Supreme Court Situation (Court "Packing" Debate)

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by bryan

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.

Edited my post.

Added info and comments.


The they are Republicans.

[Chicks]

U.S. Supreme court rejects Republican bid to limit mail-in voting in Pennsylvania

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN2742ZH

4-4 ruling, so lower court ruling stands. Shows, however, that another conservative justice (Barrett) would likely have changed the ruling, against democracy. Court packing may very well be necessary to restore the rule of law, which the Federalist Society is determined to destroy.

[bryan]

Originally Posted by Chicks

U.S. Supreme court rejects Republican bid to limit mail-in voting in Pennsylvania

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN2742ZH

4-4 ruling, so lower court ruling stands. Shows, however, that another conservative justice (Barrett) would likely have changed the ruling, against democracy. Court packing may very well be necessary to restore the rule of law, which the Federalist Society is determined to destroy.

On the bright side, Chief Justice Roberts has at times shown open-mindedness and willingness to side with the liberal side of the court. It's not clear whether those instances are a reflection of his beliefs or greater desire as Chief Justice for the court to be perceived as balanced and not purely partisan.

But assuming Barrett gets confirmed, this does indeed throw off the ability and influence of Roberts to be a balancing force.

It will be interesting to see how things play out, but as stated in my second post, I think fairness dictates that something be done to re-balance the court given what Senate Republicans have done over the past 4-5 yrs.

CJ Roberts aside, I haven't kept up with how fair-minded the other conservative justices are. If the election is certified for Biden and Trump/Republicans try to contest certain election results all the way up to the Supreme Court to pave a path for Trump to steal the election, it remains to be seen if some of the conservative justices will prioritize justice/fairness over where they might personally lie on the liberal/conservative spectrum.

If the court were to vote along partisan lines (even if Roberts sided with the liberal side, but the remaining conservative side "won" 5-4) and the election results were overturned, it would be a disaster in terms of public trust in the court.

A Supreme Court justice really has the ultimate in "tenure" and job security. While an ambitious rising judge may need to play a certain game to curry favor and position themselves to be nominated by a President to the SC in the first place, once they're confirmed, there's no higher level for them to reach and no reasonable way they can be removed.

With that freedom, any given Supreme Court judge (whether liberal or conservative) would ideally trend toward being more open-minded and less dogmatically beholden to their political party.

[RickeyM]

My opinion is that the Republicans seek to enter this knife fight with an assault weapon. I don't see things as going back to "reasonable" when tRump leaves office. The Republicans have been on this march to one party rule for quite some time. Their "packing" of the SC IMO is an attempt to make law outside of Congress. IE appeal everything they don't like up the chain to the SC and have the conservative majority decide in their favor. Being new here you probably not seen my opinion that the current Repub party needs to be ended/terminated/kicked to the curb/abolished/done away with entirely and replaced with something else. As I said, my opinion. Back to the topic I think adding two more seats to th SC would be a good counter to the Repubs trying to stack the SC in their favor.

[bryan]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

My opinion is that the Republicans seek to enter this knife fight with an assault weapon. I don't see things as going back to "reasonable" when tRump leaves office. The Republicans have been on this march to one party rule for quite some time. Their "packing" of the SC IMO is an attempt to make law outside of Congress. IE appeal everything they don't like up the chain to the SC and have the conservative majority decide in their favor. Being new here you probably not seen my opinion that the current Repub party needs to be ended/terminated/kicked to the curb/abolished/done away with entirely and replaced with something else. As I said, my opinion. Back to the topic I think adding two more seats to th SC would be a good counter to the Repubs trying to stack the SC in their favor.

Out of all registered Republicans, I have no idea how many have permanently shifted to the far-right and away from objective facts and how many have simply been mesmerized by Trump and have a chance to come back to their senses once he's gone.

Based on the fact that something like the Lincoln Project was formed and the number of prominent Republicans that have endorsed Biden, there's some signs that there could be an internal struggle for the party to either get back to their roots or continue along their current path. Those that have publicly rejected Trump are just the ones that have been brave enough to do so - I have to think there are many more that are at least conflicted about the path their party has taken, but don't want to rock the boat.

