Merrick Garland should be one of two people President Biden nominates for an expanced SC

[Tom Rinaldo]

That would emphatically make the point that Democrats are only acting to restore the balance on the Court that rightfully should exist. Garland's appointment was stolen from Obama, arguably illegally but certainly immorally. And with less than seven weeks remaining now before a presidential election, which ever side wins that election should fill the new vacancy caused by RBG's passing. If Republicans deny Biden that opportunity, therein lies our moral justification for legally expanding the U.S. Supreme Court by two seats if we control the next Senate.

That is a position that Democrats can sell to the American people. I would not fear a backlash over supposedly "packing the court" if the next Congress expands it by two seats and Garland and another qualified person of Biden's choice then were nominated to fill those two additional vacancies.

[msongs]

1. one gets the youngest persons possible for longevity as a justice nt

[JI7]

4. he said if there is an expanded court

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. I get that ordinarily

But expanding the size of the Supreme Court is a potentially explosive issue. This would go a long way toward defusing that controversy, and THAT could go a long way toward keeping a Democrat in the White House in 2024. Over 8 to 16 years of Democratic control, we will get other chances to fill vacancies with younger Justices. And whoever we nominate for the second seat should be as young a suitable and qualified person as we can find.

[elleng]

2. I agree.

[LakeArenal]

3. Obama to the SC.

[RainCaster]

24. I've been saying the same thing

[tman]

5. Merrick Garland is 67 years old. Time to move on.

[elleng]

9. and RBG was 87.

SILLY to suggest such, imo.

[elleng]

18. Thanks SO much for your perceptive statement,

that it's silly to have an 87-year old person on the United States Supreme Court.

[Skittles]

23. look where that got us

DONE HERE

[FBaggins]

6. Makes sense symbolically... but no thanks

People forget that he was only the selection to make Republicans' likely rejection look as bad as possible. He was moderate and we all expected Clinton to pick someone else when she won. He would have moved the court toward the center in replacing Scalia... but he moves the court further right if he replaces Ginsburg.

And now he's approaching 70. Justice Thomas is already rumored for approaching retirement and he's only a few years older.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. It depends on how "symbolically" tanslates into "politically"

If expanding the Supreme Court shapes up to be a controversial and risky move to make, a Garland appointment to one of those seats could go a long way toward defanging that controversy, and help keep a Democrat in the presidency for many more years to come.

[Celerity]

22. +1000

[stopwastingmymoney]

25. My thought too

He was a compromise choice

[BainsBane]

8. I think he should pick a radical leftist

to piss off the GOP. Garland was a compromise choice.

[Blue_true]

11. Yes, on a 15 member Court, he should get a seat.

On an 11 member Court, Biden should choose much younger Justices.

[frazzled]

12. If we can't get 4 Republican senators to our side

before January 29, President Joe Biden won’t get the chance to nominate anyone. McConnell is hell bent on getting another conservative on the court, and he’ll try to steamroller ahead come he’ll or high water.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. I am taling about contingency plans for if Trump forces through a SC nomination

prior to Biden taking office. This scenario envisions a fully Democratic Congress with Dems retaking the Senate) voting to expand the Supreme Court from 9 to 11 seats, which would give Biden two vacancies to fill.

[Stinky The Clown]

14. No. I want 45 or 50 year old people so liberal as to make RBG appear centrist.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Well we can agree that at least one of the nominees fits that profile

A lot depends on how the public is reacting to moves from both sides. Expanding the Supreme Court hasn't been tried in almost 90 years, and it backfired for FDR. If it plays poorly with the public that could interfere with Biden getting off to a fast start and even hurt Democratic chances to hold onto the Senate in 2022. A Garland appointment is the most powerful message Democrats could send about who is to blame for the need to expand the Supreme Court now. If that message does not seem to be needed, if the public is solidly with us on that idea, then sure, go with two young nominees.

[Crunchy Frog]

17. I'd like to see someone younger and more liberal.

[demtenjeep]

20. yes

that would be good

[Gore1FL]

21. Let's, instead, lean left with younger people. nt

[standingtall]

26. Why would we only add two when republicans are about to have a 6 to 3 advantage on the Supreme court

adding just two seats would still leave us in the minority 6 to 5.