Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   Progressives, don't try to pack the Supreme Court. Reform it to make it less powerful   (theatlantic.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Supreme Court of the United States, President of the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Democratic Party, New Deal, Supreme Court, United States Congress, United States  
•       •       •

1967 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Aug 2020 at 1:52 PM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



170 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-08-09 9:54:38 AM  
Idiot, no. It is a coequal branch by design. You need to reduce the power of the president and Congress in equal measures then.
 
2020-08-09 9:59:49 AM  
It's the Presidency and Congress that need reeled in.  The SCOTUS oftentimes are the ones doing that, especially in times of strife.  And when they fail to (Dred Scott, Plessy), things go to shiat pretty damned quick.
 
2020-08-09 10:02:17 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-09 10:27:12 AM  
Don't do this packing nonsense, that sort of garbage never ends. If it is wrong when they do it, it is wrong when you do it. Far too many people on here are generally blinded by their idiotic partisanship and never contemplate the ramifications of what they propose.

IlGreven: It's the Presidency and Congress that need reeled in.  The SCOTUS oftentimes are the ones doing that, especially in times of strife.  And when they fail to (Dred Scott, Plessy), things go to shiat pretty damned quick.


It isn't so much that Congress needs reeled in, just that it should assert itself. Co-equal branches of government don't necessarily work as intended when one acts less like a peer and more like an arm of the Executive Branch, the Founding Fathers didn't envision parties the way they currently operate.
 
2020-08-09 10:30:33 AM  
Today's Atlantic article is sponsored by Reason.

Reason: we have none.
 
2020-08-09 10:40:57 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Today's Atlantic article is sponsored by Reason.

Reason: we have none.


"Bolshevik Babooshka Bladder Busters don't come cheap" is a reason.
 
2020-08-09 10:43:38 AM  
SCOTUS should have at least 13 justices. The current 9 with lifetime appointments and the majority from 2 law schools is not the best method.
 
2020-08-09 11:01:17 AM  

eurotrader: SCOTUS should have at least 13 justices. The current 9 with lifetime appointments and the majority from 2 law schools is not the best method.


This isnt complicated. Federal appellate courts have like 17 judges, and the rotate in randomly assigned three judge panels.  A majority of the judges are able to vote to rehear a case with the full panel.

Just do that.
 
2020-08-09 11:13:26 AM  
Push through two justices and amend the Constitution to where if the President submits a pick to the Senate and if the Senate does not act upon that request within 14 days it is deemed to have consented to the pick provided said pick is not submitted within 14 days of the Congress regularly adjourning
 
2020-08-09 11:35:21 AM  
In order to "pack" the court, progressives first need to win statewide and national elections. To do this, they must compromise and attract moderate voters, two things purists refuse to do. So it's all rather a moot point.

(Unless they're that rare breed of practical progressive that actually understands this.)
 
2020-08-09 11:38:41 AM  

pueblonative: Push through two justices and amend the Constitution to where if the President submits a pick to the Senate and if the Senate does not act upon that request within 14 days it is deemed to have consented to the pick provided said pick is not submitted within 14 days of the Congress regularly adjourning


Given the current status of the country, I'm leery about opening up the constitution for amendment.  I'm not saying there aren't things that need tweaking, but dog only knows what other things the god botherers might slide in.

That said, the congress should not be able to ignore a presidential action that requires their approval.  We have the restrictions on how long a President can sit on something, it needs to work the other way as well.
 
2020-08-09 11:50:55 AM  
Sure, sure.  We'll do that right after getting rid of all the "rich people get to steal all your money rules."  And the "cops get to kill with impunity rules".  And the "racists get to open their fat yaps and not go to prison rules."

Then we'll do that reform.
 
2020-08-09 12:09:21 PM  
Yeah! Let's nerf the Supreme Court! What a great idea. Possibly the greatest idea ever. Yep. Nothing bad could possibly happen as a result....
 
2020-08-09 12:13:17 PM  
DIAF The Atlantic. You're already on my shiatlist for running the dumbass nurse chiding teachers to unnecessarily risk their lives, and this is just idiotic. Maybe consider weakening the monstrous Executive branch, which can apparently bypass the other two? Nah, we're farking The Atlantic.
 
2020-08-09 12:22:56 PM  

shadow01: Idiot, no. It is a coequal branch by design. You need to reduce the power of the president and Congress in equal measures then.


This.

Just an awful proposal in the article.

Adding five justices in addition to thwarting conservatives for 25+ years (if done properly) would effectively depoliticize the court as no legislation would hang on one justice's opinion.
 
2020-08-09 12:33:25 PM  

shadow01: Idiot, no. It is a coequal branch by design. You need to reduce the power of the president and Congress in equal measures then.


