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.

(Vox)   Democrats need to pack the courts   (vox.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, President of the United States, Supreme Court of the United States, Democratic Party, Supreme Court, United States Senate, Barack Obama, President Barack Obama, United States  
•       •       •

2567 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Sep 2020 at 5:35 AM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


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

 
2020-09-18 11:07:45 PM  
It's cute that they think we'll ever be allowed to do that.
 
2020-09-19 2:13:59 AM  
LOL, with what?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2020-09-19 2:46:00 AM  
Sounds like the only solution to me.
 
2020-09-19 2:52:43 AM  
Needs Democratic control of the House, Senate, and Presidency.  I'm opposed to the idea in general, but it may be necessary to have any semblance of balance on SCOTUS.
 
2020-09-19 5:40:56 AM  
Ask FDR how that plan works out.
 
2020-09-19 5:43:11 AM  
First things first though - add DC and Puerto Rico as US states.    That will help with the Senate.
 
2020-09-19 5:44:36 AM  
It's too late.  The sniveling centrist pussies farked around playing chicken with a fascist freight train and now we're all gonna find out.  Y'all think 200k americans dead is bad? Sept 2021 we'll be looking back fondly saying things like "remember in 2020 when there was a constitution and courts? The good old days."
 
2020-09-19 5:45:49 AM  
I just woke up and my first thought was the sheer utter horror at the thought of the wet dreams Moscow Mitch was having last night.  There's not enough alcohol I can possibly drink today to get rid of that thought in my head.
 
2020-09-19 5:52:25 AM  
'Well, instead we could remove the unqualified judges that you pushed through.  Want to help do that?  No?  Then we do it this way.'
 
2020-09-19 5:52:44 AM  
It's a nice idea, but any law to change SCOTUS size could get struck down by SCOTUS.
 
2020-09-19 5:55:15 AM  
Once the covid restrictions are lifted, Hillary can Pelican Brief couple of the republican justices at the gay porn theater. Problem solved.
 
2020-09-19 6:01:55 AM  
I feel as though the rest of the headline should read "... with dynamite, light it, and then rebuild from scratch."
 
2020-09-19 6:08:17 AM  

Dafatone: It's a nice idea, but any law to change SCOTUS size could get struck down by SCOTUS.


Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to determine the number of seats on the Supreme Court.

That number has been changed multiple times - from as few as 5 to as many as 10.

In 1869, that number was set to 9 where it has stayed.

SCOTUS can't do a damned thing unless they want to ignore the Constitution and 230 years of legal precedent.
 
2020-09-19 6:10:12 AM  

Saiga410: Ask FDR how that plan works out.


FDR never had legislation passed.

He went to Congress who told him to pound sand.  Eventually he convinced two of the existing Justices to go along with the New Deal legislation.
 
2020-09-19 6:15:07 AM  

Dafatone: It's a nice idea, but any law to change SCOTUS size could get struck down by SCOTUS.


Who told you that?
 
2020-09-19 6:17:27 AM  
It sucks but it may be the only option.

The other option, which is the one I prefer, is that as the vast breadth and depth of this administrations malice and incompetence are made known, and as Trump lays dying in prison, the Trump appointees are quietly given the option to resign their positions with whatever honor they have left or be impeached and subsequently removed due to the suspect nature of their appointments.

As resigning is the honorable path, I expect no member of the treason party to take it. Which means we're left with packing the court and maybe shrinking it later as the Trump appointees age out.

Honestly though I'm good with 11 or 15 people on the court. Given the weight of the issues they consider leaving it to only nine people has never sat well. Past 15 and your dealing with what starts to feel like a miniature legislature.

I'd also like it if we set an age cap and/or made a SCOTUS appointment 10 years, but that takes amending the constitution.

I'd also like a pony.
 
2020-09-19 6:18:16 AM  
People die all the time, if say 4 republican senators were to pass in the next couple of weeks the Dems would have a majority in the senate long enough to tie things up until after Jan 20.
 
2020-09-19 6:24:08 AM  
The number of Justices was a political football even during the Founders time, when Adams and co reduced the number to five in order to stymie political appointments by Jefferson.

It was as high as 10 in 1863, and several times the argument has been made to equal the number of justices to the number of federal circuit courts.

Overall, the number of justices has changed seven times.
 
2020-09-19 6:26:38 AM  
I'm hoping the combined threat to pack the court and the temptation for Trump to run on the "Elect me so I can pick the next Judge". May be enough to keep the Republicans at bay. But probably not
 
2020-09-19 6:30:50 AM  

Mollari: People die all the time, if say 4 republican senators were to pass in the next couple of weeks the Dems would have a majority in the senate long enough to tie things up until after Jan 20.


