[bryan]

First, thank you all for the welcome and the balanced viewpoints (in my opinion, balanced). I think everyone that's commented here so far is more on the Democratic side or leans that way, correct? I'm hopeful that we'll hear some from the Republican-leaning side as well.

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Remember the moral teachings of 'Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid." The Republicans, in advancing the Barrett nomination, have declared their position to be 'no rules in a knife fight,' and are therefore eligible for a swift kick in the nuts. Butch Cassidy uses the advantage gained to knock his rival out, but, importantly, not to kill him.

I don't want to go too far with this illustration--screenwriter William Goldman was just working on establishing Butch as a likable character, not on building a moral philosophy. But basically, his scene works because we the audience WANT rules. We cheer the downfall of the 'no rules' guy. And it is by showing restraint, by knocking is rival out instead of slitting his throat, the outlaw leader Butch Cassidy restores the moral order.

In the political knife fight now occurring in the real world, people of normal good will want just that. What brings the Republicans back is a sharp check on their ruthless action, but not an attempt at a death blow. I actually think Bryan's suggestion of two new court seats, but not four, takes us there.

Dispicable as the in-office GOP has become, remember they were not always this way. Parties that go extreme don't stay there, because the electorate won't let them stay there. Trumpism has never commanded a majority, and is about to be corrected by a landslide repudiation. Afterwards, let's not kid ourselves about the desirability of permanent one-party rule by either side. Either party, possessed of unchecked power, will be corrupted by it. The goal must be to decimate the Republicans, but not destroy them. Forbearance in court-packing would be an important 'we can go forward together' olive branch.

Of course, if the Republicans try the no-rules-in-a-GUNFIGHT approach, we'll have to go to Butch's plan B, delivered soto-voice to Sundance: "...kill him."

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I like the wisdom (and optimism) that "parties that go extreme don't stay there" - I do hope that's true and that a significant amount of the extreme polarization between parties starts to dissipate when Trump is no longer President. As well as your point that unchecked power, by either side, can lead to corruption. Finally, I agree that forbearance and focusing on rectifying a wrong versus exacting vengeance and punishment gives us the best possibility for going forward together, even with our differences.

I think it's inevitable that the far right will position even a two-seat addition as reprehensible court packing and exploiting an advantage. I would hope that more moderate Republicans and more balance-minded elder statesman of the party would see that as a reasonable and fair action and be open with their opinion about it. Leadership (even just "thought leadership") shouldn't be just a "when you're in the majority" thing.

And also inevitable that some on the far left will say that it doesn't go far enough and Democrats are being suckers by not using their advantage to get an overall advantage. But that would lead us to a tit-for-tat cycle that wouldn't end well.

I don't know what Biden would ultimately do if he's elected with a Democratic Senate, but I'm optimistic that he would be a voice to tell the far left that it's unwise to take advantage of an advantage and forbearance and attempting to do what is just/fair is what can help to unify us.

Really, if something is done, the Democratic messaging of the "why" will be important, and I think part of that is making the case that an expansion (assuming no more than 2 seats are added) is not "court-packing" but rectifying the inconsistent application of the election year "rule".

Originally Posted by Oerets

Welcome to PC!

In a nutshell the Republican Senate slow walked judges in Obama's term. Long before the opening on the supreme court. They more then just practiced court packing once trump arrived.

Have no credibility as I see it when it comes to the possibility to increasing the numbers if or when it happens.

I agree with the first part about slow walking judge appointments - I believe that's why Harry Reid had to do away with the filibuster for certain judicial approvals, correct? Can you please explain your second comment, as I'm not sure who the "they" is as far as having to credibilty, etc. Thanks.

Originally Posted by mpholland

The original court was six members I believe. It has been expanded and shrunk 5 times in the past. Roosevelt attempted to expand it again in 1937, but failed. The idea isn't new. Lincoln was successful in getting Congress to create a new circuit during the civil war to make the largest ever SCOTUS at 10, and only 3 years later the judicial courts act reduced it back down to 9. The wording was supposed to take it back to 7, but congress increased it again before enough seats were vacated to make the 7.

Another option would be to take a new look at the definitions of "good behavior", which is what currently allows justices to serve for life. It seems to me that Congress and lower courts should be able to utilize that term to have a measure of control over the SCOTUS. The one thing we have to remember is that vindictiveness runs high in politics and anything one side does opens the door for the other down the road. This has been so prevalent of late that Congress is pretty much just a body attacking and defending its powers more than actually utilizing them. This is bad for the American people, no matter what party they belong to.

Yes, totally agree about that open door and cost of vindictiveness. The standard of "good behavior" and applying that as a means of control will be tricky. It would have to be attempted on a bi-partisan basis when there was no vacancy in question. In other words, try to have a reasoned debate/negotiation on what this involves when the stakes aren't high.