Reduce the power of Congress? How about waking them up do they pay attention to life outside the beltway?
 
2020-08-09 12:33:36 PM  

shadow01: Idiot, no. It is a coequal branch by design. You need to reduce the power of the president and Congress in equal measures then.


I think the super-majority idea is not bad. I also think we need to pack the courts to try to undo the damage of the last 40 years of conservatism and then we need to pass legislation to prevent the conservatives from doing the same thing. It also needs to be easier to impeach / remove justices.

But changes to other branches are needed as well. I wouldn't say it's so much "reducing power" as it is adding some accountability back into the system.  Here are changes I would love to see:

1. Expand the House greatly. In 1911 Congress passed the Apportionment Act that limited the number of reps to 435. And now the average district has tripled in size since then to more than 700k residents. It's become so a rep really doesn't have to represent the 45% or so of residents who vote for the minority in any given district. That's nationwide so you essentially have 45% of Americans who are taxed without real representation.

2. Laws to combat gerrymandering. (there's lots of proposals, I won't speak to which one is "right")

3. The Senate is tougher because any significant changes would require amendments. I'd love the Senate to become proportional as well. Admitting DC and PR as states would help. Other ideas include combining smaller states together (who needs 2 Dakotas anyway?).   I'd also like to see some Senate rules codified. For example I don't think we should get rid of the filibuster but we need to make it where if someone wants to do it they have to get their butts up there and talk non-stop rather than just saying "i'm filibustering".  I also think confirmations should always require a 2/3rds majority to help keep one party from packing courts.

4. Supermajority required for certain decisions on the Supreme court. No more lifetime appointments though I'd argue that a sitting president could reappoint a justice at the end of their term  if they desire (so it's not term limits which present their own problems).  Increase the size of the court. Require court appointees to have served on lower courts.

5. President: I'm anti-term-limits in general. I'd actually like to see term-limits for President repealed. Make the VP an actual election rather than voting for them together.  Ensure that war-powers are limited only after WAR BE DECLARED.  Narrow the use of executive orders.

6. Voting rights: Restore the Voting Rights act. Make election day a holiday.  Make all terms multiples of 4. House Terms are now 4 and Senate terms are now 8. That way we can slow down the perpetual churn of elections. Codify that states must follow the federal election calendar as well.    Elections are 100% publicly funded and election day is a holiday or Saturday. Nationwide vote by mail should also be a thing.

/ yeah I'm dreaming i know
 
2020-08-09 1:03:20 PM  
there aren't any progressives that have a shot at packing the supreme court.
We only have two conservative parties now moving rightward that have any ability to pack the court so that means conservative justices either way.
 
2020-08-09 1:25:28 PM  
Progressives and conservatives share a couple of  common traits;  they both get all triggered and butthurt when they do not get their way and they only think some rights are actually rights.

Leave SCOTUS alone, It is the  one branch that acts correctly a majority of the time!
 
2020-08-09 1:31:07 PM  
Let's see... the President can veto legislation on a whim and sign executive orders to do whatever he wants.

Meanwhile Congress can pass laws... sometimes... and oversee the agencies... sorta... and cancel the President... in theory.

And the SCOTUS can tell people that they shouldn't have done whatever they did, but can't actually enforce that.

I'm thinking an overly strong SCOTUS isn't a problem at the moment.
 
2020-08-09 1:54:08 PM  
The Atlantic sounds concerned
 
2020-08-09 1:54:23 PM  
Ok Turtle.
/surejan.jpeg
//maximum eyeroll
///3 for Fark
 
2020-08-09 1:59:14 PM  
So the defense of if we do it, they'll do it is absurd. They walk in to your house and piss on your rug and no one will do anything about it. But let's not try to level the playing field because that would be hyper partisan. They are already doing it. They piss on your rug every day. They shiat in your cereal. And we do nothing because.... decency? fark that. They're pigs. Sometimes you gotta get in the mud to reel em in.

Stack the court. Impeach judges that are wholly unqualified. Ensure that equal representation is afforded all citizens, not just wealthy old white guys.

While we're at it, pass a law that requires that all bills signed by one house of legislature MUST be taken to a floor vote within 30 days. fark this McConnell graveyard shiat.
 
stk
2020-08-09 2:00:06 PM  

WoodyHayes: Don't do this packing nonsense, that sort of garbage never ends. If it is wrong when they do it, it is wrong when you do it. Far too many people on here are generally blinded by their idiotic partisanship and never contemplate the ramifications of what they propose.

IlGreven: It's the Presidency and Congress that need reeled in.  The SCOTUS oftentimes are the ones doing that, especially in times of strife.  And when they fail to (Dred Scott, Plessy), things go to shiat pretty damned quick.

