Political Roundtable Part XXIX

[Zonkerbl]

For something that was so politically inevitable, radical left wing twitter is ABSOLUTELY FURIOUS about the Barrett confirmation right now. Like, more angry than I've seen in awhile. Nancy Pelosi. Chuck Schumer openly talking about expanding the SCOTUS.

Interesting political move by McConnell, who like Hitler is counting on his opponents' cowardice. Strange for him to make a move that so infuriates his opposition, 8 days before they start counting ballots.

Last, desperate move of obsolete political party? Or foreshadowing of intent to impose dictatorship? Will be interesting to see how the election turns out.

I think Trump loses but voter suppression allows the Republicans to squeak out enough senate wins to maintain the majority, making McConnell absolutely correct in anticipating no consequences to the huge middle finger he gave to America just now.

We'll see i guess.

The more I think about and learn about the idea of ‘packing the court’
the more I like it mainly because it dilutes the importance of any
single judge/justice.

When it comes down to it, I just can't root for an increase in the number of SC Justices. While it's more than tempting to get revenge and avoid the terrible damage done by the current Senate, it would be cheapening a vital and sacred part of our government. And with more Justices, it would be more difficult for the SC to do its job. We need to avoid politicizing the SC. It made me sick the other day seeing a commercial for Barrett's confirmation. Something like that should never happen again.

Too late. GOP already destroyed it. Really have no choice - expand the courts, or allow all the progress made since the 1950s be rolled back.

And one way to depoliticize the SCOTUS is to expand it to, say, 29 judges. Then one judge's retirement doesn't have as much as an impact.

[Pointgod]

For something that was so politically inevitable, radical left wing twitter is ABSOLUTELY FURIOUS about the Barrett confirmation right now. Like, more angry than I've seen in awhile. Nancy Pelosi. Chuck Schumer openly talking about expanding the SCOTUS.

Interesting political move by McConnell, who like Hitler is counting on his opponents' cowardice. Strange for him to make a move that so infuriates his opposition, 8 days before they start counting ballots.

Last, desperate move of obsolete political party? Or foreshadowing of intent to impose dictatorship? Will be interesting to see how the election turns out.

I think Trump loses but voter suppression allows the Republicans to squeak out enough senate wins to maintain the majority, making McConnell absolutely correct in anticipating no consequences to the huge middle finger he gave to America just now.

We'll see i guess.

The more I think about and learn about the idea of ‘packing the court’
the more I like it mainly because it dilutes the importance of any
single judge/justice.

When it comes down to it, I just can't root for an increase in the number of SC Justices. While it's more than tempting to get revenge and avoid the terrible damage done by the current Senate, it would be cheapening a vital and sacred part of our government. And with more Justices, it would be more difficult for the SC to do its job. We need to avoid politicizing the SC. It made me sick the other day seeing a commercial for Barrett's confirmation. Something like that should never happen again.

Well the first thing is that Democrats need to shut the **** up about packing the courts. It never ceases to amaze me how terrible the left is at messaging. Any talks of the court should wait until after the election and second when it does come up it needs to be in the context of court reform or restoring integrity to the judiciary.

And there are a lot of changes that can be made other than adding justices, but some will require constitutional amendments. Adding justices actually makes sense, that way you dilute the effect of the death of anyone justice. And you can add justices in a way that’s seen as balancing the ideological divide. For example adding 6 justices, 3 Liberal and 3 Moderate would actually balance out the courts and add more view points and judiciary philosophies. I mean the Progressive wing would absolutely hate this but it’s a way of reforming the court that isn’t seen as a pure power play and will get a lot of buy in if messaged the right way. Also adding term limits, rotating out the justices between Federal and Supreme Court are other ideas that could depoliticize the courts but aren’t seen as a pure political play.

[Ruzious]

The more I think about and learn about the idea of ‘packing the court’
the more I like it mainly because it dilutes the importance of any
single judge/justice.

When it comes down to it, I just can't root for an increase in the number of SC Justices. While it's more than tempting to get revenge and avoid the terrible damage done by the current Senate, it would be cheapening a vital and sacred part of our government. And with more Justices, it would be more difficult for the SC to do its job. We need to avoid politicizing the SC. It made me sick the other day seeing a commercial for Barrett's confirmation. Something like that should never happen again.

Too late. GOP already destroyed it. Really have no choice - expand the courts, or allow all the progress made since the 1950s be rolled back.

And one way to depoliticize the SCOTUS is to expand it to, say, 29 judges. Then one judge's retirement doesn't have as much as an impact.

But with 29 Justices they'd never get anything done. There's no good answer that I can think of.

Maybe an age limit would help, but then they'll start nominating teenagers.

