Washington Monthly that court-packing is unlikely to lead to long-term success for Democrats. "Once you can breezily change Court composition on a partisan basis, you no longer have an independent judiciary," he wrote. "In other words, court-packing doesn't secure reproductive freedom. Over the long term, it only locks us in our current predicament, where our rights are subject to the whims of the electorate."

President Biden has yet to support packing the court, something Root noted in a 2021 article. Whether he knows where adding justices would eventually lead, the reality is that Democrats in Congress can protect unenumerated rights by writing and passing legislation. In fact, considerable effort has been made on that front since the release of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Trying to pack the Supreme Court is both a bad idea and a distraction. 

Agreed.  Just more theater from the Democratic side of the uni-party coin.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The claim could easily be made that the GOP packed the current court though. It's not as though the number of justices serving has been set in stone. If the point of expanding to 9 was to have one justice per federal circuit courts, then with the current 13 districts, it makes sense to match that, right? 

  • Thanks 2
  • Kill me now 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Irishman said:

The claim could easily be made that the GOP packed the current court though. It's not as though the number of justices serving has been set in stone. If the point of expanding to 9 was to have one justice per federal circuit courts, then with the current 13 districts, it makes sense to match that, right? 

How exactly did the GOP pack the court?  Was there some kind of nefarious GOP plot that resulted in justices resigning before they should have?

And then when the GOP is back in power they will come up with a reason that "makes sense" to increase the number of justices to 16-17.  

And around and around we go.  The complete and utter politicization of the SCOTUS will be complete.  And regular Americans will suffer as a result.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

How exactly did the GOP pack the court?  Was there some kind of nefarious GOP plot that resulted in justices resigning before they should have?

 

 

Seriously? Never figured you would become so partisan to only see one side in this instance, one that has been so obviously partisan.  

Merrick Garland ring a bell? Then to do the exact opposite with the Coney-Barrett nomination? 

Granted, RBG's gamble bit the democrats BIG time. She should have retired while Obama was President. 

What would be the justification for expanding the court beyond the number of federal districts? What is the justification for having fewer justices than districts? The reality is that it will be viewed as stacking by the opposing side. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Irishman said:

Seriously? Never figured you would become so partisan to only see one side in this instance, one that has been so obviously partisan.  

Merrick Garland ring a bell? Then to do the exact opposite with the Coney-Barrett nomination? 

Granted, RBG's gamble bit the democrats BIG time. She should have retired while Obama was President. 

What would be the justification for expanding the court beyond the number of federal districts? What is the justification for having fewer justices than districts? The reality is that it will be viewed as stacking by the opposing side. 

Yes, seriously.  Are you saying that a democrat POTUS and his handlers would choose less partisan candidates for a justice?

And there is no non-political justification for expanding the court beyond it's current size. This is just the democratic side of the Uni-Party coin crying and stamping their feet.

 

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Yes, seriously.  Are you saying that a democrat POTUS and his handlers would choose less partisan candidates for a justice?

And there is no non-political justification for expanding the court beyond it's current size. This is just the democratic side of the Uni-Party coin crying and stamping their feet.

 

 

Who was picked was NOT the point at all. My point, which I figured was REALLY obvious was that McConnell refused to hold hearings for Garland because he felt the incoming President should pick the next nominee. Trump was on his way out, but he did not wait to hold the hearings for Coney Barrett. Really disappointed I had to spell that out. 

And yes, there actually is justification for expanding the court, as I explained earlier........crazy how one sided you have become now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Irishman said:

Who was picked was NOT the point at all. My point, which I figured was REALLY obvious was that McConnell refused to hold hearings for Garland because he felt the incoming President should pick the next nominee. Trump was on his way out, but he did not wait to hold the hearings for Coney Barrett. Really disappointed I had to spell that out. 

Just uni-party politics.  Why are you surprised? What is disappointing is that you really believe Democrats would have done it differently if the tables were turned and they were the ones holding the cards at that particular moment.

 

2 hours ago, Irishman said:

And yes, there actually is justification for expanding the court, as I explained earlier........crazy how one sided you have become now. 

And what good would expanding the supreme court actually do in the long run, Irishman?  It would be just a long spiral into irrelevancy for the SCOTUS.  Is that what you want?  

And as for me being one sided, if primarily being a constitutional originalist makes me so then I'm guilty as charged.

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Just uni-party politics.  Why are you surprised? What is disappointing is that you really believe Democrats would have done it differently if the tables were turned and they were the ones holding the cards at that particular moment.

 

And what good would expanding the supreme court actually do in the long run, Irishman?  It would be just a long spiral into irrelevancy for the SCOTUS.  Is that what you want?  

And as for me being one sided, if primarily being a constitutional originalist makes me so then I'm guilty as charged.

  

I never said they would have. Wasting time on hypotheticals here is pointless. My comments are based solely on what has actually happened. 
I have explained multiple times what expansion would do….bring in line the number of federal districts with the number of justices. 
 

Being an “originalist” is a joke. Do you mean the one the States originally ratified? When slavery was legal, but slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person? Did not allow women to vote? Or after slavery was made illegal? after white women were given the right to vote? Or when minority women being able to vote? 
 