It isn't so much that Congress needs reeled in, just that it should assert itself. Co-equal branches of government don't necessarily work as intended when one acts less like a peer and more like an arm of the Executive Branch, the Founding Fathers didn't envision parties the way they currently operate.


The Alt-Right Playbook: You Go High, We Go Low
Youtube MAbab8aP4_A
I mean, they're already doing it and the system isn't going to save us.
I'd rather have a dubious, practical victory than a hollow moral victory. Moral victories don't protect vulnerable populations.
 
2020-08-09 2:01:46 PM  

WoodyHayes: Don't do this packing nonsense, that sort of garbage never ends. If it is wrong when they do it, it is wrong when you do it. Far too many people on here are generally blinded by their idiotic partisanship and never contemplate the ramifications of what they propose.

IlGreven: It's the Presidency and Congress that need reeled in.  The SCOTUS oftentimes are the ones doing that, especially in times of strife.  And when they fail to (Dred Scott, Plessy), things go to shiat pretty damned quick.

It isn't so much that Congress needs reeled in, just that it should assert itself. Co-equal branches of government don't necessarily work as intended when one acts less like a peer and more like an arm of the Executive Branch, the Founding Fathers didn't envision parties the way they currently operate.


Ramifications like what?

More justices just reduces the influence of any single justice and by extension the politics of the president who installed them.
 
2020-08-09 2:02:43 PM  
No.
 
2020-08-09 2:04:48 PM  
The Supreme Court should go to 11.

i.ytimg.comView Full Size
 
2020-08-09 2:05:08 PM  
How'bout both. And by pack I mean just rebalance it away from what Federalist Society has jammed down Our throats.
 
2020-08-09 2:09:46 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-09 2:10:41 PM  
Concern noted. Eat shat and die.
 
2020-08-09 2:13:25 PM  
Susan Collins to join the staff of the Atlantic ... soon.
 
2020-08-09 2:14:32 PM  

PaulRB: Sure, sure.  We'll do that right after getting rid of all the "rich people get to steal all your money rules."  And the "cops get to kill with impunity rules".  And the "racists get to open their fat yaps and not go to prison rules."

Then we'll do that reform.


I almost smarted your post, but the end is just wrong.  Racists are allowed to be racist, that's their problem.

And I *want* them to say racist shiat, it makes them easier to identify...
 
2020-08-09 2:15:24 PM  

WoodyHayes: Don't do this packing nonsense, that sort of garbage never ends. If it is wrong when they do it, it is wrong when you do it. Far too many people on here are generally blinded by their idiotic partisanship and never contemplate the ramifications of what they propose.


This is a deeply naive post. You seem to have just arrived on our planet via time machine, from some time in our past before the last half a century. That's clear, because if you hadn't you'd realize how silly what you wrote was.

First of all, is it wrong? No. Congress has the power to set how many justices are on the court via legislative order. It is not illegal, it's using the power of the legislature. Is it morally wrong? That's much more subjective, but I don't see how it could be morally wrong being that it's within the powers of congress already. The specific intent would then seem to me to be determinative, and in this case that specific intent would be to reverse an act which was morally wrong, the previous congress' abuse of power for partisan gain.

Secondly, the ramifications are exactly nil. The GOP congress will use this exact same maneuver the next time they have both need and opportunity. They've demonstrated over the last half a century - without any room for reasonable doubt - that they will not only wield power as creatively as possible to use the power of the state to help them seize and hold disproportionate amounts of power, but ignore or break the law as well. "Conservatives" push the limits constantly, to find out what they can get away with. Whatever "precedent" we're concerned about setting here is about as quaint as being worried about that fart you just let rip outside during a hurricane.

Responsible governance doesn't mean your decorum is a one-sided suicide pact.
 
2020-08-09 2:16:04 PM  
or pack the court, do what you need to do, then reform it.
 
2020-08-09 2:18:25 PM  

WoodyHayes: Don't do this packing nonsense, that sort of garbage never ends. If it is wrong when they do it, it is wrong when you do it. Far too many people on here are generally blinded by their idiotic partisanship and never contemplate the ramifications of what they propose.

IlGreven: It's the Presidency and Congress that need reeled in.  The SCOTUS oftentimes are the ones doing that, especially in times of strife.  And when they fail to (Dred Scott, Plessy), things go to shiat pretty damned quick.

It isn't so much that Congress needs reeled in, just that it should assert itself. Co-equal branches of government don't necessarily work as intended when one acts less like a peer and more like an arm of the Executive Branch, the Founding Fathers didn't envision parties the way they currently operate.


"Guys don't push back.  If you do we'll have to do the escalations we're already in the process of doing."
 
2020-08-09 2:25:08 PM  
Term limits for EVERYONE in our government, including the Supreme Court.

That's all. Just prevent people from parking their asses in a comfy government position and staying there until they die of old age.
 
