Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I've heard this brought up as a possibility a few times, and I'm curious how exactly we'd do it. Would it be done via a constitutional amendment or something else?
No beer?! But if there's no beer, then there's no beef or beans!
x2 What
said. The Constitution intentionally left the Court part of the Constitution vague; the only stipulations in there about Courts is that there must be a Supreme Court and that Congress is the one who determines all Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court (plus the rules about how Judges are appointed at the Federal Level). So Congress through simple vote can just say "We're adding 399 Justices" and 399 Justices would be added to the Supreme Court.
"the Democrats wouldn't be able to pretend to be playing by the rules. "
Of course they can. There are no rules. The Republicans make it clear every time that they change and make up the rules to suit them as it goes along. The Supreme Court has not always had nine members, nor has this not been brought up before when they made their purpose in life to obstruct every single thing Congress and the President passed.
![]()
To be honest, I agree with this. A few years ago, I was convinced this would backfire, but honestly we're at "desperate last stand" mode, caution can go to the wind.
Another danger of a Democratic grab for power by packing the courts is that it will play right into Republican/alt-right/Qanon propaganda about the Democrats wanting to take over the country and oppress conservatives.
I think it will inevitably widen divisions if they go that route. It could end up a very pyrrhic victory.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesAt this point, though, I do not see any better options.
BTW, the relevant legislation for the current size of the Supreme Court is the Judiciary Act of 1869
.
There's gonna be no way around it; We have to pack the Supreme Court (and we should probably restructure the Federal court system too). My thinking is that the next Democratic Majority Government (which I hope is 2021) should pack the Court with 5-7 new Justices, then towards the end of their Term (Mid-Late 2022) they should write rules on how future Justices can get into the Court; for instance, a Court Justice can't be elected during a Presidential Election year, they have to have Federal Court Experience but they can't be nominated by the President who put them in (which would've barred Kavanaugh and now Barrett, as both were promoted by Trump to Circuit Courts), etc.
So that even though the Court Packing move will look bad, the new rules would almost certainly be approved by the majority of Americans and it'd look bad for Republicans to try to do away with those new measures.
After years of Republicans blatantly cheating while Democrats try to take the moral high ground... I think it's time we bite back.
Let Fox News and OANN screech about the Dems abusing their power. I don't care. I'm sick of watching Mitch and his cronies flout established customs, obstruct us at every turn and then thumb their noses at us.
No beer?! But if there's no beer, then there's no beef or beans!No they can't.
They would have to strike down a law that enlarges the court, when the Constitution explicitly gives this power to Congress and the President (the president appoints, Congress confirms). Which would rely on getting anyone just added to the court to recuse themselves from a case where the rest of the court is nakedly partisan. Which wouldn't happen, as everyone would have to recuse themselves.
The SC cannot objectively take a case on its own composition so it would come down to a simple majority after it's been expanded.
![]()
And after the court has had its size changed before. Constitution AND precedent.
Edited by RainehDaze on Sep 19th 2020 at 5:47:21 PM
You do realise that the size of the court is set in a law, therefore changing the law is how you pack the court?
And as this does not seem to have sunk in: fretting about the public reaction is saying the conservatives get a court majority for the next forty years and can negate any remotely positive legislation.
I'm sure so many people want you to consider their lives inferior to popularity.
I understand that RBG was an incredible woman with a very strong sense of duty.
However I wonder if she deserves some criticism for her decision to carry on as judge until her death. Of course nobody can predict the future and it is understandable that she did not want to give up her position. But every SCJ must be aware on how the composition of the court may change after his/her death. In Obama's second term, she was already in her 80s and battling with cancer. This should have been the time for her to retire.
![]()
No justices were able to be appointed during Obama's second term, so her retirement would have only made things worse.
Edited by ShinyCottonCandy on Sep 19th 2020 at 12:56:25 PM
My musician pageYou know full well that's not what I mean.
If you pack the courts, then make another law that makes it impossible for anyone to pack them ever again, then that is a blatant power grab. And sure, you as a Democrat can justify it, but Republican voters are going to see that differently. They will see it as an abuse of power, and it will only end up dividing the country even more.
I mean, I agree that all these things need to be done, but I just think the consequences down the road will be bad for the US.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest times

According to her Wikipedia page
, Barrett is another Antonin Scalia wannabe, similar to both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh; an Originalist who believes the Constitution should be interpreted only as it was written. She's also an extreme Catholic, and one of her opinion pieces during her law school tenure was that Catholic Judges should recuse themselves from cases that may result in the Death Penalty due to their Religious Beliefs (which was one of the many things Democratic Senators pointed out at her hearing for the 7th Circuit Court).
There is one silver lining; while she has made her Anti-Abortion opinions well known, she has also conceded that the fundamental right to an Abortion is most likely going to stay, which would most likely indicate she would not overturn Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately that does not rule out making getting an Abortion a lot more difficult, and it's also possible if she gets on the court she would try her hardest to actively end Abortion on the Federal Level.
Edited by DingoWalley1 on Sep 19th 2020 at 12:04:40 PM