What's the use?

Will the Supreme Court be expanded?

  • Nope

    Votes: 5 83.3%
  • Yup

    Votes: 1 16.7%

  • Total voters
    6

Jimdamick

Well-Known Member
Sen. Elizabeth Warren today condemned the Supreme Court's current 6-3 conservative majority and came out in support for expanding the number of justices on the bench.

Expand the Supreme Court - The Boston Globe

"I believe it's time for Congress to yet again use its constitutional authority to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court," the she wrote in a Boston Globe op-ed.

"I don't come to this conclusion lightly or because I disagree with a particular decision; I come to this conclusion because I believe the current court threatens the democratic foundations of our nation."

Warren said that adding more justices would help "rebalance" the court, which she claims in recent years has undermined its legitimacy and independence because of a slew of "radical right-wing" decisions, particularly concerning voting rights, labor unions, and corporate power.

"This radical court has reversed century-old campaign-finance restrictions, opening the floodgates for corporations to spend unlimited sums of money to buy our elections. It has reversed well-settled law that once required employers to permit union organizers to meet with workers," Warren wrote. "And it has gutted one of the most important civil rights laws of our time, the Voting Rights Act, not once but twice."

The progressive lawmaker also called out Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the highest-ranking Republican senator, for refusing to consider former President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016, nine months before the presidential election, but then four years later, swiftly confirming former President Donald Trump's pick, Amy Coney Barrett, eight days before the 2020 election, cocksucker that he is.

McConnell, who was Senate majority leader in 2016, has repeatedly defended his action to block Garland's nomination, arguing that the last time the opposite party of a president confirmed a new Supreme Court justice in a presidential election year was in 1888.

As for what happened in 2020, McConnell said because both the White House and Senate were controlled by Republicans, they could move forth with a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year. In his one term in office, Trump appointed three justices to the bench: Barrett in 2020, Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, and Neil Gorsuch — Scalia's replacement — in 2017.

Warren blasted the move in her op-ed as "Republican court-packing" and "Republican hijacking of the Supreme Court."

"To restore balance and integrity to a broken institution, Congress must expand the Supreme Court by four or more seats," Warren wrote.

The senator also cited recent low public approval ratings the court has received as a reason to push for reform. A new Quinnipiac University poll last month found that more than 6 in 10 Americans say the Supreme Court is motivated primarily by politics.

"Rebalancing the court is a necessary step to restore its credibility as an independent institution, one that works for the American people and not just for the wealthy and the powerful," Warren wrote.

Warren tied her stance to the possibility that the Supreme Court may overturn abortion rights that were guaranteed nearly 50 years ago in the landmark ruling, Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court is set to make a decision in that major abortion challenge by next June.

"Without reform, the court's 6-3 conservative supermajority will continue to threaten basic liberties for decades to come," Warren wrote.

I don't believe that it will happen as the Republicans are quite content to keep things the way things are.

They'll never agree to it.
 

mooray

Well-Known Member
Don't think I agree with expanding the supreme court, or...maybe I'd agree, but only out of frustration, because it doesn't really address the problem, which means it does little to stop the same thing from happening again. The notion of a "conservative justice" is screwy from the start. There isn't supposed to be such a thing, because a justice is supposed to follow law and law is supposed to be blind/impartial. If you have to "rebalance", then something else is fucked up in the process. My opinion is that it's a symptom of selfishness/narcissism in society in general, the whole "things I like" society and people having no ideologies, because having ideologies will force you to support something you dislike and we've lost that.

And there is no need to satisfy confidence of credibility to the public. It's supposed to be one of those things where it is what it is. Look at the 2020 election, we have all this bs legislation to "fix" voting laws that aren't broken, all because the average republican idiot doesn't have confidence in the election. I don't want us pandering to that just because we like one specific outcome.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Don't think I agree with expanding the supreme court, or...maybe I'd agree, but only out of frustration, because it doesn't really address the problem, which means it does little to stop the same thing from happening again. The notion of a "conservative justice" is screwy from the start. There isn't supposed to be such a thing, because a justice is supposed to follow law and law is supposed to be blind/impartial. If you have to "rebalance", then something else is fucked up in the process. My opinion is that it's a symptom of selfishness/narcissism in society in general, the whole "things I like" society and people having no ideologies, because having ideologies will force you to support something you dislike and we've lost that.

