I hope that more of the debates and open forums for Dem Pres candidates

[dan_bgblue]

Address this issue. It should drive more people to the polls

[Catfan73]

That article is pretty funny considering that Mitch has been the only one “packing” the court. Not allowing Obama to appoint Supreme Court justices is why you never hear him bring up rule of law.

[Doc]

That article is pretty funny considering that Mitch has been the only one “packing” the court. Not allowing Obama to appoint Supreme Court justices is why you never hear him bring up rule of law.

Agree...instead Mitch should have butchered Garland's reputation. Make up something like he was a sexual predator, create some fake witnesses..or even have some "creepy porn lawyer" find somebody who will accuse him of gang raping people. Or better yet, just "Bork" him. Certainly a much more reputable approach.


But are two different subject (blocking nomination vs "packing the court"). Packing the court is expanding the number of judges such that all the new expanded ones are of one party or political ideology, primary their stance on abortion. Even liberal justices have spoken out AGAINST it.

Not even the leader of the Supreme Court's liberal wing buys the idea. Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told National Public Radio last week that adding seats was a bad idea when Roosevelt was president and remains so today.*

*-Link

Trump was and has been open about who he would bring to the court. He had a list during his campaign for President, and it was one of his talking points. If liberals should be pissed at anybody it should be HARRY REID who lead and successfully altered the confirmation via the "nuclear option" for lower court judges. Kudos to the formerly wusses of the GOP who expanded it to nominees for the SCOTUS. Had Harry NOT done that then Kavanaugh would not have been confirmed (actually he likely would have because the Left would not have had to create Susan Blaise Ford). Yes, it is Reid's actions that have allowed McConnell to "pack" the lower courts. So when it comes to sneaky or underhanded or questionable tactics...something that did happen with Garland... its not just the republicans that do it when it comes to the courts. Much of the reason that Trump/McConnell have been so effective at judge appointing is due to Harry. Only good thing that POS ever did. But using your political majority to your advantage is classic politics. Most recent example is this Impeachment crap. The Dems hold the majority in the house so it is flexing it muscle and using it to their advantage. And when impeachment #1 fails, they move to impeachment #2. So one really can't complain about the other side doing everything possible to advance their agenda and not look at your side.

My personal belief was that the Garland should have been a conservative to replace a conservative, thus maintain the balance of the court. That said I would support a moderate to left leaning moderate to replace Gensburg when she leave the court ... but don't expect that when it happens and Trump is in charge.

[Catfan73]

But are two different subject (blocking nomination vs "packing the court"). Packing the court is expanding the number of judges such that all the new expanded ones are of one party or political ideology, primary their stance on abortion.

That would certainly be one way to do it but by no means the only, as Mitch has so inartfully demonstrated. Such a radical change as suggested in the article would never get thru Congress (it’s been 9 justices since 1869), and Mitch knows this. That article is just scare tactics.

[Doc]

But are two different subject (blocking nomination vs "packing the court"). Packing the court is expanding the number of judges such that all the new expanded ones are of one party or political ideology, primary their stance on abortion.

That would certainly be one way to do it but by no means the only, as Mitch has so inartfully demonstrated. Such a radical change as suggested in the article would never get thru Congress (it’s been 9 justices since 1869), and Mitch knows this. That article is just scare tactics.

Your post confuses me. Mitch has nothing to do with the packing the supreme court that is suggested in the article. It is wholely a democratic suggestion, one made by several, including Buttigeg, Sanders and Warren. Currently there is no law that limits the number. It is set by congress and believe it requires a simple majority to change. If the left gets control of house and senate, it could be a tactic they use to decrease the power of the conservative judges by increasing the overall number and appointing liberals to the newly created spots. Of course the GOP could do the same but have never suggested that, where as the left has floated that option. McConnell has not packed the Supreme Court. He has pushed thru lower court appointees using tactics that Harry Reid put in place. Blame Reid, not Mitch. Its a case of what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and Mitch et al took advantage. Personally I dislike Mitch as much as anybody but he recently has shown to be a good politician with his handling of Nancy's power grab over the senate, as well as impreachment overall. Abortion won't be overturned based on who is in the lower courts. That is 100% a SCOTUS issues and will always be a SCOTUS issue.

[CitizenBBN]

That article is pretty funny considering that Mitch has been the only one “packing” the court. Not allowing Obama to appoint Supreme Court justices is why you never hear him bring up rule of law.

You use that word "packing". I do not think it means what you think it means.

He has done no such thing. He did finally get rid of the absurd "blue slip" courtesy in the Senate, but this road to clearing Senate rules to stop obstruction of judicial nominees started with Harry Reid, who made all but SCOTUS nominees a simple vote that would eliminate the faux filibustering when the GOP was dragging the appointment process to a crawl.

Reid took the gloves off, and Mitch has taken off the tape and gone bare knuckles, but it's not anything like changing the number of judges on a bench.

In fact about the only rule Mitch has changed has been the blue slips, which was always an antiquated rule allowing the home state Senators to have exclusive veto power over any nominee from their state. It was primarily stupid b/c for example in the 9th circuit, which oversees 9 states, only two of those 18 Senators would have power over a nominee and in this case the vast majority live in California so the 2 Cali Senators get disproportional power over the appointment process, even versus the other 8 states impacted.

It's not nearly as big a change as the "nuclear option" Reid invoked to remove the 60 vote threshold for everything but SCOTUS.

Reid changed the rule, now the Left is all pissy that Mitch is using it to the GOP's advantage. Color me unmoved.

[CitizenBBN]

But are two different subject (blocking nomination vs "packing the court"). Packing the court is expanding the number of judges such that all the new expanded ones are of one party or political ideology, primary their stance on abortion.

That would certainly be one way to do it but by no means the only, as Mitch has so inartfully demonstrated. Such a radical change as suggested in the article would never get thru Congress (it’s been 9 justices since 1869), and Mitch knows this. That article is just scare tactics.

At this point no I won't take that bet. The Left has lost its mind, impeaching a President for nothing terribly impeachable, threatening it to an AG over his overruling a single sentencing recommendation on one old man, etc.

No when Mayor Pete et al suggests packing the court, I take that fairly seriously, just like how the Left took the claims that Roe v. Wade is in danger seriously.

Mitch's "artfulness" has been to be an effective Majority Leader and get these appointments scheduled so he can get them through. that's hardly the same as yet another potential Democratic President (FDR was the last) suggesting we simply change the SCOTUS makeup b/c the current party in power doesn't like the way it votes.

I don't consider that threat to be idle at all in this environment. I could easily see a Dem POTUS and Congress deciding they didn't like coming up against a conservative SCOTUS overturning their agenda.

Yes it would be a big step, but not one I think they wouldn't have strong support to try. Maybe not enough, but with people like AOC now in Congress I absolutely wouldn't put it past them.

[Catfan73]

Haha I know what the article meant by “packing” the court, as in what FDR attempted to do. My point was that there are other ways to try to achieve ideological imbalance, one of which would be to not confirm any noms from the opposition party, in effect “packing” the court.

It’s very unlikely that a Democratic President would be able to achieve this or even want to—Sanders and Biden have said they would not. But it does beg the question, is expanding the court by adding more justices worse than not allowing presidents to place appointees on the court?