[Zonkerbl]

When it comes down to it, I just can't root for an increase in the number of SC Justices. While it's more than tempting to get revenge and avoid the terrible damage done by the current Senate, it would be cheapening a vital and sacred part of our government. And with more Justices, it would be more difficult for the SC to do its job. We need to avoid politicizing the SC. It made me sick the other day seeing a commercial for Barrett's confirmation. Something like that should never happen again.

Too late. GOP already destroyed it. Really have no choice - expand the courts, or allow all the progress made since the 1950s be rolled back.

And one way to depoliticize the SCOTUS is to expand it to, say, 29 judges. Then one judge's retirement doesn't have as much as an impact.

But with 29 Justices they'd never get anything done. There's no good answer that I can think of.

Maybe an age limit would help, but then they'll start nominating teenagers.

It's the same number of judges on the 9th circuit. Would work just fine.

[dobrojim]

I’m not sure why more justices would prevent things from happening.
I’m okay with term limits with option to re-nominate. I’m okay with
rotations between different levels of the judiciary.

[Ruzious]

I’m not sure why more justices would prevent things from happening.
I’m okay with term limits with option to re-nominate. I’m okay with
rotations between different levels of the judiciary.

Every judge would want to express their views on each case that's important to them. Because of that, I would assume that basically doubling the number of judges would mean each case would take longer on the hearings, discussions, and opinions rendered. Therefore, the number of cases they could hear would be drastically cut.

I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong or right on this), the difference in how the Court of Appeals works is they assign each case to a 3 judge panel, so that probably makes them work more efficiently with a greater number of judges.

[Ruzious]

The extent to which this WH seems unable to tell the truth is literally unbelievable. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/white-house-lists-ending-covid-19-pandemic-as-an-accomplishment-despite-cases-spiking-to-record-levels/ar-BB1as9Cs?li=BBnb7Kz
Their next press conference should start this way... after the first word, the entire press corps stands up, says "Just STFU! We are done with you!" and walks off. "Ya dun. We'll come back when grownups are in charge."

[bsilver]

The more I think about and learn about the idea of ‘packing the court’
the more I like it mainly because it dilutes the importance of any
single judge/justice.

When it comes down to it, I just can't root for an increase in the number of SC Justices. While it's more than tempting to get revenge and avoid the terrible damage done by the current Senate, it would be cheapening a vital and sacred part of our government. And with more Justices, it would be more difficult for the SC to do its job. We need to avoid politicizing the SC. It made me sick the other day seeing a commercial for Barrett's confirmation. Something like that should never happen again.

Well the first thing is that Democrats need to shut the **** up about packing the courts. It never ceases to amaze me how terrible the left is at messaging. Any talks of the court should wait until after the election and second when it does come up it needs to be in the context of court reform or restoring integrity to the judiciary.

And there are a lot of changes that can be made other than adding justices, but some will require constitutional amendments. Adding justices actually makes sense, that way you dilute the effect of the death of anyone justice. And you can add justices in a way that’s seen as balancing the ideological divide. For example adding 6 justices, 3 Liberal and 3 Moderate would actually balance out the courts and add more view points and judiciary philosophies. I mean the Progressive wing would absolutely hate this but it’s a way of reforming the court that isn’t seen as a pure power play and will get a lot of buy in if messaged the right way. Also adding term limits, rotating out the justices between Federal and Supreme Court are other ideas that could depoliticize the courts but aren’t seen as a pure political play.

I think Biden's playing it right. Saying something like "we'll study it". Don't get anybody too riled up.

I like your idea about just not adding liberal justices. We don't have to win every case. There's benefit to seeing the court as impartial. As it is now, the court is losing all respect, which can't be a good thing for our system of government.

[doclinkin]

Seems to me it wouldn' t clog the judicial works to add two justices to the total. People prefer having a court that is not strictly tilted in one direction or the other. Adding Justice Garland would right a political wrong, adding a moderate voice to the court. And adding Justice Obama would add a careful Constitutional scholar to the other end of the arguments. Seems fair to me...

[Pointgod]

When it comes down to it, I just can't root for an increase in the number of SC Justices. While it's more than tempting to get revenge and avoid the terrible damage done by the current Senate, it would be cheapening a vital and sacred part of our government. And with more Justices, it would be more difficult for the SC to do its job. We need to avoid politicizing the SC. It made me sick the other day seeing a commercial for Barrett's confirmation. Something like that should never happen again.

Well the first thing is that Democrats need to shut the **** up about packing the courts. It never ceases to amaze me how terrible the left is at messaging. Any talks of the court should wait until after the election and second when it does come up it needs to be in the context of court reform or restoring integrity to the judiciary.

