T O P

‘Court-Packing’ Doesn’t Seem So Radical After TX Abortion Law

‘Court-Packing’ Doesn’t Seem So Radical After TX Abortion Law

AutoModerator

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 suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, 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.*


DreddPirateRockwell

I mean if the SCOTUS is gonna issue middle of the night unsigned decrees, that in a twist if irony EVERY dissenting Judge wrote and signed their dissents, letting you know who the ones were that didnt, and that they didnt have the balls to sign the ransom note.


Dysc

It wasn't a decree. It was more of a: '*We're not going to get involved \[therefore the law will go into the books as scheduled\] because we don't know if people will take action with this new law. Let's wait and see if this seemingly unconstitutional law will violate people's \[privacy\] rights.*' So let's see how this all plays out. \-Anonymously, SCOTUS Edit: If this situation doesn't warrant an emergency injunction, I don't know which situation would.


DreddPirateRockwell

Please enjoy my interpretation of it: [SCROTUS](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/ppczjz/abductors_dont_need_to_sign_their_ransom_notes/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)


Dysc

That is awesome.


DreddPirateRockwell

Its how i felt about it..


Dysc

Yeah, I've watched the US Gov over the past 20 years grind to a halt into total dysfunction. Like a slow train wreck. I think the last bill to pass with bipartisan support that wasn't budget or post-office name related was the Patriot Act. The effing Patriot Act, a bill that eviscerates privacy rights. Every piece of legislation since then was just sat on until a super majority party could ramshackle it through in this see-saw political circus we have. That's why we only get actual legislation once every 6-10 years now. You can go through three terms of the House without anything significant happening these days. The States on the other hand are going totally crazy in this dysfunction shitting all over people's rights. It's the moment they've been waiting for. The courts which was supposed to be a balanced arbiter of a the rule of law (for a country that prides itself on rule of law) hopped on the political see-saw throwing pretty much everyone and every state into total disarray. The beer guy and the 1st amendment lady are an embarrassment. Not surprising, since they are conservative think tank picks. This decision is really one of the last straws to break this camel's back. I don't see how we can really come back from this if we have Justices who are acquiescing to idiotic State laws because it aligns with their idiotic views.


TITANIC_DONG

You’re right about the government crumbling over the last few decades. But you’re wrong about bipartisanship. I believe the media makes things appear worse, but it also makes things actually worse. A self fulfilling prophecy, all to get that sweeeet ad revenue. For example, the [First Step Act](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-first-step-act-became-law-and-what-happens-next) was brokered by the Trump Whitehouse, passed the Senate 87-13, and passed the house 358-36. This was the first Federal Sentencing reform in who knows how long. And the first criminal justice reform bill passed in nearly 10 years. (Dec 2018)


DreddPirateRockwell

Well they could expand the court, they could create term limits... But in order to do that they'd need to remove the filibuster, which the probably should as its no longer being used as a tool to give voice to the minority but as a tool to hold the majority hostage.


Conscious-Werewolf49

If every president got to place two Supreme Court justices per term The Supreme Court would then be more representative. It's certainly better than waiting for someone to die. But what then? With all those Supreme Court justices how would it work out for hearing cases? Simple. Once this protocol is in force, every case would be heard by a random selection of seven. It would definitely defang the political aspect of selecting justices.


DreddPirateRockwell

That's a pretty good plan in all honesty.


Conscious-Werewolf49

Thanks. It's not my original idea but I definitely got persuaded by the fact that it's a good idea.


DreddPirateRockwell

Aren't the justices also the heads of different federal courts of appeal as well? Like didn't this case get handed to Alito, so we could redistrict the circuit courts as well to make them a little more balanced since like the 9th circuit is like 11 states while the 5th is 3, etc...etc...etc... There's no real balance and people in rural Montana likely think less "progressively" that say someone in Sad Diego...


vineyardmike

Law is weird. In science the outcome of am experiment usually isn't skewed by the politics of the scientist. But one can predict how supreme court justices will rule on any legislation just based on their political affiliation.


historymajor44

The federalist society has spent so much time and effort to ensure political hacks get on the Court.


pedal_harder

The federalist society practically grows them in vats.


ThrowawayKarensBane

They save them in cryogenics like Resident Evil


pedal_harder

If we upload Clarence Thomas' consciousness to a computer, can he stay on the court forever?


nanaclifford

That would technically be a different person. I think you need to go with the head in the jar approach ala Futurama.


Th3Seconds1st

"Because I know a place where the Constitution doesn't mean squat!" *pans to SCOTUS* Head in a jar Nixon approves.


pedal_harder

Phsh, personhood starts at conception and never ends. Digital and spiritual abortions are illegal.


monsantobreath

I saw that episode of X files.


OilPenThrowaway2

I mean we can easily call out the same on the other side of the aisle. It is not solely conservative judges that you can know their opinion solely on their political leaning. Every single liberal judge votes not based on law but their political leaning. It’s horrible and not okay on both sides. Just so happens conservatives have substantial majority now. This is actually the first time in 50 years the conservatives have held a reliable majority. Before this it was the exact opposite.


Dr_Scoobie

In the sciences people are usually taught to not be stubborn and avoid biases. If the results aren't what you expected or believed to be true, tough luck. But they're still run by humans. Even the sciences aren't completely immune to political bias. Like it or not, most doctors are still men who often have preconceived notions regarding fertility and abortions.


pedal_harder

> Like it or not, most doctors are still men who often have preconceived notions regarding fertility and abortions. To be honest, "medical science" is maybe a stretch. There is science, especially on the research side, but when it comes to diagnosis and treatment, it's largely opinion. Some cases are clear cut, others are not.


Cycad

Opinion guided by best available evidence, ideally. But you are right, doctors treat patients not datasets


elriggo44

As much as lawyers would like you to think they’re neutral arbiters of the scientific process of justice, they’re all full of shit.