And there is no need to satisfy confidence of credibility to the public. It's supposed to be one of those things where it is what it is. Look at the 2020 election, we have all this bs legislation to "fix" voting laws that aren't broken, all because the average republican idiot doesn't have confidence in the election. I don't want us pandering to that just because we like one specific outcome.
A good debate on the subject is in order.

What is driving the discussion is there are a LOT of issues that are being slow-walked and some of those issues, like modernizing our environmental regulations are time sensitive. Also, fascist cops operating as if the law doesn't affect them. Also, how in hell did we end up with corporations having same rights as people and money is same as free speech? (rhetorical question). The list is growing and maybe it is time to break the Republican log jam.
 

mooray

Well-Known Member
A good debate on the subject is in order.

What is driving the discussion is there are a LOT of issues that are being slow-walked and some of those issues, like modernizing our environmental regulations are time sensitive. Also, fascist cops operating as if the law doesn't affect them. Also, how in hell did we end up with corporations having same rights as people and money is same as free speech? (rhetorical question). The list is growing and maybe it is time to break the Republican log jam.
Seems like it always goes back to shitty people. It's impossible to legislate your way to "forced decency", because of that whole "where there is a will, there is a way" thing. With the police example, they're working everyday in potential legal turmoil, so you can easily understand a degree of insulation, but...oops...when you're shitty, you take it too far. Can we fix that with legislation? Tons of laws on oversight already, how have we not addressed it yet? With corporations and politicians, sure nothing wrong with lobbying if you can respect boundaries, but...oops...when you're shitty, it goes too far. Can we fix that with legislation? Because there are a million lobbying laws already, so how has the answer eluded us for so long?

I know it sounds like throwing arms up in the air, but I do realize that some degree of tail chasing must continue. Just because hackers come out with new viruses every year, doesn't mean we stop trying to fight it, etc. I'm just not sure that, if the problem is shitty people on the panel, that increasing the number of potentially shitty people, is the answer. My preference would be to look into ways to ensure that the seats are filled with people that have an appreciation for lady justice, and filter out those looking to put their personal spin on something.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Seems like it always goes back to shitty people. It's impossible to legislate your way to "forced decency", because of that whole "where there is a will, there is a way" thing. With the police example, they're working everyday in potential legal turmoil, so you can easily understand a degree of insulation, but...oops...when you're shitty, you take it too far. Can we fix that with legislation? Tons of laws on oversight already, how have we not addressed it yet? With corporations and politicians, sure nothing wrong with lobbying if you can respect boundaries, but...oops...when you're shitty, it goes too far. Can we fix that with legislation? Because there are a million lobbying laws already, so how has the answer eluded us for so long?

I know it sounds like throwing arms up in the air, but I do realize that some degree of tail chasing must continue. Just because hackers come out with new viruses every year, doesn't mean we stop trying to fight it, etc. I'm just not sure that, if the problem is shitty people on the panel, that increasing the number of potentially shitty people, is the answer. My preference would be to look into ways to ensure that the seats are filled with people that have an appreciation for lady justice, and filter out those looking to put their personal spin on something.
No argument that this country has laws but enforces them when convenient. Discretion to pick and choose or when to ignore and when to enforce is at the heart of systemic racism and so many other inequities in the status quo. So, why is that? Are court's living up to the expectation of blind justice? I don't think so and the SCOTUS is a good example of why it does not. We have seen a wave of rulings that underpin the rise of the fascist right. If they topple Roe v Wade, it would be just another example. So, I don't think the question of "what to do about minority, extremist control of the Supreme Court" is about more laws, rather it's about how those laws are enforced and SCOTUS is shifting the legal system to favor wealthy, white people who already hold power.

A short list of what I'm talking about:




The issues I listed earlier have real consequences for real people. Climate change for example; people are dying because others in power are dithering. I see a sense of urgency on this issue. Same with women's reproductive rights. From what happened under Trump, it seems that Republicans merely want that power in order to stay in power while enriching themselves. They have no interest in governing or making people's lives better. Suggest that perhaps Democrats should respond with norm breaking but legal measures. Like packing the Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:

CatHedral

Well-Known Member
A good debate on the subject is in order.