"Why don't you eliminate the entire Narn homeworld while you're at it?"


/yeah, yeah, you're not mr. morden.
//"One thing at a time, Ambassador. One thing at a time."
///Wouldn't mind being able to VirWave.gif at a mcconnell though.
 
2020-09-19 6:33:11 AM  

Boudyro: It sucks but it may be the only option.

The other option, which is the one I prefer, is that as the vast breadth and depth of this administrations malice and incompetence are made known, and as Trump lays dying in prison, the Trump appointees are quietly given the option to resign their positions with whatever honor they have left or be impeached and subsequently removed due to the suspect nature of their appointments.

As resigning is the honorable path, I expect no member of the treason party to take it. Which means we're left with packing the court and maybe shrinking it later as the Trump appointees age out.

Honestly though I'm good with 11 or 15 people on the court. Given the weight of the issues they consider leaving it to only nine people has never sat well. Past 15 and your dealing with what starts to feel like a miniature legislature.

I'd also like it if we set an age cap and/or made a SCOTUS appointment 10 years, but that takes amending the constitution.

I'd also like a pony.


13, to match the original number of colonies.
 
2020-09-19 6:35:03 AM  
When the opportunity presents itself, Dems need to change SCOTUS to 17 or 19 justices, then add at least 7 qualified, minority women to it.

With so many justices, no single justice has that much power.

Also, the rules could be altered so that instead of all justices hearing each case, we could see some cases where just 7, 9, or 11 of the justices are randomly assigned to hear a case.  More cases could be heard this way.
 
2020-09-19 6:38:57 AM  

Snapper Carr: unless they want to ignore the Constitution and 230 years of legal precedent.


Sounds like everybody's on the same page, then.
 
2020-09-19 6:40:17 AM  
Terlis:

13, to match the original number of colonies.

It also matches the number for federal circuit courts, and several of the expansions in the number of Justices were done with that exact rationale.
 
2020-09-19 6:46:52 AM  

Dafatone: It's a nice idea, but any law to change SCOTUS size could get struck down by SCOTUS.


That's not how the constitution works.
 
2020-09-19 6:49:24 AM  
Need to empty them first.
 
2020-09-19 6:53:22 AM  

MindStalker: I'm hoping the combined threat to pack the court and the temptation for Trump to run on the "Elect me so I can pick the next Judge". May be enough to keep the Republicans at bay. But probably not


Then this Supreme Court pick becomes the defining characteristic of the election. And republicans can forget Trump and focus on that.

This just sucks all around.
 
2020-09-19 6:55:01 AM  

holdmybones: Dafatone: It's a nice idea, but any law to change SCOTUS size could get struck down by SCOTUS.

That's not how the constitution works.


It would be a long and stupid uphill battle requiring many complicit judges to get to that point, but if it did, what they say about it goes.

Such a case would be appropriate to reject at so many points along the way, but they've alreadt mangled the lower courts severely. That Flynn mandamus writ was something special.
 
2020-09-19 6:57:06 AM  

holdmybones: MindStalker: I'm hoping the combined threat to pack the court and the temptation for Trump to run on the "Elect me so I can pick the next Judge". May be enough to keep the Republicans at bay. But probably not

Then this Supreme Court pick becomes the defining characteristic of the election. And republicans can forget Trump and focus on that.

This just sucks all around.


Could go either way on that though.

Quite a few Republicans would be fine if they got the Supreme Court to cut ties with Trump.
 
2020-09-19 7:05:00 AM  

demiurgex: Terlis:

13, to match the original number of colonies.

It also matches the number for federal circuit courts, and several of the expansions in the number of Justices were done with that exact rationale.


That's a good point as well.
 
2020-09-19 7:05:55 AM  

incendi: holdmybones: Dafatone: It's a nice idea, but any law to change SCOTUS size could get struck down by SCOTUS.

That's not how the constitution works.

It would be a long and stupid uphill battle requiring many complicit judges to get to that point, but if it did, what they say about it goes.

Such a case would be appropriate to reject at so many points along the way, but they've alreadt mangled the lower courts severely. That Flynn mandamus writ was something special.


No. I'm sorry but that's wrong. The SC has no say in it.
 
2020-09-19 7:13:49 AM  

demiurgex: Terlis:

13, to match the original number of colonies.

It also matches the number for federal circuit courts, and several of the expansions in the number of Justices were done with that exact rationale.


I'd actually do 14 and have the CJ elected by the court instead of appointed. One for each circuit court and a cj. Then I'd have cases heard by a 3 judge panel. One being the judge for the circuit court it came from and the other 2 random. If a majority of justices or the CJ think a case should be heard by all they could decide to hear it with the full court instead.