GrandMoffTarkan

Uhh… your going to have a lot of fun learning about how science gets funded and that biases experiments https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias


Sea_Elle0463

Was gonna say this. Funding many times predetermines the results of the experiment.


bizarre_coincidence

Though this doesn't necessarily speak to actual corruption in science. Corporations are going to fund research that they expect to be useful (either in product development or PR). This can create a lopsided view of what we actually understand about the world, but wouldn't necessarily cause bad research with false conclusions. Are there scientists who take money and then intentionally doctor research? Very likely. Is the fact that corporate funded research often shows what the corporation wanted proof of this corruption? No. How widespread is this kind of corruption? I genuinely have no idea, although I trust that peer review, replication (which doesn't happen enough), and harsh consequences for discovered fraud keep the problem at low levels, at least outside of a few fields like nutrition.


NotClever

This isn't always true, though. In fact it's been quite common in the past for Justices to rule against policies put in place by the party that appointed them (usually conservative justices ruling against Republican policies).


Nice_Firm_Handsnake

In general, sure, but Roberts has started to join the Justices appointed by Democrats more often in the past few years. I'd like to think it's because he's a good guy who truly understands and listens to cases with an open mind, but he's getting a reputation as a Justice who is really concerned with the perception of the Court as an apolitical entity. Even Gorsuch has sided with the Dem-appointed justices in a few cases. I believe Ginsburg sided with the GOP-appointed wing a time or two toward the end of her tenure.


lordjeebus

I think it's too complicated to call them all partisan hacks. Alito is a partisan hack, for sure. He seems to decide what the ruling should be, and then works backwards to find the best excuse for that ruling. Thomas is not a partisan hack, but has a philosophy that is so extreme that it's hard to tell the difference. Sometimes there are unexpected outcomes like *Alleyne v. United States* and *Florida v. Jardines*. Gorsuch is not a partisan hack, he just has a judicial philosophy that usually leads to outcomes desired by the GOP. Kavanaugh is probably a partisan hack. I haven't seen enough to have a firm opinion. Similarly, I'm uncertain about Coney Barrett, but I'm not optimistic. Roberts is the most complicated. He seems concerned about his historical legacy. He is very conservative but I don't think that he's a tool of the GOP.


drpearl

The meme of Kavanaugh sneering is when he's talking about the " calculated and orchestrated political hit" that he claimed the accusation by Ford was. So not at all just *probably*, but *definitely* a partisan hack.


lordjeebus

I mean, based on his actual rulings, not on his conduct outside the SCOTUS. I agree that his Senate hearing painted the picture of a faithful GOP operative.


dragonsroc

Roberts is so concerned about his legacy but too bad it's been destroyed because his actions contributed to the nomination and confirmation of political hacks. He will forever be known at the one whose Court became a joke.


Geotolkien

stop calling it packing, at this point it's only unpacking.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Stocksnewbie

The Court has *never* been apolitical.


KingMagenta

Should be but since they're not, balance it.


Ruckusphuckus

Amen to that my friend, You are absolutely right. Perfect wording too.


roburrito

For the first 100 years of our nations history, the size of scotus increased with the size of the country. The current US population is 10 times the size it was since the last increase in 1863. In 1937, FDR proposed an expansion scheme that would see up to 15 justices seated.


catsandcheetos

Exactly. Democrats aren’t packing shit. Republicans have been packing the courts at all levels for over a decade. The framing on this issue is misleading and blatantly incorrect.


OilPenThrowaway2

I think you aren’t doing so hot on your knowledge of Supreme Court history. This is the first reliable GOP majority in 50 years. [Washington Post](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/06/29/it-took-conservatives-50-years-to-get-a-reliable-majority-on-the-supreme-court-here-are-3-reasons-why/%3foutputType=amp)


catsandcheetos

Shouldn’t be any party majority. Shouldn’t be partisan at all.


iamiamwhoami

SCOTUS reform.


MangroveWarbler

Not packing, expanding. The judiciary is overworked and needs to be about 3 times bigger in order to deal with the workload. We should increase the SCOTUS to 28 and each session should consist of 4 courts of 7 randomly selected justices. This would make it very difficult to game the court and also would ensure that a justice dying wouldn't cause a crisis. While we're at it we should also require an 80% majority vote in the Senate for confirmation and put in a rule that states if the Senate doesn't confirm a justice within 4 months, then a randomly selected judge from the next lowest court gets the job. There should also be penalties for Majority leaders who refuse to bring confirmation hearings and votes forward, something serious like expulsion.


CometCheesePizza

*diluting


drvondoctor

*unfucking


DuncanIdahoPotatos

*fuck’nt


Philosopher_3

We need one bill that does all of the following: Adds one Supreme Court seat for every judicial district, which would bring total to like 12 or 13 or something Institute either one of the following, either term limits stating justices have to leave the Supreme Court after 18 years or so and have it so every president can appoint 1-2 new justices each term, or institute a rotational judge program where justices are rotated in and out from all eligible district court judges There needs to be some process for holding supposed impartial judges from being openly partisan, like appearing at a public event for a major politician who got her the job, and impeach or fine or remove judges that do shit like that while representing the Supreme Court


pedal_harder

I see term limits as probably the best possible reform for me. But I think 18 years could be too long - I would set it up with 6-year terms that a President can reappoint *without re-confirmation* for up to two more terms, giving a total of 18 years maximum. That way you could get a Kavanaugh off the bench earlier, but with no re-confirmation requirement things don't devolve into a political fight so often. > There needs to be some process for holding supposed impartial judges from being openly partisan, like appearing at a public event for a major politician who got her the job, and impeach or fine or remove judges that do shit like that while representing the Supreme Court Completely agree. Technically impeachment is the tool, but the bar is so high it never happens. And you better believe they know it! I wonder how much authority Congress would have to institute much stricter recusal requirements, and instead of it being completely up to the justice they have a process to force a recusal. Idk that would probably just be split along partisan lines as well.


dragonsroc

If a President is due to re-appoint as well as appoint, you know every R President is just going to get 4 appointments because they're never going to re-appoint any judge that came from a Democrat.