What is driving the discussion is there are a LOT of issues that are being slow-walked and some of those issues, like modernizing our environmental regulations are time sensitive. Also, fascist cops operating as if the law doesn't affect them. Also, how in hell did we end up with corporations having same rights as people and money is same as free speech? (rhetorical question). The list is growing and maybe it is time to break the Republican log jam.
I concur. The situation is urgent. That man appointed hundreds of Federal judges, and we need a Scotus that will hold the line against the illiberal tripe that will soon flood from those courts.
If we do not balance the court fast, the Republic is not gonna survive in recognizable form.
 

mooray

Well-Known Member
No argument that this country has laws but enforces them when convenient. Discretion to pick and choose or when to ignore and when to enforce is at the heart of systemic racism and so many other inequities in the status quo. So, why is that? Are court's living up to the expectation of blind justice? I don't think so and the SCOTUS is a good example of why it does not. We have seen a wave of rulings that underpin the rise of the fascist right. If they topple Roe v Wade, it would be just another example. So, I don't think the question of "what to do about minority, extremist control of the Supreme Court" is about more laws, rather it's about how those laws are enforced and SCOTUS is shifting the legal system to favor wealthy, white people who already hold power.

A short list of what I'm talking about:




The issues I listed earlier have real consequences for real people. Climate change for example; people are dying because others in power are dithering. I see a sense of urgency on this issue. Same with women's reproductive rights. From what happened under Trump, it seems that Republicans merely want that power in order to stay in power while enriching themselves. They have no interest in governing or making people's lives better. Suggest that perhaps Democrats should respond with norm breaking but legal measures. Like packing the Supreme Court.
I'm in full agreement with you on all of this, right up to the last five words. I just don't see how, if you have nine people and the issue is that 2/3's of them are shitty, that changing the number from 9 to 21(or whatever) will somehow change the process such that 2/3's of them won't be shitty. It's all relative to future time and who has more power and who dies/retires, so it's putting way too much stock into what essentially amounts to a coin toss. Go ahead and make the change and maybe it helps for a while, but be prepared for disappointment at some point.
 

CatHedral

Well-Known Member
I'm in full agreement with you on all of this, right up to the last five words. I just don't see how, if you have nine people and the issue is that 2/3's of them are shitty, that changing the number from 9 to 21(or whatever) will somehow change the process such that 2/3's of them won't be shitty. It's all relative to future time and who has more power and who dies/retires, so it's putting way too much stock into what essentially amounts to a coin toss. Go ahead and make the change and maybe it helps for a while, but be prepared for disappointment at some point.
The Court has always had a variable number of justices. What the former administration did to it (blocking Garland, then cheating and cramming a nut job in months before the term ended) is egregious. Packing the court is less so, is both legal and precedented, and is an underresponse to the GQP program of destruction. We have to apply judicial field medicine and deal with disappointments as they emerge.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
I'm in full agreement with you on all of this, right up to the last five words. I just don't see how, if you have nine people and the issue is that 2/3's of them are shitty, that changing the number from 9 to 21(or whatever) will somehow change the process such that 2/3's of them won't be shitty. It's all relative to future time and who has more power and who dies/retires, so it's putting way too much stock into what essentially amounts to a coin toss. Go ahead and make the change and maybe it helps for a while, but be prepared for disappointment at some point.
I'm not exactly in the camp of people saying it must be done. Just ready to have a discussion on the subject.

To me, the two worst decisions made by the Roberts Supreme Court --

Citizen's United: "money is free speech and corporations are people" opens the floodgates of money into lobbying groups that are free to spend as much as they want. With all that cash comes corruption, grift and implicit promises to "take care of you" after the compliant official does the dirty work for the wealthy. If you want to pretend that the wealthy are a multicultural multi-ethnic group, go ahead. But the characterization of that group as white and male seems accurate to me.

Shelby County v. Holder: A 2013 decision in which the Supreme Court invalidated a decades-old “coverage formula” naming jurisdictions that had to pass federal scrutiny under the Voting Rights Act, referred to as “preclearance,” in order to pass any new elections or voting laws. The Roberts court made way for the voter-suppression laws we are seeing enacted today.