And there are a lot of changes that can be made other than adding justices, but some will require constitutional amendments. Adding justices actually makes sense, that way you dilute the effect of the death of anyone justice. And you can add justices in a way that’s seen as balancing the ideological divide. For example adding 6 justices, 3 Liberal and 3 Moderate would actually balance out the courts and add more view points and judiciary philosophies. I mean the Progressive wing would absolutely hate this but it’s a way of reforming the court that isn’t seen as a pure power play and will get a lot of buy in if messaged the right way. Also adding term limits, rotating out the justices between Federal and Supreme Court are other ideas that could depoliticize the courts but aren’t seen as a pure political play.

I think Biden's playing it right. Saying something like "we'll study it". Don't get anybody too riled up.

I like your idea about just not adding liberal justices. We don't have to win every case. There's benefit to seeing the court as impartial. As it is now, the court is losing all respect, which can't be a good thing for our system of government.

Even the guy who was one of the founders of the Federalist society is pro court reform. Here’s an interesting idea that could be implemented with broad support of the country. I get annoyed when so many people get on tv and talk about court packing, it’s an idea that ONLY plays well in the twitter echo chamber. It should all be about reform, fairness and balance. Right now the court isn’t 6-3 Conservative but rather 6-3 Federalist society.

The United States stands alone when it comes to granting justices lifetime tenure; every major democracy on earth has rejected it. In fact, virtually all American states have rejected it, with 49 out of 50 states placing some limit on the tenure of their high court judges. America’s system for the Supreme Court is patently absurd—and it must end.

The professors’ proposal is simple: Every sitting president gets exactly two Supreme Court appointments during each four-year term. Once confirmed, each appointee would serve for a single, nonrenewable 18-year term on the Supreme Court. Every two years, a new justice comes in, and an old justice goes out.

Just think: No more existential death-matches on live television. No more fantasies of political domination, or nightmares of political extinction. And no more scenarios in which Republicans privately recognize the catastrophe of electing a psychopath game-show host—but feel compelled to vote for one anyway, because of the once-in-a-lifetime prize of the Court. After all, there’s always two seats up for grabs in the next election.

This proposal has another big benefit if Democrats want to achieve a measure of bipartisanship: It’s lead author, Calabresi, is a renowned conservative thinker—one of the early founders of the Federalist Society, the ne plus ultra of conservative legal thought.

https://www.washingtonian.com/2020/09/24/democrats-have-a-better-option-to-save-the-supreme-court/

[Pointgod]

Seems to me it wouldn' t clog the judicial works to add two justices to the total. People prefer having a court that is not strictly tilted in one direction or the other. Adding Justice Garland would right a political wrong, adding a moderate voice to the court. And adding Justice Obama would add a careful Constitutional scholar to the other end of the arguments. Seems fair to me...

You could add two but then it’s just the same issue. 6-5 bent relying on John **** Roberts to swing the vote. And he’s shown that he’s not reliable when it comes to any issue with voting rights. John Roberts cannot be relied on to protect the interests civil or human rights.

[pancakes3]

Someone beat me to it but packing the court means PACKING the court. you get 30-50 justices on the thing, and have 3, 5, or 7 justice panels. there's no reason why the same 9 people have to hear ever single supreme court case.

for the important cases, you can still have en banc rehearings where the full bench (all 30-50 justices) hears a specific case. You can say en banc will consist of an 11 person panel, or have a majority of the bench, or whatever rules you want to impose.

with more justices, it means the importance of any one justice retiring is mitigated, and you neutralize the gamesmanship. yeah, you can still count noses, but it's not the prison sentence that we're currently facing (you bet your britches that if Trump loses, on Nov 4, Justice Thomas is going to wake up to a lot of voicemails from a lot of very powerful GOPers telling him to retire).

the resistance you're feeling from this "what? we're going to blow up the entire system that's been working for the last 250 years over Trump?" is natural but (a) it's an imperfect system as is; and (b) this has legitimately nonpartisan benefits and is not just to spite trump.

with more justices, SCOTUS will hear more cases (thousands of habeas appeals are denied every year by prisoners who even if are guilty of crimes, are undoubtedly subjected to cruel and unusual punishment), be less partisan, and avail itself to a greater diversity of legal perspectives. there's an awful lot of harvard/yale/stanford on the bench, and all the privilege it affords.

and privilege aside, SCOTUS hears every type of case. labor law, antitrust, criminal, etc. the same 9 jurists for 10, 20 years just don't have the breadth of knowledge to handle that. they may be very smart, and even geniuses, but base of knowledge cannot be intuited. you need those 10,000 hours. having a former prosecutor on the bench, a public defender, SDNY prosecutor, white collar defense counsel, corporate counsel, plaintiff's atty, real estate atty, etc. is a GOOD thing.