MC_Fap_Commander

The Founders envisioned the Judiciary as an apolitical branch. This was wildly naïve (almost from the start) and it clearly requires the sort of correction everyone should support.


Beneficial-Ad-4375

Nationwide divorce from each other? we're never going to get along again.


justsoicansimp

Term limits on their own just aren't enough, and no way of forcing impartiality can go without being abused especially in the current hyperpartisan landscape. We need structural change - in addition to term limits. Justices, Congresspeople, anyone in government should not be able to be bought. Businesses should not be able to donate to them, and we need to overturn Citizens United. We need voting and EC reforms so that the right people get sent to Congress to confirm nominees and so the right President gets sent to make nominations. So much else needs to come down for SCOTUS (and the nation) to be better. And it's all tied together.


FlaxxSeed

Or a Thomas's wife who is moving dark pool Russian money funneled through churches that have only a few patrons in attendance.


Midtncop1

Source ?


ALife2BLived

And lets call out Mitch McConnell for launching the whole 'Court-Packing' process by not only blocking confirmation hearings for President Obama's nomination, Merrick Garland, in 2016 to replace Justice Scalia in Obama's final year of office, but Mitch has also gotten appointed 234 conservative judges confirmed at every level of the federal court system during Trumps presidency, including 3 U.S. Supreme Court Justices with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Again, when Republicans use these tactics they all celebrate them as "strategic" but when Dems even mention the word Court-Packing, the snow flake Republicans go on a hissy fit rampage declaring overreach of power. Only because Republicans in Congress know that most of their constituents back home are ignorant, misinformed, gullible, and naïve and have no idea or interest in what they are doing in D.C..


PraylikeTomAmes

The fbi's impotence in the Kavanaugh appointment/fiasco certainly adds some gas to the fire.


Shawmattack01

It's an idiotic and unrealistic idea. Even if there were enough support for it on the Hill, once the lid is off each successive administration with enough votes would simply increase the number of justices to counter-pack the court. And no, it can't function with 100+ justices. No court can. The goal should be to WIN THE ELECTIONS in the first place by, for example, not trying to ram someone as unpopular as HRC down the national gullet.


Lordhumungus6969

Packing the court would likely result in a civil war


The_RVA_Strangler

2000, 2004, 2016, were all election years where the supreme court were all-important elections where the Supreme Court was clearly going to be affected by the outcome, and people just hand waved it away. Americans can't be this consistently negligent, wait until it's too late then hope for a radical last-minute solution. Stop thinking every Death Star has an exhaust port that be can exploit to blow it up at the last minute. Stop waiting until it's too late to start giving a shit. It's going to take a minimum of 20 years to undo what's been done to the supreme court because people said Hillary wasn't enough. Or to put it another way, Sanders, Biden, Trump, Betty White will all be dead before this is fixed and that's only if Democrats can consistently hold the house and senate and Whitehouse. Take on 5 years every time Republicans take control of one or more of those.


terminaljive

WOW did you really have to bring Betty White into this?


The_RVA_Strangler

My point with that is we've collectively (not individually) created a problem so messed up that someone we collectively love won't see repaired in their lifetime. We keep convincing ourselves nothing really matters because if it becomes a "real" problem will just fix it. Pass a bill, make a new rule, and blame, we can't all go back to ignoring everything until the next big problem.


LankyTomato

It's not just voters faults. RBG was diagnosed with a terminal cancer with plenty of time to step down and let obama pick a new member, but she wanted the next president 'whoever *she* is' to pick her replacement.


pedal_harder

> people just hand waved it away So frustrating, isn't it? I feel like Dems wave it away more than Republicans, too. Truly the last 10+ years felt like Dems thinking "Oh we've got a decent majority on the Court" while the Republicans took over the states, then parlayed that into congress, and ultimately used the senate to pack every level of the federal bench, culminating with the SCOTUS just as Trump was about to lose re-election.


SergeantRegular

**Exactly**. The Republican Party (well, the moneyed corporate interests behind them) have been waging this war for *decades* and it wasn't really until Donald Trump that a real chunk of the rest of us noticed that a segment of our country had been actively using an entire political party over generations to create a massive siphon for wealth and power out of the post-WW2 west. We lost this round. Hell, we lost a few rounds, and we didn't even know we were in the fight. We have a chance to make a comeback, but it's not a big one and the odds are stacked against us.


Apotropoxy

1. It's not 'court packing', it's court expansion. Minority-elected presidents have now appointed more Justices than majority-elected presidents. 2. The Constitution permits Congress to set the terms of the SCOTUS. It can set term limits, expand or contract the number of Justices, and can remove Justices as they se fit through the impeachment/conviction process.


Mental_Rooster4455

People don’t know what they’re talking about and it shows. Term limits would take a constitutional amendment due to the Good Behaviour clause. Impeachment takes 67 senate votes. Packing has been done before but modern reasons for it will likely face separation of powers challenges. And packing currently has 3 senate votes and 31 house votes. It needs 60 and 218….this ain’t gonna happen for generations if it ever does.


SkyVirus1

People wanting to pack the courts is because they think it’s a simple power grab. But justices should uphold the constitution to the best of their ability without bias. So it shouldn’t matter. People think packing a bunch of Democrats will magically change the meaning of the constitution.


kataothebibaura

That’s the infuriating part. Maybe some of us *wish* the dems would put up someone that would be a far left progressive, but we all know the democrats will try to nominate a qualified person the reps like, while the reps specifically pick people that dems hate, even if not wildly unqualified and lacking all ethics


majikguy

It's not about putting on Democrats to make rulings be more progressive, it's about putting people on the court that will actually make reasonable rulings and override the clearly nonsense opinions of the most recent appointments. "Yes this law appears to be clearly unconstitutional and designed to evade judicial review so by precedent it is very difficult for it to make it to this court through the normal process, but we aren't shutting it down now because nobody has been hurt by it *yet* and we can deal with it when it somehow gets to us maybe?" is not a reasonable judgement to make, and it's the decision the Republican majority came to and then refused to sign their names on. If removing them isn't an option, then adding more reasonable people to override them is the logical solution.