2020-08-09 2:25:29 PM  
Or just ignore their rulings, like Trump does.
 
2020-08-09 2:25:32 PM  

shadow01: Idiot, no. It is a coequal branch by design. You need to reduce the power of the president and Congress in equal measures then.


Yeah, imagine a Supreme Court with less power.  Ergo, Roe v. Wade becomes nothing more than "opinion" that the hypocritical religious right can hand-wave with little or no consequences.
 
2020-08-09 2:26:29 PM  

gilgigamesh: eurotrader: SCOTUS should have at least 13 justices. The current 9 with lifetime appointments and the majority from 2 law schools is not the best method.

This isnt complicated. Federal appellate courts have like 17 judges, and the rotate in randomly assigned three judge panels.  A majority of the judges are able to vote to rehear a case with the full panel.

Just do that.


This.
 
2020-08-09 2:26:48 PM  
Oh cool, a conservative lecturing a progressive on how NOT to do what the conservatives are too scared to do.

That's so new and refreshing. Never seen it before.
 
2020-08-09 2:28:14 PM  

bluejeansonfire: Oh cool, a conservative lecturing a progressive on how NOT to do what the conservatives are too scared to do.

That's so new and refreshing. Never seen it before.


...right before they do it themselves, generally. Or we find out that they've secretly been doing it already. Every accusation a "conservative" makes is a confession. Every goddamned time.
 
2020-08-09 2:28:24 PM  

Jensaarai: The Atlantic sounds concerned


Is it too much to ask that you come up with something better than a twelve-year-old meme? Knowing this crowd, it's probably asking too much.
 
2020-08-09 2:29:25 PM  
Or we could, I don't know, try using the democratic process like we're supposed to instead of wanting to take every single controversial issue to the one unelected branch of government so they can take the responsibility out of our hands.

All of our problems need MORE democracy, not less.
 
2020-08-09 2:30:58 PM  
The supreme court needs to be expanded and more liberal justices appointed. Take care of the problem we currently have where people that represent less than a fifth of the population got to appoint a majority on it. Then go about appointing as many judges in the lower courts as possible. As it stands right now, federal courts are very skewed towards the south and flyover country.
 
2020-08-09 2:31:40 PM  

FlashHarry: In order to "pack" the court, progressives first need to win statewide and national elections. To do this, they must compromise and attract moderate voters, two things purists refuse to do. So it's all rather a moot point.

(Unless they're that rare breed of practical progressive that actually understands this.)


Spoken like a Lincoln project stooge. Supplant 30% of your base with 10% conservatives and you just have to start admitting you're a Republican.
 
2020-08-09 2:31:42 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-09 2:33:58 PM  

AlwaysRightBoy: Jensaarai: The Atlantic sounds concerned

Is it too much to ask that you come up with something better than a twelve-year-old meme? Knowing this crowd, it's probably asking too much.


Anyone who isn't concerned most of the time is an idiot.  Or a hack, who thinks that their team should be enthusiastically fellated under any and all circumstances
 
2020-08-09 2:34:33 PM  
Problem with the court is the have no enforcement ability. They say do this executive says make me. The executive is too powerful (so is Senate).
 
2020-08-09 2:35:21 PM  

BizarreMan: pueblonative: Push through two justices and amend the Constitution to where if the President submits a pick to the Senate and if the Senate does not act upon that request within 14 days it is deemed to have consented to the pick provided said pick is not submitted within 14 days of the Congress regularly adjourning

Given the current status of the country, I'm leery about opening up the constitution for amendment.  I'm not saying there aren't things that need tweaking, but dog only knows what other things the god botherers might slide in.

That said, the congress should not be able to ignore a presidential action that requires their approval.  We have the restrictions on how long a President can sit on something, it needs to work the other way as well.


Problem with a constitutional amendment is that republican control of the rural low population states means it would be impossible to pass anything they don't want, even if an amendment is widely popular and supported.
 
2020-08-09 2:35:30 PM  

WoodyHayes: Don't do this packing nonsense, that sort of garbage never ends. If it is wrong when they do it, it is wrong when you do it. Far too many people on here are generally blinded by their idiotic partisanship and never contemplate the ramifications of what they propose.

IlGreven: It's the Presidency and Congress that need reeled in.  The SCOTUS oftentimes are the ones doing that, especially in times of strife.  And when they fail to (Dred Scott, Plessy), things go to shiat pretty damned quick.

It isn't so much that Congress needs reeled in, just that it should assert itself. Co-equal branches of government don't necessarily work as intended when one acts less like a peer and more like an arm of the Executive Branch, the Founding Fathers didn't envision parties the way they currently operate.


Oh they did (factions), and they were properly terrified.
 
Displayed 50 of 170 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.