American Politics Thread: The Hunt for Blue November

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Is there a limit to the size of the supreme court? Could the next Republican admin just add more? Seems a dangerous strategy.

Why play by rules when they dont? #### them

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Is there a limit to the size of the supreme court? Could the next Republican admin just add more? Seems a dangerous strategy.

Technically, no limit. I would assume the court expansion would be the even out the justices.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Is there a limit to the size of the supreme court? Could the next Republican admin just add more? Seems a dangerous strategy.

That's what I have been thinking. If you expand it then add a bunch of judges you like, what stops the republicans from doing the same the next time?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Is there a limit to the size of the supreme court? Could the next Republican admin just add more? Seems a dangerous strategy.

Yes - there could become a cycle of an ever-expanding Court.

Perhaps a reasonable reform is to introduce term limits, and a requirement that the bench more or less match the composition of the Senate.

[burn_this_city]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1321288563057696768

[ResAlien]

She’s right but Dems wont do it. What about anything they’ve done in anyone’s lifetime makes you think democrats won’t just get obstructed for 4 years and throw their hands up like “welp, can’t win em all?”

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by direwolf

If the results are close, like 50/50 coin flip territory, then yea, it's likely going to the SC and Trump will be gifted the presidency.

If he's soundly defeated in a Biden landslide though, I don't see how a court would even take up the case. Sure he might cry foul and try and make a big sitnk, but I doubt it would go very far.

Still, the court can’t choose the winner directly, what they can do is accept or reject rulings related to existing laws and the interpretation thereof. Even Boofy’s awful concurrence was based on interpreting the law as written not overriding it based on the exceptional circumstances of covid.

What I don’t know is who ultimately decides that a state election is corrupt and needs to be over-ridden by the state legislature. I’m guessing the SOC will refuse to weigh in no matter how egregious the situation is, and will simply say it’s a state legislator issue not one for the courts unless the state is clearly violating its own election laws.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

She’s right but Dems wont do it. What about anything they’ve done in anyone’s lifetime makes you think democrats won’t just get obstructed for 4 years and throw their hands up like “welp, can’t win em all?”

Biden has been reluctant to answer this question directly, which suggests to me it is totally on the table for him.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

She’s right but Dems wont do it. What about anything they’ve done in anyone’s lifetime makes you think democrats won’t just get obstructed for 4 years and throw their hands up like “welp, can’t win em all?”

I honestly think they might, but they'll try to be reasonable and measured about it. They'll add one or two judges to offset what the GOP did when it had control, and they'll be relatively moderate, well qualified selections. Then once the Republicans win back control they'll ignore "reasonable and measured" and add ten or twenty hacks and ideologues, because that's what they do.

[OMG!WTF!]

13 colonies=13 judges. Let's get real originalist says I.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

She’s right but Dems wont do it. What about anything they’ve done in anyone’s lifetime makes you think democrats won’t just get obstructed for 4 years and throw their hands up like “welp, can’t win em all?”

You mean the party of ineffective pandering will likely be ineffective?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by troutman

Biden has been reluctant to answer this question directly, which suggests to me it is totally on the table for him.

His answer has been to have a non/bi-partisan commission to make recommendations on the SC. That’s a good approach since the problem is multi-faceted.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by troutman

Biden has been reluctant to answer this question directly, which suggests to me it is totally on the table for him.

I have a different interpretation—that he is personally opposed to the idea but views his coalition on the left as fragile enough that he doesn’t want to come out firmly against it for fear of fracturing/losing morale in his base. The other reality is it’s not the President who decides this.

The problem with this option is nothing stops the GOP from just... doing it again next time they win. Biden has suggested court reform, and there are some interesting possibilities there including term limits, or ensuring regional court representation (which we do to some extent in Canada, somewhat infamously I guess...)

[ernie]

My guess is the first thing they will try to do if they get the Senate is to impeach Barrett and Kavanagh if they have evidence of lying (which seems likely). Try to force them to step down.

If they don’t have that then they will attempt to expand the court while at the same time putting in term limits for the justices.

[burn_this_city]

I'm skeptical they will get enough votes for a supermajority to heave two justices. 16ish Republican Senators aren't going to impeach Barrett or Kavanagh.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I have a different interpretation—that he is personally opposed to the idea but views his coalition on the left as fragile enough that he doesn’t want to come out firmly against it for fear of fracturing/losing morale in his base. The other reality is it’s not the President who decides this.

The problem with this option is nothing stops the GOP from just... doing it again next time they win. Biden has suggested court reform, and there are some interesting possibilities there including term limits, or ensuring regional court representation (which we do to some extent in Canada, somewhat infamously I guess...)

That’s a fair interpretation - I viewed his reluctance as not wanting to motivate voters on the right.

[getbak]

They could do what FDR attempted to do, which was allow for the appointment of a new justice every time an existing one reached the age of 70 years and 6 months and chose not to retire, up to a maximum of 15.

There are currently 3 justices who are over 70 years and 6 months. That would allow for the temporary expansion of the court to 12 justices while maintaining the regular count at 9.

[afc wimbledon]

My guess is how far the Dem's will go depends on how big they win, if they take all the swing states in the senate and Biden also just crushes Trump they are likely emboldened to add a couple of justices, if the GOP adds more down the road so be it.

I would also point out if the Dem's take the senate there is no point in Trump overturning the election as he would be impeached anyway, clinging to power as the President only makes sense if they have the Senate

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

13 colonies=13 judges. Let's get real originalist says I.

13 appellate courts. 12 jurors and a judge. The number seems just right. This is one of things I've suggested to fix the court. Also, don't let it get political, make it professional. Allow the courts to do the nomination process. The 94 districts nominate one person. The appellate then winnows that list down to 12 based on qualifications and service. That 12 is then sent to the President and a name must be selected from that list. The senate then confirms.

The Dems will pursue Court Reform. Count on it. There will be a very public process, and it will rebuild the court.

[dash_pinched]

Tags added as the embedded tweet contains offensive language.

NSFW!

https://twitter.com/user/status/1321478988103962625