OnlyPlaysPaladins

> but modern reasons for it will likely face separation of powers challenges. Of course conservatives will do everything they can to stop court rebalancing. But it's literally constitutional. Let them try to stop us from seating new justices. See who blinks first. They can file an injunction, which we will appeal to the new supreme court with our judges sitting on it. Courts don't get to decide how they're structured. Congress does.


Mental_Rooster4455

Dude, it’s like with Republican states’ old abortion laws. They’d pass a full ban, and an injunction would be filed against it in a lower court within half an hour to shut it down. And only THEN would it be litigated. They weren’t in effect for months and months each while they were being litigated. And the same will happen here. We pass a bill to pack the court, a trump district judge in Alabama blocks it and files an injunction 10 minutes later, and boom. No new judges seated for the eventual rulings. So there’s not gonna be any ‘blinking first’. And this is notwithstanding the court never being packed in the first place. The article itself admits it only has 3 senate sponsors and 30 house sponsors, all progressives. It’s a dead idea.


Du1503

What happens if republicans regain control of Congress? Won’t they just pack the court as well?


waifive

Yeah? And? If the threat is that republicans will one day return the court to today's artificially skewed imbalance, it's not much of a threat. We already have that.


dragonsroc

What makes you think they wouldn't do that regardless? I mean, they've basically done that already with the existing court breaking all the rules they made up to begin with


Moranth-Munitions

Republicans get to openly push their agenda and lack courts with hyper partisan religious whackos, but when democrats want to do anything it’s the end of the world gommunism or power grabs (which again, are totally fine when republicans do them). Let’s play some ball and do what is needed to relegate republicans to the trash bin of history and start actually improving the average American’s life.


MoonlitHunter

“Unpacking.” Curing the Supreme Court issue requires unpacking the Court, not packing it.


nascarhero

I mean as long as everyone is cool with the majority of the Supreme Court shifting with each new President then let’s do it


FearlessFerret6872

Uh, what? Yes, it does. Do the people writing these articles genuinely not believe that there will ever be a Republican-controlled Senate and/or White House in the future, or are they just so hungry for clicks by preaching to the choir that they don't care what harm comes from spreading insane nonsense like this? Packing the courts is just creating a bigger problem we get to deal with in 4 or 8 years. It's not a permanent solution and isn't even an especially good temporary one.


tex_rer

Or after the Republicans did it…


TeamShonuff

If you pack the Supreme Court, isn't that what every single administration is going to do going forward until we have ten thousand Supreme Court Justices?


pedal_harder

You get a SCOTUS seat, and you get a SCOTUS seat, and you.....


GrimResistance

What would be the downside to that besides the expense?


40percentrobot

A crisis like that might inspire enough political motivation to pass an amendment setting the size of the court and instituting term limits. This should be the preferred outcome for both sides. edit: would -> should


TheDoomBlade13

You link it to something. If we had every judicial district have a Supreme Court seat, we immediately expand the Court while also limiting the scope it can be expanded. It will naturally expand with increased judicial disctricting.


OnlyPlaysPaladins

Fine? I'll take that over what we have now.


thanksgive

Honest question but if we add more judges. What is to stop the next republican senate and presidency from packing it with more judges?


Cynadiir

Tradition and precedent has not stopped Republicans in the past few years. See how in 2016 they said no to appointing a justice during an election year and then in 2020 appointing a justice WHILE people were voting in the election. If we dont balance the courts now there is still nothing stopping them in 2024. Just like there is nothing stopping them from eliminating the filibuster. Democracy is under attack, and if we sit back and do nothing because of a gentleman's agreement then it will fail.


thanksgive

Right but in case you haven't noticed. Ever weapon forged in government can also be wielded by your enemy. Democrats created the nuclear option to appoint judges and immediately republicans used it against them. We have to assume that if we add additional judges under a liberal administration then the next conservative administration will add more right?


informat7

There isn't anything stopping them, but Reddit lose there shit over it because of how hypocritical people here are.


waifive

Reddit did lose its shit when republicans packed the courts. And to be clear, the only thing stopping the next republican congress from packing the court on day one is that they don't need to because they already did it.


Message_10

Court-packing is the only—the *only*—way the Supreme Court will have any legitimacy. The argument is always, “Well what happens after the number goes from 9 to 13? Then to 17? Then to 21?” I think that would be absolutely fantastic. The more Justices, the better. Have them in a rotating schedule, and assigned to random cases. I think 41 is a great number—indivisible! The Supreme Court is no longer interested in adjudicating. It is a political wing that will now be controlled by a party that has gone *insane*. The only way it can operate as it was intended is if we change it dramatically.


pedal_harder

Plus the greater the number of judges, the less important any single judge becomes, reducing their partisan value.


tboneable

And reduces the influence of corruption. Much more difficult to corrupt larger bodies. You have Trump saying things like “Kavanaugh owes me; where would he be without me?”. Shows you the thought process behind some of the selections.


Trorbes

I think it was intended to be apolitical. Nothing you are suggesting would achieve that.


pedal_harder

Does five people appointed *for life* -- not elected for a period of time -- deciding on the rights of 330 million make a lot of sense, though?


Lazersnake_

There shouldn't be a crisis about the future of the country whenever one old judge dies. There should be more than nine and there should be term limits.


Trorbes

As much sense as anything else in politics. We use a popularity contest to decide who gets to represent us on the world stage, but only for a total of 8 years. We couldn't decide whether legislation should be representative of the population or the states, so we did both.


spa22lurk

The court being apolitical is a myth. No one does that. Besides, the highest ideal of our government is democracy. If there was a way to appoint some rulers who are apolitical and impartial and rational and benevolent, why would we bother with democracy?


