Why no democrats calling for reform of SCOTUS?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
If they have 51 votes to pack the Court then they’ll have 51 votes to bypass the filibuster. All but two Dems voted to bypass the filibuster to pass Biden’s voting rights law; the filibuster is clearly on its last legs, and had the Democrats not choked in a couple Senate races it would already be dead. I think it’s less likely they’ll actually pack the Court. They could advance many of their priorities, like student loan forgiveness, with a simple majority in Congress once the filibuster is dead. |
Anonymous
| The dems keep proving that they are the ultimate in sore losers. |
Anonymous
Could have one elections and not lose 3 Supreme Court picks. But no, democrats would rather alienate the middle class and import overwhelming immigration |
Anonymous
The thing is. Why wouldn't the Republicans just flip this the next time they controlled a majority in the House and Senate along with the Presidency? I'm a Dem but passing such a drastic change would seem to only work if you thought it gave you lasting power -- the voting rights law adding 2 senators to DC and 2 to Puerto Rico would potentially do that. Packing the Court...not so much. |
Anonymous
Very true. Their moronic abortion ruling is still playing out and will be a key factor in the 2024 campaign. There is no need to change institutions every time you disagree with them - that's the sledgehammer technique and we are more refined. There is a need to exploit weakness shown by the other side. |
Anonymous
You do it because you can…like the republicans do. If things were reversed what do you think the republicans would do? If you are willing to compromise and the other side does not you lose every time. |
Anonymous
As much as I disagree with the current court rulings and as much as I don't care AT ALL about poor Chief Justice Roberts hurt feelings, it's not a good luck to introduce knee jerk legislation. I think even Republicans will eventually get on board with a proposal that isn't designed solely to benefit Democrats. Ethics reform should be first. It's a flat out embarrassment. Then term limits and an eventual build up to 13 justices to reflect the 13 circuits. The goal should be to set up a system for the long-term not just to oust the bought and paid for hacks like Thomas and Alito. |
Anonymous
' Democrats can use each one of these decisions as election issues just like Dobbs in 2022. The Supreme Court matters only when you try to do something that arguably crosses the Constitutional line. Otherwise, the Supreme Court MUST sit by and watch the President and Congress exercise their Constitutional powers. Democrats made remarkable progress in passing spending legislation when they controlled the House. Even though they don't anymore, the Senate itself still has significant power over judicial appointments. Not a bad way to spend the next year in the run up to the 2024 election. |
Anonymous
But that's my point. If the Democrats removed the filibuster and pursued this, it's just another race to the bottom every time the executive and legislative branches flip. That is, the Republicans would just increase the number of justices to whatever was politically feasible when they controlled both branches of government. At least with the voting rights act, you make it more lasting because you've added 4 new Senators and perhaps, decisively flipped a deeply unrepresentative branch of government to being a bit more representative. I could see the same thing happening if they removed the cap of 435 on the number of House of Representatives under the 1929 Reapportionment Act. |
Anonymous
|
Sensible people don’t think Court packing is actually a good solution. The GOP would just pack it back, but even more importantly, GOP governors simply would stop listening to a packed Court and face little opposition within their states, setting up for a nasty confrontation. The Dems don’t need to go down that road when they could just accomplish most of their goals through legislation.
That said, the Dems are smart to threaten Court packing. It’s clearly impacted half the GOP justices; they’re less likely to do truly insane shit like prevent state courts from ruling on redistricting (the North Carolina case). |
Anonymous
+1 I'm wondering if there are several idiot OPs tonight, or just the one? |
Anonymous
No, you mean they're not doing what YOU want them to. Oh well! Such is life. When you're an adult, you'll realize you don't get to dictate how SCOTUS rules. DP |
Anonymous
Bingo. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
Is "reform" what you call it when you don't agree with SCOTUS decisions? Wow, you really don't know how this works, do you? |