Realistically, the Dems or middle/Independents can't and won't be the ones to end/abolish the Repub party, nor should they try. Attempting to force change, IMO, will only serve to put Repubs on the defensive and at least temporarily coalesce them to resist outside forces. They'll have to internally combust on their own or have an internal civil war that fractures and reforms into something new/different.

But, at the root of any party, is not just (or even predominantly) ideals - it's the desire for power and control. Even apart from their recent "radicalization", the demographic changes in the country simply don't favor today's Repub party. Their continuing to become even more extreme won't reverse that trend - it'll just alienate more reasonable people.

At some point, I think they realize that and will be forced to become more inclusive - otherwise they'll realistically only rarely be able to win elections. I think it's more likely they go back to more traditional Repub ideals and be forced to reject the far-right fanatics in favor of drawing in more fiscally and socially conservative independents, minorities, etc. And not to sound too cynical, but I really don't think that'll be because of some epiphany of how inclusiveness is right after all, but will be a calculated decision to maintain relevancy.

Meanwhile, I don't think it'll all be wine and roses on the Dem side either. There will be an internal struggle between more aggressive progressives and more traditional moderates. However, I don't think it'll be as ugly and fracturing an internal struggle as will happen on the right. Fundamentally, there's a lot more overlap (IMO) between progressives and moderates, but the differences are more related to timing, extent, and methods to achieve those objectives.

[RickeyM]

Where the Republican party currently is I blame on the politicians leading it. Their lusting for power and their prostitution of themselves have led them down this path. The death of the party must come from the members themselves. This won't happen unless they have somewhere else to go. We must have two parties willing to work together. The current crop of Republican leaders with a few (too few) exceptions won't do this. Don't get me wrong the Democratic party isn't only comprised of saints but the Republican party politicians are actively working against the interests of the American people. Certainly there are progressive Democrats that want their way but this "leftist takeover" of the party the Republican party is promoting is nonsense.

[mpholland]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

Where the Republican party currently is I blame on the politicians leading it. Their lusting for power and their prostitution of themselves have led them down this path. The death of the party must come from the members themselves. This won't happen unless they have somewhere else to go. We must have two parties willing to work together. The current crop of Republican leaders with a few (too few) exceptions won't do this. Don't get me wrong the Democratic party isn't only comprised of saints but the Republican party politicians are actively working against the interests of the American people. Certainly there are progressive Democrats that want their way but this "leftist takeover" of the party the Republican party is promoting is nonsense.

I can pretty much agree with that on a national level. In Oregon however the whole state is controlled by 3 cities that are all democrat. Portland/metro area alone is almost half the states population. They don't understand the issues of rural Oregon and are very selfish to that end. We actually have part of our income tax go to metro lifht rail which only serves the Portland area. There are several other instances that are similar. The fact is rural Oregon can do nothing about it and that is where a lot of the angst comes from. The huge majority of Oregon area is red, but the tiny area of dense population is blue and serve only the big cities. The electorate therefore is blue by supermajority so with the exception of a few counties the governor and legislature is despised by the rest of the state. It isn't extremism that is the problem here, it is simply a tint area of the state holding a huge population. That is also where my feelings stem from for those who argue against the electoral college.

[mpholland]

Sorry about the spelling, my phone doesn't do this sight well, and I can't see until I'm done.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by mpholland

The huge majority of Oregon area is red...

Wouldn't that be because the huge majority of Oregon is unproductive dry land? How many votes in the legislature should a hundred square miles of desert get?

Sure, the rural folk's taxes get mixed into the general fund that pays for everything. Now, what percent of that fund are the rural folk's taxes? Less than the straight per capita share, I suspect.

I hear you about the resentments, and I believe. Now give me facts, figures, and practical suggestions.

[bryan]

Reacting to Biden's statement about creating a bi-partisan commission made up of Constitutional scholars to recommend changes to the court: I think it's a smart as long as both the liberal and conservative scholars on the commission have a track record for being open minded and respected for their past publications and positions.

I do think 180 days is too long - I would think 90 days should be more than enough. Given that it would take time once the recommendations are made, the court could be in the 6-3 position for 9-12 months before any changes are made.

Plus, from what I understand, it's Congress that would actually propose any changes, not the President. So depending on how a Democratic led Congress wants to proceed (assuming Dems win the Senate), Biden may create the commission but not get the recommendations before he has to take a public position on what Congress is trying to do.