Trorbes

What is even the point of judges then? If we are going to game the courts so they always agree with us, then why even have them in the first place?


spa22lurk

The point/responsibility of judges remain the same. It is a realization of democracy. In order to expand the court, the president and the majority of Senate have to approve that. In order to have presidency and majority of Senate, voters have to approve that. Do you know what is really gaming the courts? Mitch McConnell and his Republican Party Senators refused to vote on an Obama nominee in 2016 claiming that 9 months was too close to the 2016 election, and then they approved a Trump nominee days before the 2020 election. Or they blocked all Obama's federal court nominees using filibusters until Democratic Party leaders changed the rule to allow simple majority votes. Democratic Party leaders still honored the blue slip rules to allow red states senators to veto nominees from their states. After 2016, they simply rammed through their nominees ignoring all the norms. Your mythical courts have already been gamed beyond recognition. Where is your outrage with that? Shouldn't we correct this via democracy?


no-kooks

Increasing sample size reduces noise.


Trorbes

Nobody is proposing expanding the Supreme Court so Democrats can install a bunch of neutral judges.


no-kooks

How does one expect anything *but* neutral judges to be confirmed by a 50/50 senate? Think Merrick Garland.


OnlyPlaysPaladins

Many things were intended by our constitutional writers 250 years ago. Didn't turn out that way. The right wing has turned SCOTUS into politicians in robes, in order to surmount their status as being numerically inferior in a democracy. Time to acknowledge and work with that fact.


SkyVirus1

Your writing would have mattered but then it turned bias. Because of how you closed it. Now it’s clear “I want to pack the court so they can put a bunch of liberals in there cause conservative bad”. Therefore you don’t believe in legitimacy cause I shouldn’t matter what party a judge is from. They should interpret and uphold the constitution. Party involvement shouldn’t play a role.


FeralHogFan

But party affiliation of judges does play a role in their decisions so we are justified in worrying that they’ll keep making biased decisions. The entire history of the judicial is rife with bias.


zOldGal

> Court-packing is the only—the only—way the Supreme Court will have any legitimacy. No. Term limits and elected justices might though.


b_whiqq

The Supreme Court hasn’t always been this size. It’s been larger and smaller in the past.


clockwork2223

Honestly, we need more women politicians.


Ithedrunkgamer

How could ANY judge allow vigilantes to operate for rewards paid by tax dollars? They are supposed to be the the rule of law..


mattjf22

Simply rebalancing the court after republican fuckery stole a seat.


Chancoop

I wish Democrats weren't so short-sighted. Put this in the box of bad ideas along with ending the fillibuster.


Beneficial-Ad-4375

Or:. It's time to delegitimize the last American institution Americans still have a little faith in in a blatenly partisan move while screaming about partisanship. This will go well.


dudicus1414

I really don’t think the SC should have this much power but could someone explain to me this, if Dems add 4 more justices to lean the court left, what’s to stop Reps from adding 5 when they get back in power? Or 10? Or perhaps just add 1 giant super justice that’s just 100 conservative judges all human centipeded together?


hadoken12357

The court is a partisan institution. Pack it, expand it, reform it, I don't give a shit.


BenDarDunDat

The Federalist Society has already packed the courts with activist judges. I simply want to unpack them.


Optimal_Ear_4240

We see you McConnell. Your name will go down as the all time biggest crook in politics. I hope you live to see it. You will reap what you sow


HS_HolyShnikes

Term limits!


Professional_Earth_7

What the hell? No, it still seems like a bad idea. LMAO.


jonsey_bloom

You have to remember how this dirt gets spread around one you become a lawyer a lying despicable prostituted mouthpiece and then you joined the political party of your ilk they're ilk then they give you a black robe so you can pontificate part is pontificate partisan rhetoric acting like it's sensible laws


jonsey_bloom

We need to abolish discipline court start all over again these guys are untrustworthy they're politically biased and they have to pay back the favor from the political bosses


Minusobd

I think I figured it out. People keep wondering why the Texas gop would do this. The benefits for them don't seem to out way the negatives. Unless we consider one thing. The repubs want the dems to move away from Texas. They don't care if in the end the changes they make get reversed. So long as it causes enough discomfort to dems. So much discomfort that they leave or never move to Texas in the first place. They see that field of blue slowly growing each year. And they know it's not repubs switching sides. It's new blue arrivals from other states. Don't do it ! If you vote blue don't leave the red states. It may take a few more years but if you hold your ground the calvary is on it's way. I truly hope we see the registered blue vote in Texas continue to grow faster than the red one. But that only happens if you stay.


rjptrink

The Supreme Court has already been packed. Ask McConnell.


Cyber_Dan

All this Supreme Court is doing is adding fuel to the fire that the Court should be revised. If they want their power to be stripped away they are doing a great job.


NBKFactor

Oh the supreme court did something people didn’t like so now we need to change the supreme court ? Just seems a little much.


ObviousObvisiousness

All the 'reasonable' people are intentionally years late on doing anything about anything, knowing full well that unreasonable and heinous things will happen but they want to ostrich it. 'Reasonable' people are not very reasonable.


HistoricalBridge7

Don’t forget, you can pack the courts today but nothing is stopping the other party from packing the courts again tomorrow when it’s their turn.


KillerWales0604

With Gorsuch, Kavanuagh, and Barrett, the Republicans have already packed the court. Why do you think they won’t pack the courts further at the next opportunity? It’s time for the Dems to stop being timid about following precedent. Clearly their adversaries lost that restraint long ago.


HistoricalBridge7

I disagree with calling filling vacancies (outside of Gorsuch) “packing the courts” - that term is typically used for expanding the courts to more than 9. My point is Biden can add 9 left wing judges and bring the total SCOTUS to 18 but nothing will stop the next republican president from appointing another 9 right wing judges and bring it to 27 and so on.


