I always opposed increasing the size of the U.S. Supreme Court

[Tom Rinaldo]

But if Republicans manage to fill this vacancy before our next President takes office, it is imperative that the Supreme Court be expanded to eleven members. if Biden wins and Democrats regain the majority in the Senate.

I always opposed attempting to change the basic architecture of our democracy for partisan ideological reasons, no matter how noble they might otherwise be. What the Republicans will now be attempting to engineer obliterates any concerns I once held in that regard. Assuming Joe Biden wins in November, a Democratic majority in the Senate of the next Congress would have no honorable course left open to them but to abolish the Filibuster and then pass a bill expanding the U.S. Supreme Court to eleven members. The two new Supreme Court seats Democrats then could fill would be the same two seats that Mitch McConnell blocked Democratic Presidents from bringing to the Senate floor for votes. It would be the only just remedy left for America.

It is absolutely essential now that Democrats regain control of the U.S. Senate, and then for a unified government under Democratic control to restore justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. The heroic struggle RGB made to hold on to life until this point can not be allowed to be in vain.

[Claustrum]

1. Me too. Even now, I think there will be blow-back for expanding the court but it's well worth it.

[BBG]

2. Great concise argument

I like it.

Kicked and recommended.

[OAITW r.2.0]

3. Fuck Republicans.

Mitch fucked with putting Garland up for a vote because....elections. Now, full steam ahead for Repuplicans, Fuck him, pack the Court.

[LAS14]

4. I'm with you! McConnell's behavior during the Obama administration asks for us...

.. to fight fire with fire.

[blacryam]

6. Wont they do the same, next time?

What is stopping the republicans then from just increasing the size off the supreme court the next time they get majorities? What happens if they decide to up it to 13 then dems 15 then reps 17?

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. The danger to our nation would be SEVERE if Biden wins in November but...

Trump picks the next Supreme Court Justice anyway. Not only would the Court remain in conservative hands potentially for decade, not only would a woman's right to choose be overturned, and efforts to prevent voter suppression be quashed etc., but the clear majority American people will lose all faith in the Judicial branch of government, especially if Trump loses decisively, which I expect him to. It that firm electoral repudiation of Trump and all he stands for is then followed by Trump reshaping the Supreme Court personally, THAT would be packing the Court, especially after what happened to Garland.

The American people would decide if what Democrats did to expand the Court under these circumstances was just or not. We would have a strong case that we were just restoring fairness after Republicans spat in the face of American voters after staging a Judicial coup. If we failed to make that case, what your fear could happen. But if we do Republicans won't be granted that opportunity by the electorate. I actually expect the current Republican Party to essentially collapse, and their way back into political good graces would not be by attempting to take the course you speak of.

[OAITW r.2.0]

19. There won't be a next time.

Pass Federal Law that says every vote counts....as easy as possible.

Then dictator wannbe's like Trump don't get elected.

[NYC Liberal]

20. Let them. Then maybe it'll force real reforms for the court.

The current system does not work. A single person dying should not substantially affect an entire generation (or more) of Americans. SCOTUS has too much power.

I lean towards SCOTUS being a rotating slate of federal judges who serve for specific terms, but I'm open to other ideas too.

[radius777]

27. Agree, it's better to force the issue.

We need term limits for all of these courts, not just for ideological reasons, but for age/generational reasons. In the founders' day humans didn't live this long.

[gopiscrap]

30. welcome to DU

[marble falls]

7. I did, too. But it makes sense. It would make it very deficult to pack a court. Its hard to ...

believe any one President would be able to pack a majority in eight years.

[barbtries]

8. in my opinion it has to happen

even if trump doesn't get another pick.
it's been 9 since 1869, but the number of justices is decided by Congress.

[dalton99a]

9. Expansion would be our only hope of breaking their grip and regaining lost ground

[In It to Win It]

11. I strongly believe that our courts should be apolitical and religiously agnostic

That's why I also oppose increasing the size of the court.

It's a hard reality to accept that other people just don't feel the same. Others believe that the court should serve a religious purpose and serve a political ideology, an ideology that also happens to be soaked in religion.

...and damn. They made extremely difficult to hold that line.

[Maven]

12. We must expand the Court AND expand the Senate by giving statehood to PR and DC

Both are needed. Otherwise we will continue to have the same problem down the line with a minority-rule Senate appointing justices appointed by a minority-vote president.

[Crunchy Frog]

16. Yes.

[OAITW r.2.0]

21. Agreed.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. Yes! Long overdue AND essential AND fair and just. n/t

[NotANeocon]

24. AND eliminate the pro-slavery College which gave the Republic Drumph -

- through which a part of a women will have more rights than the woman herself and those rights will be exercised by the "men in charge".

[radius777]

28. Agree. A rural RW minority is dictating the agenda

for everyone else, and we have no choice but to push for reforms that result in a more democratic system.

We also need to repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929 (so we can expand congress to more seats than 435).

The GOP wants this fight, and we need to give it to them good and hard.

[davsand]

13. John Dean is also there, Tom:

Link to tweet

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. Dean understands how Republicans "play this game"

If Donald Trump is our next President, he will get his chance to fill a valency. The Supreme Court will continue to have nine seats, and we will all live with the consequences. But the Democratic Party can not sit idly by out of fear of looking overly aggressive, and allow the Republican Party to pull off a coup of one of the three coequal branches of government if the American people speak clearly in November for Democratic Party control of the Executive branch. There is nothing illegal about what it would take for Democrats to see that the will of the people is respected.

[FelineOverlord]

14. I always opposed increasing the size of the U.S. Supreme Court

It's been discussed for some time because the Supreme Court is much too small for a country of over 300M people.

[Crunchy Frog]

15. If we don't, we'll be living under RW SCOTUS Dictatorship,

maybe for the next several decades. I don't believe that the republic can stand under those circumstances, (though I'm not sure it can stand in any event).

[SoonerPride]

17. 11 members? Fuck that. Make it 23!

Make the conservative minority so insignificant they’ll never recover.
Go nuclear

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Obviously I understand and share in your sentiment, but I would stop at eleven

I think Democrats will hold the high moral ground if we do what is essential to Reverse an illicit Republican power grab. That entails neutralizing the advantage that Republicans will have tried to gain by stealing two seats on the court. I do not consider Democrats counteracting that Republican power play to be packing the court in any way. If we go beyond that it could be used against us in the next elections. I expect Democrats to control the Presidency for at least the next 8 to 16 years. We would get other chances to appoint new Supreme Court Justices during that time period. Justice Thomas, for one, is getting old.

[OnDoutside]

26. If it were simply to increase the SC to 11, you would be playing

The same game as the Republicans. I think it may have been someone like Neal Katyal who previously suggested bringing the SC up to a 19 judge panel, and having SC cases would be heard by a random 3 of them. He believed that it would depoliticise the SC.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. To firmly make our point that our goal is to reestablish justice to the Supreme Court

Should all of the above come to pass, Biden can announce that one of his two new picks for the eleven seat Court will be Merrick Garland, the choice that Obama was denied, and the other nomination will be his choice to replace RBG. I think doing so would inoculate Democrats from most of the blow back Republican would try to drum up over "packing the court".

[BootinUp]

29. Agreed. My thinking is that the Senate is supposed to be the

more deliberative body with negotiating and such. But that is dead. And if we do not fight back we are talking 50 years of damage.