Or does each originalist just get to pick and choose which amendments matter and which ones don’t? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Irishman said:

I never said they would have. Wasting time on hypotheticals here is pointless. My comments are based solely on what has actually happened. 
I have explained multiple times what expansion would do….bring in line the number of federal districts with the number of justices. 
 

And why is that such a preferred situation?  Do you have links explaining it?

23 minutes ago, Irishman said:

Being an “originalist” is a joke. Do you mean the one the States originally ratified? When slavery was legal, but slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person? Did not allow women to vote? Or after slavery was made illegal? after white women were given the right to vote? Or when minority women being able to vote? 
 

Or does each originalist just get to pick and choose which amendments matter and which ones don’t? 

Educate yourself, educator:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism#:~:text=October 2020),the time it was adopted".

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/white-papers/on-originalism-in-constitutional-interpretation

https://ces.sdsu.edu/sites/default/files/cc04-constitutionaloriginalist.pdf

https://time.com/5670400/justice-neil-gorsuch-why-originalism-is-the-best-approach-to-the-constitution/

 

  • Kill me now 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3541613-biden-was-right-expanding-the-supreme-court-is-a-boneheaded-idea/

Quote

The demand has been a staple of media interviews since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last week: Expand the Supreme Court! 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.): “I believe we need to get some confidence back in our court and that means we need more justices on the United States Supreme Court.”

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.): “We can expand the court. Codify rights. And move America forward again.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.): “Not only should we look at expanding the Supreme Court, but I think we need to acknowledge that the Supreme Court of the United States has very few checks and balances.”

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.): “Again, I ask my colleagues in the Senate what other judicial outrage must we endure from the illegitimate, far-right majority on the Supreme Court before we act? Fight back and expand the Court now.”

So, what kind of expansion are we talking about? Try moving from nine judges, which has been in place for 150 years, to 13 judges. Why 13 judges? Because if a Democratic president adds four justices, the 6-3 conservative-to-liberal balance of the court will likely become a 7-6 advantage for the blue team.

But have Democrats really thought this thing through? Because let’s say four justices are added while Democrats control the House, Senate and White House. What does anyone think would happen when Republicans take back the House and likely the Senate after the midterms? The GOP would likely expand the 13-seat court to 17 seats, thus reestablishing a three-seat majority with a 10-7 court. Perhaps down the road Democrats will counter by expanding the court to 21 seats. And before you know it, the Supreme Court will resemble an NFL roster. 

Of course, very few journalists have bothered to present this scenario when lawmakers make these kinds of declarations on television. Perhaps the performance theater, and the prospect of going viral on social media, is too tempting to interrupt. 

This road has been traveled before when Democrats controlled all of D.C., and it failed spectacularly despite Democrats having far greater majorities in the House and a popular president. 

The date was February 5, 1937, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced his proposal to expand the Supreme Court. The reasons are similar to those today’s Democrats are talking about: Decisions by the 1937 court, which was decidedly conservative and thereby rejected key components of the New Deal, simply could not stand. So, FDR decided the only way to get what he wanted legislatively was to expand the court to 15 justices

“This plan of mine is not attacking of the court; it seeks to restore the court to its rightful and historic place in our system of constitutional government and to have it resume its high task of building anew on the Constitution ‘a system of living law.’ The court itself can best undo what the court has done,” Roosevelt said during one of his famous fireside chats. Roosevelt also claimed the court needed to be expanded to handle big case loads.

A law called the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 was proposed under this guise: For every justice over 70 years of age, the sitting president could appoint an additional justice. This gambit would allow for six additional justices to be appointed by Roosevelt, who would face almost no resistance in the Democratic Senate. 

But the president’s own party faced intense pressure from the public to reject the plan. The Supreme Court was seen as hallowed ground not to tinkered with by one man for obvious political gain. And in the end, the Senate easily rejected the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill by a vote of 70-22. 

Today, President Biden deserves credit for his long opposition to expanding the court.

It was a bonehead idea,” Biden said as a senator in 1983. “It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make. And it put in question, for an entire decade, the independence of the most significant body — including the Congress included in my view — in this country, the Supreme Court of the United States of America.”

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre echoed that perspective on the president’s behalf earlier this week. 

“I was asked this question yesterday, and I’ve been asked it before — and I think the president himself … about expanding the Court. That is something that the president does not agree with. That is not something that he wants to do,” Jean-Pierre told reporters on Air Force One.

 

Expanding the Supreme Court was a bad idea in 1937 and 1983, and it’s a bad idea now. But Democrats know their power is about to go away after the next midterm elections and are throwing a Hail Mary that will not see the end zone.

Politics.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2022 at 10:15 AM, Muda69 said:

And there is no non-political justification for expanding the court beyond it's current size.

This is the key point.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2022 at 9:25 AM, DanteEstonia said:

Turnabout is fair play. 

Nominating and confirming Justices for vacant seats according to their perceived philosophical bent is vastly different from increasing the number of vacant seats for no reason other than creating a new majority.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...