WhyYouKickMyDog

[The partisan court packing game was kicked into high gear by Mitch McConnell in response to Obama's election win](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-mcconnell-and-the-senate-helped-trump-set-records-in-appointing-judges/). While everyone is so focused on the Supreme court, Mitch abused the filibuster to block every single lower district court appointment that Obama tried to make. It got so bad that the Democrats got rid of the filibuster for lower court appointments to try and work around the partisan games being played. However, the R's took the Senate two years later, and then he used his Majority Leader position to not allow any votes for Obama nominees, which led to a record amount of vacancies available for Trump to fill when he took office. Then, in a predictable tit-for-tat, Mitch removed the filibuster option on Supreme Court picks so that he could also ram those through. If it does not constitute court packing by intentionally abusing procedural rules so you can get your guy on instead of of the other team, then what the hell do we call this?


An_Arrogant_Ass

You're claiming that pushing Barrett through two months before the election after claiming presidents can't nominated new judges eight months before an election during the previous presidency wasn't packing the court?


squiddlebiddlez

During the election—millions of votes had already been cast. McConnell simply did not want to let the voters have a voice this time.


Familiar_Bridge1785

given that the right flat out said they would not let Clinton pick a judge if she won, means your claim is bullshit as most right wing points are.


HistoricalBridge7

It doesn’t matter what the “right” said. The senate judiciary committee approves the presidents SCOTUS nomination. SC vacancies always get filled. Hypothetical don’t mean anything. The Dems gambled that Clinton was going to win so they didn’t want to fight for it.


zOldGal

Which is why term limits are the answer, not court packing.


HistoricalBridge7

I’m not sure term limits are the answer but maybe age limits. The whole point is SCOTUS judges should not be thinking about what they will do after.


pedal_harder

If the situation were reversed, and it looked like a 6-3 liberal majority for the next 20+ years, the Republicans wouldn't be having a debate about expanding the court. They would have done it already.


Fit-Forever2033

We had a liberal majority, that is why abortion, gay marriage etc were able to make it into law from the Judiciary.


pedal_harder

Roe wasn't decided by a liberal majority, and not even 5-4. That's a common misconception. It was 5 R's and 2 D's. (https://www.upworthy.com/roe-vs-wade-majority-opinion-written-by-lifelong-republican) > Roe vs. Wade was decided with a 7-2 vote, and not long partisan lines. Those who ruled in favor were as follows, with the president who nominated them and the party of that president indicated in parentheses: > > Harry Blackmun (Nixon, R) > Lewis Powell (Nixon, R) > Warren Burger (Nixon, R) > William Brennan (Eisenhower, R) > Potter Stewart (Eisenhower, R) > Thurgood Marshall (LBJ, D) > William Douglas (FDR, D) > > Those who dissented on Roe vs. Wade: > > Byron White (Kennedy, D) > William Rehnquist (Nixon, R)


cyphersaint

Abortion wasn't actually a partisan issue back then. Evangelicals actually weren't against abortion back then. It's after about 1976 that that changed. Don't remember the exact year.


FitCaterpillar

This is EXACTLY why we were advocating for expanding the court in the first place. Jesus people, keep your eye on the ball.


Mental_Rooster4455

It’s got 3 senate votes and 31 house votes per the article, it’s not a realistic fix. It needs 50 and 218 minimum, and that’ll take generations.


whiteblaze

We have a significant problem when either party sees their short-term goal of accomplishing their political goals as being of greater importance than the legal foundations that our country is built upon. When the majority party makes changes to the rules of how our our country operates, they open the door to wild abuses both by themselves and by their opposition in the future. When you can’t get the votes, it SHOULD mean that you don’t get what you asked for. Passing legislation through budget resolutions, eliminating the filibuster, adding members to the Supreme Court, using non-elected government agencies to create mandates and set policy, and using Presidential executive orders are all strategies to circumvent the legislative process. At that level, Government is supposed to be slow, methodical, and we’ll reasoned. For the last few decades, we’ve been in a Political Arms Race where both Democrats and Republicans have been trying to pass their own agendas at all costs. It is toxic. It is unconstitutional. It is unAmerican. And if you think that tearing down our system of self government is a worthwhile price to pay to get what you want, so are you.


Dulanski

[Shenanigans beget shenanigans beget shenanigans.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDYFiq1l5Dg) At some point, leadership within both parties need to agree to reset the clock on all of the nuclear options. The problem is getting whichever party is in power to agree to give up "some" of their power. Which is basically impossible.


zOldGal

Court packing is a stupid idea. Term limits for justices are not.


Likely_Story_Bro

While I don't agree with all aspects of the TX law, this just screams of "I don't agree with the outcome so change everything until that doesn't work too."


2Cor517

Honestly, we should just break up as a country. I have no idea how we can ever come back as a country. We have no shared values or prinipals.


TheButtcrush

Nah, still radical and dumb. Quit being sore losers


va_wanderer

It's still an idiot-tier move. The entire point of a check to the legislative and Presidential branches of government is that the other two can't forcibly shift it to their point of view, even if it's not one they'd prefer. The more checks we remove, the less stable the system will become- in the end, it will be counter to the positives we desire if one small shift in the legislature suddenly means more Justices and a rubber-stamping of law-legality, even if it isn't- because Presidents can and will dilute the SCOTUS further to their own gain.


Cute_Protection_1326

Only an idiot would genuinely believe this; court-packing is a horrible idea and should never be done


Okbuddygeorgist

I'd still be terrified of what the right would do in response to the democrats completely and permanently destroying the legitimacy of an entire branch of government. I can get the arguments for court packing and sympathize with them, I just hope that if they do actually go for it at some point, that they know what they are doing and are prepared for a massive backlash


Icc0ld

You are sorely mistaken if you think Republicans are going to play by any rules at all next time they seize power. If Republicans sweep the next two elections there won't be any elections anymore. Also I have no clue how you think Democrats doing anything like this would be "destroying the legitimacy of an entire branch of government". It is already destroyed (by Republicans over two decades) and this is an option to fix it.