More justices helps depoliticize the court and by hearing as a 3 judge panel the court could hear far more cases. There's an unacceptable bottleneck of cases that need rulings. If something is unconstitutional it shouldn't take a decade to figure it out and reverse it. We also need to expand lower courts to speed up cases there too.
 
2020-09-19 7:13:57 AM  

holdmybones: incendi: holdmybones: Dafatone: It's a nice idea, but any law to change SCOTUS size could get struck down by SCOTUS.

That's not how the constitution works.

It would be a long and stupid uphill battle requiring many complicit judges to get to that point, but if it did, what they say about it goes.

Such a case would be appropriate to reject at so many points along the way, but they've alreadt mangled the lower courts severely. That Flynn mandamus writ was something special.

No. I'm sorry but that's wrong. The SC has no say in it.


Are you saying judicial review isn't a thing, or that such an outcome would be wrongly decided and extraordinarily bad law?

We crow about stare decisis and all, but the SC, out of everyone in government, really can just kinda make shiat up.
 
2020-09-19 7:19:42 AM  

willwall: depoliticize the court


This needs to be the goal, and the Democrat talking point. "Packing the court" is a harder sell.
 
2020-09-19 7:21:30 AM  

incendi: holdmybones: incendi: holdmybones: Dafatone: It's a nice idea, but any law to change SCOTUS size could get struck down by SCOTUS.

That's not how the constitution works.

It would be a long and stupid uphill battle requiring many complicit judges to get to that point, but if it did, what they say about it goes.

Such a case would be appropriate to reject at so many points along the way, but they've alreadt mangled the lower courts severely. That Flynn mandamus writ was something special.

No. I'm sorry but that's wrong. The SC has no say in it.

Are you saying judicial review isn't a thing, or that such an outcome would be wrongly decided and extraordinarily bad law?

We crow about stare decisis and all, but the SC, out of everyone in government, really can just kinda make shiat up.


The number has changed no fewer than four times with no intervention by the Supreme Court.

Per them making shiat up? Sure. They could break with constitutional tradition and the written word of the document but at that point the constitution is completely meaningless and we have a broken republic.
 
2020-09-19 7:27:33 AM  

Eegah: willwall: depoliticize the court

This needs to be the goal, and the Democrat talking point. "Packing the court" is a harder sell.


Agreed, I'd even go so far as timing the law so justices were not added all at once but spread out over several years. Say one a year. Assuming it would take a bit to get the law passed that would leave 2 of the 5 new justices to be appointed by the next president.
 
2020-09-19 7:35:11 AM  

incendi: holdmybones: incendi: holdmybones: Dafatone: It's a nice idea, but any law to change SCOTUS size could get struck down by SCOTUS.

That's not how the constitution works.

It would be a long and stupid uphill battle requiring many complicit judges to get to that point, but if it did, what they say about it goes.

Such a case would be appropriate to reject at so many points along the way, but they've alreadt mangled the lower courts severely. That Flynn mandamus writ was something special.

No. I'm sorry but that's wrong. The SC has no say in it.

Are you saying judicial review isn't a thing, or that such an outcome would be wrongly decided and extraordinarily bad law?

We crow about stare decisis and all, but the SC, out of everyone in government, really can just kinda make shiat up.


By the way. I'm going on pure emotion right now. It's very possible - even likely - that my constitutional knowledge doesn't cover this. But damn does it feel logical.
 
2020-09-19 7:37:37 AM  

holdmybones: Per them making shiat up? Sure. They could break with constitutional tradition and the written word of the document but at that point the constitution is completely meaningless and we have a broken republic.


See, we do agree!

Obviously I'm not being super serial here and the scenario is wildly far fetched* - but Mitch hasn't spent the last 4 years packing courts to make sure they're full of good, ethical, legally reasonable judges.


*I can't even come up with a remotely plausible basis for any party to have standing, but in a broken republic plausibility isn't always required.
 
2020-09-19 7:45:24 AM  

incendi: holdmybones: Per them making shiat up? Sure. They could break with constitutional tradition and the written word of the document but at that point the constitution is completely meaningless and we have a broken republic.

See, we do agree!

Obviously I'm not being super serial here and the scenario is wildly far fetched* - but Mitch hasn't spent the last 4 years packing courts to make sure they're full of good, ethical, legally reasonable judges.


*I can't even come up with a remotely plausible basis for any party to have standing, but in a broken republic plausibility isn't always required.


We pretty much totally agree now that I've thought it through. Precedent is that they wouldn't touch it, but.....who says they can't touch it?

My kid woke me up at 3 and I couldn't fall back asleep. Between frustration (about RBG) and fatigue I should probably step away from the keyboard.
 