[Zonkerbl]

Someone beat me to it but packing the court means PACKING the court. you get 30-50 justices on the thing, and have 3, 5, or 7 justice panels. there's no reason why the same 9 people have to hear ever single supreme court case.

for the important cases, you can still have en banc rehearings where the full bench (all 30-50 justices) hears a specific case. You can say en banc will consist of an 11 person panel, or have a majority of the bench, or whatever rules you want to impose.

with more justices, it means the importance of any one justice retiring is mitigated, and you neutralize the gamesmanship. yeah, you can still count noses, but it's not the prison sentence that we're currently facing (you bet your britches that if Trump loses, on Nov 4, Justice Thomas is going to wake up to a lot of voicemails from a lot of very powerful GOPers telling him to retire).

the resistance you're feeling from this "what? we're going to blow up the entire system that's been working for the last 250 years over Trump?" is natural but (a) it's an imperfect system as is; and (b) this has legitimately nonpartisan benefits and is not just to spite trump.

with more justices, SCOTUS will hear more cases (thousands of habeas appeals are denied every year by prisoners who even if are guilty of crimes, are undoubtedly subjected to cruel and unusual punishment), be less partisan, and avail itself to a greater diversity of legal perspectives. there's an awful lot of harvard/yale/stanford on the bench, and all the privilege it affords.

and privilege aside, SCOTUS hears every type of case. labor law, antitrust, criminal, etc. the same 9 jurists for 10, 20 years just don't have the breadth of knowledge to handle that. they may be very smart, and even geniuses, but base of knowledge cannot be intuited. you need those 10,000 hours. having a former prosecutor on the bench, a public defender, SDNY prosecutor, white collar defense counsel, corporate counsel, plaintiff's atty, real estate atty, etc. is a GOOD thing.

Cosign, well said

[doclinkin]

Seems to me it wouldn' t clog the judicial works to add two justices to the total. People prefer having a court that is not strictly tilted in one direction or the other. Adding Justice Garland would right a political wrong, adding a moderate voice to the court. And adding Justice Obama would add a careful Constitutional scholar to the other end of the arguments. Seems fair to me...

You could add two but then it’s just the same issue. 6-5 bent relying on John **** Roberts to swing the vote. And he’s shown that he’s not reliable when it comes to any issue with voting rights. John Roberts cannot be relied on to protect the interests civil or human rights.

True, unless you wrote term limits into Law you would be relying on the reaper to help out.

[Zonkerbl]

Man, I just read the Lovecraft poem referenced in Lovecraft Country.

Yiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiikes.

[Zonkerbl]

I'm not posting the link because I'm afraid I'll be permabanned from the forum. It's that bad.

[dobrojim]

Just googled it having had no idea what you were talking about.
Quickly found a short poem ending in the N word.
Disgusting indeed.
One Reddit poster did claim he recanted his racism later in life.
I’ve no clue how well founded that assertion is.

[Pointgod]

When it comes down to it, I just can't root for an increase in the number of SC Justices. While it's more than tempting to get revenge and avoid the terrible damage done by the current Senate, it would be cheapening a vital and sacred part of our government. And with more Justices, it would be more difficult for the SC to do its job. We need to avoid politicizing the SC. It made me sick the other day seeing a commercial for Barrett's confirmation. Something like that should never happen again.

Too late. GOP already destroyed it. Really have no choice - expand the courts, or allow all the progress made since the 1950s be rolled back.

And one way to depoliticize the SCOTUS is to expand it to, say, 29 judges. Then one judge's retirement doesn't have as much as an impact.

But with 29 Justices they'd never get anything done. There's no good answer that I can think of.

Maybe an age limit would help, but then they'll start nominating teenagers.

https://time.com/5338689/supreme-court-packing/

[Zonkerbl]

Too late. GOP already destroyed it. Really have no choice - expand the courts, or allow all the progress made since the 1950s be rolled back.

And one way to depoliticize the SCOTUS is to expand it to, say, 29 judges. Then one judge's retirement doesn't have as much as an impact.

But with 29 Justices they'd never get anything done. There's no good answer that I can think of.

Maybe an age limit would help, but then they'll start nominating teenagers.

https://time.com/5338689/supreme-court-packing/

"How could it be that the most important decision a President makes is picking one non-elected lawyer, distinguished at this point mainly by their ability to avoid ever saying anything controversial, to a court that decides cases at an average rate of one or two a week?"

[Zonkerbl]

At any rate, the whole conservative argument that liberals shouldn't expand the court because when they come back in power they'll just expand it too is not a terrifying proposition at all. It'll be a natural evolution of the court that will hopefully transform it into something less horrible than what it is now.