TruthBeingTold

I think he’s referring to the republicans destroying the govt in response to the democrats


squiddlebiddlez

They are going to do that anyways. I’m willing to bet even if Biden and Harris say nonstop they will not pack the courts during their term and hold to it as soon as the republicans gain any more power they will do it and blame their actions on the fact that the democrats merely thought about doing it. There is no rule or procedure that can reign in bad faith political players.


informat7

ITT: People wanting the Democrats to pack the court who would be losing their shit if Republicans tried to pack a liberal filled court.


DTFaux

The entire issue is that the GOP is pushing for court packing where they can *right now*, and they have made clear that being a Conservative is a priority above impartiality. So what do you hope to accomplish pretending to stay above it all when the GOP is running a race to the bottom, with or without our participation?


aCucking2Remember

Why is it so difficult to say “Unpack the court”? The 5-4 liberal to conservative ratio was close to representation of the country. That 6-3 sometimes 7-2 is so far from the makeup of this country it isn’t funny. They packed the court and it needs to be unpacked. They’re making decisions only a small portion of the country actually wants.


Showmethepathplease

\*Unpacking


ShadownetZero

You mean after the Supreme Court had the audacity to say.... "we'll make a ruling when there's a case."?


MiserableWanker

Court packing will never happen unless the Democrats want to unlock pandoras box again. Harry Reid fucked with the filibuster and the Republicans have owned them ever since. If they flip the switch on court packing the Republicans will absolutely use that to decimate the Democrats. Don’t like the supreme court as is… too bad. Don’t open another pathway to getting absolutely rammed by the Republicans when they inevitably retake the Senate in 2022. You want to stop a Supreme Court you disagree with? Pass laws.


Afraid_Group_2322

75 million people voted for Trump and a significant portion of that number do not trust the election results. Many state governors are openly defying the executive branch. How fucking daft do you have to be to believe that packing the Court full of progressives to dilute the conservstive vote would make the Court more legitimate? It would be nothing less than a declaration of war. Really troubling to see how many of you are thrilled at the prospect of living under judicial tyranny as long as it fulfills your policy objectives.


TelevisionCharming10

We are there right now.


ookapi

Just a small clarification; it was only 74 million. Trump keeps inflating the number to 75. And a counterpoint: we might already be living under the judicial tyranny now, except it doesn't fulfill any meaningful goals for 52%+ of the nation. The likelihood Republicans would break a rule that the Democrats themselves are hesitant to break is pretty high, and did happen repeatedly. It's not going to be pretty, but that's only because one side has been acting under strict decorum while the other has been whipped into a frenzy already.


Afraid_Group_2322

Progressives on the Court have been engaging in judicial activism and have been radically departing from the original meaning of the Constitution since the Warren Court. They make up doctrine as they go to strike down whatever state laws they don't like. They deprive states of their own autonomy and democratic process and they are not elected or accountable to anyone. Conservatives judges are at least principled in their legal philosophy even if you don't like many of their legal conclusions. Most are notable for how many limits they place on their own power. And that has been the great criticism from the right; that conservatives get into power and don't do anything because they are too afraid it will be used against them in the future. Most conservative judges end up being disappointments to conservatives for this reason. Out of the 6 that are currently on the Court, only two (Alito and Thomas) have any respect in conservative circles. Justice Gorsuch, for example, wrote the majority opinion in Bostock, which extended civil rights for LGBT people. It is crazy to think that diluting these votes for more progressives who believe their judicial power is unconstrained by the Constitution will somehow make the Court more credible. It would effectively set the country on a path to becoming a one-party state with a federal government that is unlimited in power.


potatohonkey

> Really troubling to see how many of you are thrilled at the prospect of living under judicial tyranny as long as it fulfills your policy objectives. That's not it at all. We already live under a minority-rule court that has been packed with conservative ideologues. We aren't thrilled at expanding the court, but it's necessary as a response to what Republicans have done.


Midtncop1

Except SCOTUS did not issue an opinion or uphold the law. As a matter of fact, they specifically DID NOT issue an opinion. Get a grip, it’s still on the calendar. All they did was pass on an injunction to put it on hold pending a full review. BTW, two general reasons for passing on an injunction. 1) The legislation/law under review is more likely than not to be upheld. 2) The argument asking for the injunction sucked. The best effort in the world cannot be won with a shitty argument. Roberts alluded to that in his dissent.


chippy94

Not issuing an opinion does the damage already. Some years back Texas had 40 some odd clinics that could perform abortions then they passed that unconstitutional hospital admitting privileges law. By the time it was ruled unconstitutional there were only 19 clinics left. By the time that this law is ruled on, even if it's ruled unconstitutional, who knows how many clinics will be left. When they close they don't re-open. The Republicans know this. It's part of the strategy.


potatohonkey

> All they did was pass on an injunction to put it on hold pending a full review. In other words, all they did was allow a brazenly unconstitutional (per precedent) law to remain in effect without even holding a hearing. Quit trying to downplay the partisan hackery that SCOTUS has done. >The best effort in the world cannot be won with a shitty argument. Roberts alluded to that in his dissent. But the whole point of that dissent is, regardless of how shitty the argument, the law clearly fails to comply with SCOTUS precedent.


informat7

Reddit just doesn't understand how the US legal system works. Most of this site thinks that SCOTUS has basically struck down Roe v. Wade.


WhyYouKickMyDog

Reddit just doesn't understand how the US legal system works, said the random Redditor.


Midtncop1

Because that’s what their handlers tell them to say. God forbid people do any independent research.