These were made possible by Republican packing the courts. The two together are anti-democratic with an illiberal purpose. Along with systemic racism and classism, these rulings are why Republican's can hold so much power without the consent of the majority.

The slippery slope argument that you voiced is based on fear and not fact. It is an implicit argument that if we do one thing then naturally bad things will come from it. It's reasonable to recognize the risk and it's also reasonable to address those risks when taking positive action.

So now, we are seeing serious challenges to the rights privacy for women to make choices regarding their own medical care. I don't need a slippery slope argument to point out that this would put women in second citizen status. Yet, a minority group is pushing for that very thing and they control the Supreme Court. History shows us that women will suffer and die if this happens. I support women's rights. I support majority rule. I don't support this Supreme Court or the damage it is doing to both.

So, OK. What are our alternatives? If packing the Supreme Court is not the right thing to do then what is the alternative that can cap the damage the Roberts Court has done and prevent more? People's rights are just that. They are not negotiable. Telling women to "wait a while and maybe you'll get your rights back" is not going to go over well.
 
Last edited:

mooray

Well-Known Member
The Court has always had a variable number of justices. What the former administration did to it (blocking Garland, then cheating and cramming a nut job in months before the term ended) is egregious. Packing the court is less so, is both legal and precedented, and is an underresponse to the GQP program of destruction. We have to apply judicial field medicine and deal with disappointments as they emerge.
Changing the total number of justices does nothing to fix the egregious, so you have to be okay with the continuing egregious, and hope that sticking another finger/toe in the leaky dam will stop the leak. Which, it never does, but maybe it buys enough time for something else.
 

CatHedral

Well-Known Member
Changing the total number of justices does nothing to fix the egregious, so you have to be okay with the continuing egregious, and hope that sticking another finger/toe in the leaky dam will stop the leak. Which, it never does, but maybe it buys enough time for something else.
Your first sentence baffles me. Adding nonauthoritarian justices rebalances the court.

I am mystified by why you are defending the corrupt judicial apparatus that has been installed by the rogue right. It is the cornerstone of their fascist ambition.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Changing the total number of justices does nothing to fix the egregious, so you have to be okay with the continuing egregious, and hope that sticking another finger/toe in the leaky dam will stop the leak. Which, it never does, but maybe it buys enough time for something else.
I too don't understand your first line. Could you explain why Biden's picks will necessarily be as egregious as the extreme right wing judges appointed by Trump and Shrub?
 

mooray

Well-Known Member
Your first sentence baffles me. Adding nonauthoritarian justices rebalances the court.

I am mystified by why you are defending the corrupt judicial apparatus that has been installed by the rogue right. It is the cornerstone of their fascist ambition.
I'm trying to point out the separation between these two things, because whether or not there are 9 justices or 21 justices, that number is not a metric for corruption, so yes, go ahead and make the change and maybe it works out well right now, but if the problem is corruption, then know that making that change does nothing for corruption tomorrow. It does not fix the problem, so be prepared to have the same problem again.

I too don't understand your first line. Could you explain why Biden's picks will necessarily be as egregious as the extreme right wing judges appointed by Trump and Shrub?
Because he's not going to live forever and the constitution limits presidents to two terms. Plus, I *think* there have been more republican presidents than democrats, so we're probably going to be dealing with piece of shit presidents for at least half of these presidential cycles, and presumably a similar pattern with senate majorities, so it's just a coin toss as to when a justice checks out and when republicans are in power. What stops the same thing from happening again?
 
Last edited:

CatHedral

Well-Known Member
I'm trying to point out the separation between these two things, because whether or not there are 9 justices or 21 justices, that number is not a metric for corruption, so yes, go ahead and make the change and maybe it works out well right now, but if the problem is corruption, then know that making that change does nothing for corruption tomorrow. It does not fix the problem, so be prepared to have the same problem again.
You are dismissing my field medicine argument.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
I'm trying to point out the separation between these two things, because whether or not there are 9 justices or 21 justices, that number is not a metric for corruption, so yes, go ahead and make the change and maybe it works out well right now, but if the problem is corruption, then know that making that change does nothing for corruption tomorrow. It does not fix the problem, so be prepared to have the same problem again.
What problem do you refer to?
 
Top