2020-09-19 7:59:32 AM  

holdmybones: incendi: holdmybones: incendi: holdmybones: Dafatone: It's a nice idea, but any law to change SCOTUS size could get struck down by SCOTUS.

That's not how the constitution works.

It would be a long and stupid uphill battle requiring many complicit judges to get to that point, but if it did, what they say about it goes.

Such a case would be appropriate to reject at so many points along the way, but they've alreadt mangled the lower courts severely. That Flynn mandamus writ was something special.

No. I'm sorry but that's wrong. The SC has no say in it.

Are you saying judicial review isn't a thing, or that such an outcome would be wrongly decided and extraordinarily bad law?

We crow about stare decisis and all, but the SC, out of everyone in government, really can just kinda make shiat up.

The number has changed no fewer than four times with no intervention by the Supreme Court.

Per them making shiat up? Sure. They could break with constitutional tradition and the written word of the document but at that point the constitution is completely meaningless and we have a broken republic.


Last eleven words is really all you needed.
 
2020-09-19 8:00:15 AM  
Packing the court sound like an awful idea to me.  But, I guess since so many on the left are on record endorsing such an action, the Trump administration should look into it as part of it's second term agenda.

/They can even use the same bullshiat rationalizations the Dems are now using to justify doing it
 
2020-09-19 8:07:01 AM  
This article seems confused about how the constitution works.  The president gets to nominate a candidate.

That's it.'
 
2020-09-19 8:08:42 AM  

Mollari: People die all the time, if say 4 republican senators were to pass in the next couple of weeks the Dems would have a majority in the senate long enough to tie things up until after Jan 20.


So step up Hillary, your country needs you!
 
2020-09-19 8:10:31 AM  

Teddy Brosevelt: It's too late.  The sniveling centrist pussies farked around playing chicken with a fascist freight train and now we're all gonna find out.  Y'all think 200k americans dead is bad? Sept 2021 we'll be looking back fondly saying things like "remember in 2020 when there was a constitution and courts? The good old days."


This is all 100% Hillary's fault for mailing it in and running a horrible campaign.  If it wasnt for her ineptness we wouldnt be here.

Btw it's much easier to blame the competition rather than face up to the monumental failure that 2016 was and 2020 is going to be.

The democrats lack any ability for self examination.
 
2020-09-19 8:10:34 AM  

Saiga410: Ask FDR how that plan works out.


It worked out very well for him.  The Supreme Court Justices saw they had to play ball with FDR or they would be be rendered irrelevant, it caused Justice Owen Roberts to switch his voting pattern to more favor FDR, the "switch in time that saved nine."  Once he did so, packing the court no longer was needed.  Since FDR was so popular and ended up being elected 3 times more, he eventually replaced a majority of the Supreme Court Justices anyway, during his tenure.
 
2020-09-19 8:14:27 AM  

holdmybones: incendi: holdmybones: incendi: holdmybones: Dafatone: It's a nice idea, but any law to change SCOTUS size could get struck down by SCOTUS.

That's not how the constitution works.

It would be a long and stupid uphill battle requiring many complicit judges to get to that point, but if it did, what they say about it goes.

Such a case would be appropriate to reject at so many points along the way, but they've alreadt mangled the lower courts severely. That Flynn mandamus writ was something special.

No. I'm sorry but that's wrong. The SC has no say in it.

Are you saying judicial review isn't a thing, or that such an outcome would be wrongly decided and extraordinarily bad law?

We crow about stare decisis and all, but the SC, out of everyone in government, really can just kinda make shiat up.

The number has changed no fewer than four times with no intervention by the Supreme Court.

Per them making shiat up? Sure. They could break with constitutional tradition and the written word of the document but at that point the constitution is completely meaningless and we have a broken republic.


At that point?
 
2020-09-19 8:16:09 AM  
I'm all for a Dem packed court, but then what happens when GOP has control?  35 Justices?
 
2020-09-19 8:18:10 AM  
Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand the despair and the pearl clutching. This has been the end game for politicians everywhere since politicking became profitable.
 
2020-09-19 8:18:57 AM  

MsSavannah46: I'm all for a Dem packed court, but then what happens when GOP has control?  35 Justices?


What's to stop that from happening anyways? We've seen how well tradition and respect for institutions has worked so far and there's no reason to expect that they start following it now.
 
2020-09-19 8:19:08 AM  
Biden's handlers need to release a list of potential nominees they would select from to fill a SC vacancy.  President Trump did this as a candidate -Full disclosure, nothing to hide.

/Why would Dems be afraid to let the American people know who they would pack the courts with?
 
Displayed 50 of 119 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | 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.