ThinkitThroughPeople

I hate to see one bad move move corrected with another. The old two wrongs make a right fallacy. The Texas abortion law allows someone without "standing" to sue. This is in violation of the Texas state constitution and all tort law in the United States. If it doesn't get nullified there are actions that can be taken. First get people who are willing to be sued. Shelter their assets in another state. Then create a large number of cases and bury the court system, where there is nothing to collect. You need some monied sponsors. Second since such laws are acceptable, start writing ones about aiding someone to get a gun, someone lying on Facebook, anything to drive red states nuts. Once it gets bad enough we can get back to requiring standing.


isinedupcuzofrslash

I used to be of the argument that “if we do it, then republicans will do it worse when they have power.” But I’ve come to realize they’re already gonna do it anyway. They obstructed legislation during Obama’s entire term even when gaining concessions, they screeched about how they couldn’t approve a Supreme Court nominee during his term, and that they had to wait until the election was decided, and when they were asked to hold themselves to that same standard when Barrett was nominated, they obviously didn’t, and went on approving her as fast as possible. They’ll bend and break the rules if needed to secure their power. And it can’t be tolerated anymore.


five-acorn

They also wanted Pence to overturn the election, suspend rule of law, and round "Dummycrats" into camps. Well, they were this close. Fuck 'em. Pack the court. It's legal. It's been done before. And the GQP are traitors and terrorists.


7366241494

Can’t we please call it UNpacking after the Republicans blocked Garland for 10 months?


WhyYouKickMyDog

Everyone so focused on the Supreme Court but barely anyone here so far has acknowledged that [most of the court packing damage was done in the lower courts](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-mcconnell-and-the-senate-helped-trump-set-records-in-appointing-judges/).


NoStudyingRequired

My opinion, idk if it even has anything to do with packing but still, we should be taking power away from the courts, they way to much sway on American lives, and throughout the courts life they’ve repeatedly taken peoples rights away, packing would prolly make it worse.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BitterBostonian

Exactly. What the last 4 years have taught us is this: all of the rules of government that were built into our Constitution assume that the people in control of government are good faith actors that actually care about the rules. We elected a whole bunch of people that just...don't. There's nothing in the Constitution that enables us to re-seize control of the system when a terrible POTUS adds 3 terrible SCOTUS justices to the courts and 1 of the 2 parties in the system are unwilling to hold their party accountable.


NoStudyingRequired

I completely agree! But I mean it was the courts that made Africans American not able to become citizens, allowed the draft and other rights and items that most would agree kind of suck and shouldn’t have happened, all because of judicial review, a power given to the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court. Which to me is kinda OP.


pedal_harder

There is some school of thought that Congress can limit what the lower courts actually have jurisdiction over, or narrow the *appellate* jurisdiction, which means those cases cannot ever reach the Supreme Court. They only have original jurisdiction in a pretty limited number of scenarios. However, that could just resort in an even worse situation, because many states elect their judges, so they are clearly partisan, and the lower court federal judges are appointed by politicians just like the SCOTUS. The federalist society vets all of them.


NoStudyingRequired

Yeah, you’re right, I know we could at least fix the Supreme Court, pretty easily compared to the lower courts. Lowering their power would rectify many of the issues.


jerkITwithRIGHTYnewb

I don’t think taking power away from the courts is the answer. The courts are what will eventually unfuck the Texas abortion ban.


kataothebibaura

“Sometimes I don’t like how I vote but it’s not up to me to vote how I want!” Jesus fucking Christ someone come get your girl in the red dress


setmeonfiredaddyuwu

Oh come on, this is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. Yes, their refusal to strike down the abortion law in Texas is shameful, but destabilizing the Supreme Court over a state law? That’s not even to mention the fact that every president to follow will do the same thing if SCOTUS gets in their way, making it fundamentally useless, except to protect the president from the constitution, which is the very OPPOSITE of the Supreme Court’s purpose. Court packing can NEVER be acceptable. It is the obligation of every American to oppose it by whatever means necessary. The courts are there to protect you from the government, and destabilizing the Supreme Court would be a *severe* blow to your protections from the government.


SofaKingOnPoint

The constitution literally allows expansion of the court


Jackieirish

Say it loud, say it often, say it with me: THE SUPREME COURT IS ALREADY PACKED. [When your party refuses to hold a vote on a SCOTUS nomination from the opposition party because X months is too close to an election and then holds a vote on a SCOTUS nomination from your own party X *weeks* before an election, congratulations: you just packed the Supreme Court.]


WhyYouKickMyDog

The Supreme Court pick is just the tip of the iceberg everyone focuses on. Most of the damage was done in the Lower Courts where Mitch blocked all of Obamas appointments until Trump was elected with unprecedented number of vacancies due to partisan court manipulation.


Axiled

I would argue against is as it doesn't solve the core problem. It doesn't prevent the political packing again in the future. At best we can delay the problem again. The way the Supreme Court is elected is problematic in itself. I'd support a drastic shift in how they function. For example, increase the number to 15 and whenever cases are heard, randomize 7 (or 5) to hear the case. This way you cannot guarantee the ones you want will hear it. This weakens the case for just waiting for a preferable court. Other options can be just to change the nomination process. Instead of the president nominating, change it to other justices, or even only a part of the supreme court. We can also discuss who confirms the justices, it doesn't necessarily have to be the Senate. Could apply term limits as well. There is a lot we can do and a more full discussion on it would be useful to examine all the options beyond just adding justices. And there are downsides to other ideas as well.


JustTheBeerLight

Court packing already happened.


Fit-Forever2033

Not a fix, it will reverse the roles and have the other half viewing the court as illegitimate and in a few years we will be back to where we started. Legalize abortion through a bill, that is the only actual fix to the problem. We can't have one court legalizing it and then another one criminalizing it in a couple years. Abortion should have been a legislative Responsibility in the first place. Court Packing is the scorched earth "fix" that doesn't actually solve the problem. Thinking that Judicial tyranny will be fix with more judicial tyranny is the type of decision making that keeps me up at night.


bricklab

It didn't seem radical before the TX abortion law.


usernone2

More like “balancing out” that “packing” since they don’t represent the will of the majority


00wabbit

The left needs some marketing people. It's court expansion. Not court packing. Court Packing sounds devious.


schrod

We need the Obamas on the court. Both Barack and Michelle could add a young compassionate, liberal, empathetic rounding out with real civility and competence.