U.S. Politics

[mj2sexay]

"Article III of the Constitution, which establishes the Judicial Branch, leaves Congress significant discretion to determine the shape and structure of the federal judiciary. Even the number of Supreme Court Justices is left to Congress — at times there have been as few as six, while the current number (nine, with one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices) has only been in place since 1869. "

- whitehouse.gov

Adding seats is directly in line with the Constitution

Ok...

Putting aside the constitutionality of overriding hundreds of years of judicial independence that is expressly packing the Court with those of a specific ideology so that you can get what you want in a move that DIRECTLY violates the notion of an independent judicial branch.

The fact that so many would operate with such short-sightedness after a lesson clearly wasn't learned upon Harry Reid invoking the nuclear option is unreal. You guys legitimately just think that the next time Democrats gain power will be the last and they'll just be able to impose one-party rule.

[Derek Smalls]

"Article III of the Constitution, which establishes the Judicial Branch, leaves Congress significant discretion to determine the shape and structure of the federal judiciary. Even the number of Supreme Court Justices is left to Congress — at times there have been as few as six, while the current number (nine, with one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices) has only been in place since 1869. "

- whitehouse.gov

Adding seats is directly in line with the Constitution

There were also 8 justices for over a year because McConnell wanted more power. If the GOP were so concerned about making sure all 9 seats were filled, they would have heard out Garland.

[CatoTheElder]

Packing the court is not unconstitutional and falls within the powers of the Senate.

Packing the court is a bad idea.

If this election is to be a reformation on partisan politics, both sides need to agree to serious reforms of Senate procedure. McConnell and Schumer would both definitely stand in the way of that being possible. So, in fact, would a majority of the current serving members of the Senate.

[IATA]

Ok...

Putting aside the constitutionality of overriding hundreds of years of judicial independence that is expressly packing the Court with those of a specific ideology so that you can get what you want in a move that DIRECTLY violates the notion of an independent judicial branch.

The fact that so many would operate with such short-sightedness after a lesson clearly wasn't learned upon Harry Reid invoking the nuclear option is unreal. You guys legitimately just think that the next time Democrats gain power will be the last and they'll just be able to impose one-party rule.

TLDR
"ya but still..."

[mj2sexay]

There were also 8 justices for over a year because McConnell wanted more power. If the GOP were so concerned about making sure all 9 seats were filled, they would have heard out Garland.

As I've repeatedly said, not having a confirmation hearing was a mistake, and under no circumstances should a majority Republican senate have ever confirmed Merrick Garland.

Packing the court is a bad idea.

If this election is to be a reformation on partisan politics, both sides need to agree to serious reforms of Senate procedure. McConnell and Schumer would both definitely stand in the way of that being possible. So, in fact, would a majority of the current serving members of the Senate.

Love it!

Agree with all of this, but as long as term limits are a pipe dream so is anyone acting out of anything but partisan or self interest.

[CatoTheElder]

Term limits in both the Senate and the House need to happen. No one should be in the Senate for 35 years.

[MBGreen]

Term limits in both the Senate and the House need to happen. No one should be in the Senate for 35 years.

35 year senate pension sounds pretty good

[Johnny English]

Term limits in both the Senate and the House need to happen. No one should be in the Senate for 35 years.

I see there's a House bill to place term limits on Supreme Court judges.

[bojanglesman]

Term limits in both the Senate and the House need to happen. No one should be in the Senate for 35 years.

Yeah, but the people voting on it are the ones who benefit.  It will require a massive uproar.

[delavan]

Packing the court is not unconstitutional and falls within the powers of the Senate.

Packing the court is a bad idea.

If this election is to be a reformation on partisan politics, both sides need to agree to serious reforms of Senate procedure. McConnell and Schumer would both definitely stand in the way of that being possible. So, in fact, would a majority of the current serving members of the Senate.

  +1

Term limits in both the Senate and the House need to happen. No one should be in the Senate for 35 years.

  +2. 

In my neck of the woods we've had Elliot Engel (D-L) and Nita Lowey (D-L) in the House for 30+ years.  Only this year was Elliot defeated in the primary and only because Engel was/went AWOL during the opening months of the rona which his opponent's TV ads (effectively) hammered away at him regarding.

-

[Badger]

Packing the court is not unconstitutional and falls within the powers of the Senate.

Packing the court is a bad idea.

If this election is to be a reformation on partisan politics, both sides need to agree to serious reforms of Senate procedure. McConnell and Schumer would both definitely stand in the way of that being possible. So, in fact, would a majority of the current serving members of the Senate.

Packing the court is good because it delegitimizes one of the least democratic levers of power in the US.

[Badger]

Term limits in both the Senate and the House need to happen. No one should be in the Senate for 35 years.

Term limits aren't inherently good

In NYC local pols jump into races that aren't at all appropriate for them because they've been term limited out of their old role. At the federal level it would just turn congress into even more of a future lobbyist generator with everyone trying to secure a cushy landing at a special interest entity after they use up their terms.

[ons]

Putting aside the constitutionality of overriding hundreds of years of judicial independence that is expressly packing the Court with those of a specific ideology so that you can get what you want in a move that DIRECTLY violates the notion of an independent judicial branch.

Yeah, again, I didn't make an argument for or against, I was just correcting you when you said it wouldn't be "directly in line with the Constitution." Figured you ought to be precise with your language regarding the Constitution, given your admiration for originalists.

My favorite Supreme Court plan I recall reading, which I think was either Beto's or Buttigieg's (?) was a fifteen person supreme court, with five justices nominated by each party, and then five decided upon by the previous ten. Deemphasis on individual justices, nominations are inherently less partisan, some semblance of cooperation is built into the system.

I wouldn't be opposed to term limits on the Supreme Court, either, because it seems a little morbid to consistently be picking young ideologues instead of possibly more qualified older nominees - I'd prefer them to Senate term limits, at least Senators can be voted out.

[Badger]

In my neck of the woods we've had Elliot Engel (D-L) and Nita Lowey (D-L) in the House for 30+ years.  Only this year was Elliot defeated in the primary and only because Engel was/went AWOL during the opening months of the rona which his opponent's TV ads (effectively) hammered away at him regarding.

There's the narrative, progressives supposedly can't win anywhere unless the centrist incumbent got caught sleeping

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1310282362941513731?s=19