Will the Democrats pack the court if Amy is nominated/confirmed?

[CTyankee]

and if so, how and by how many?

[Rule of Claw]

1. He he ha ha

I don't think Amy will be confirmed. I don't even think there will be a vote at least before the election. Democrats know they can delay it at least until the lame duck session.

But why, why will Amy not be confirmed?

I..hmm, I wonder.

[StarfishSaver]

6. How will the Democrats delay it?

[Rule of Claw]

12. Dilatory procedures

textbook protocols.

[StarfishSaver]

19. Care to be more specific?

[Rule of Claw]

21. Just arcane Senate procedures

quorums, clotures, more detail here-though I don't love Raw Story.

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/09/capitulation-not-an-option-memo-details-how-dems-can-stall-or-stop-gop-rush-to-confirm-trump-scotus-pick/

[StarfishSaver]

31. This memo is mostly fantasy

Among other things, all of the recommendations it makes involve Senate rules, which either don't operate the way the author's seem to think they do or that McConnell can change at any time.

In addition, the arguments about cloture and quora were apparently crafted by someone unfamiliar with those rules. For example, McConnell eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations, so Democrats cannot stop the invocation of cloture in this matter.

Denial of a quorum is also not an option since, even if every Democrat refuses to show up, the Republicans will still have a quorum. And any of the maneuvers this memo suggests can be easily shut down by McConnell with no problem.

It's easy to argue in general that the Democrats should do something they're not doing. But anyone understanding the rules of the Senate knows that it's not that simple.

[MoonRiver]

9. What exactly are you implying?

[Rule of Claw]

13. I am saying I am unsure

she will even be allowed to accept the offer.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SouthBend/comments/iybwe4/is_people_of_praise_a_cult/

Collins Murkowski, Romney, Sasse, Lee, Tillis, and Toomey are all possible nos once this gets out.

[MoonRiver]

17. Oh, so maybe her husband, "head," wouldn't allow it.

Makes sense, but I think those power grabbers will go for it.

[Cicada]

2. No, there are less disruptive ways to proceed.

Dems can admit additional states to fix the electoral college tilt and gain additional Senators. The court can’t outlaw every law. Healthcare can be required to fly patients for free to abortion states.

[CTyankee]

10. Repukes have long detested the idea of statehood for the District of Columbia but do the Dems

have the votes for it? But wouldn't it have to be a constitutional amendment? That takes time...

[Cicada]

14. No, majority vote of house plus majority vote is Senate, new state.

Here is the law, in the constitution: New states may be admitted by the congress

That is the law. 37 states have been admitted, none required a constitutional amendment



States were admitted for political reasons in the past. This is nothing new.

[CTyankee]

16. why do I remember the admission of Hawaii and Alaska as taking so long?

I was just a kid so it's kinda distorted in my mind...(there was a dumb Texas joke about Alaska which would be the largest state, knocking TX down..."Yeah, but wait til the ice melts..."

I said it was dumb...

[Cicada]

20. Congress has the option of requiring more

They usually require first a vote by the residents on whether they want to be a state. They sometimes require a Presidential proclamation also. There have been other things required. But all of that is optional.

[Cicada]

22. My borough in Alaska was bigger than Texas

North Star Borough, like a county. It was kind of a thrill to realize that sometimes when I wandered I was probably the only human to ever be where I was.

[CTyankee]

25. god, texans were stupid about this...had to change their state song from "largest and grandest..."

to something else. I decided I was living in a state populated by a bunch of boneheads (excepting my loving family) and I had best get the hell out when I could. I went to college in the East and never went back (to live). My family had conniptions...

[Cicada]

27. No disgrace being from Texas. Only a disgrace having to go back.

Those words were written by the great Texas philosopher, Kinky Friedman. Who lives in a lavishly furnished ten foot green trailer in Kerrville. A personal friend of both Bill Clinton and W Bush. A friend of mine went to high school with him and took me back stage to meet him when he was playing with his band the Texas Jewboys. Joan said to him I guess you’ve got a lot of girlfriends now. He replied Joan, me and the boys is only into long term meaningful relationships. He is one of the funniest and smartest guys alive.

[maxsolomon]

18. I'd love for the dakotas to get stuck back together.

that is absurd. not even a million and a half between them, and 4 senators.

[Cicada]

24. Clearly the Great Plains experiment has failed

We gave it a good try. We paid for the railroads, we built the interstate highway system, we really gave it a good shot. But it’s time to admit that the Great Plains are just not suited for human habitation. We need to pull out, put the buffalo back in, sell it to Disney so they can operate it as a giant Wild West themed amusement park.

[maxsolomon]

28. I can tell you've read up on the Buffalo Commons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Commons

[Cicada]

29. No! I stole my idea from an actual funny person. Maybe he heard of it.

I really like the idea, of course. Thank you for educating me.

[Crunchy Frog]

3. They shouldn't talk about it before the election IMO,

but yes, I don't think a Democratic administration will be able to get anything done without doing it.

[DFW]

4. Will they have a choice?

If the radical right owns the Court, Republicans will flood the country’s legal system with challenges to every initiative Democrats pass. The right wing SCOTUS will be salivating at the chance to nix every one. Voting rights, abortion rights, civil rights, all hinge on a Supreme Court that will uphold them. A 6-3 radical right majority will not.

[StarfishSaver]

5. The Court has already been packed

Any action the Democrats take would be intended to unpack it.

[Big Blue Marble]

7. Let's avoid the term "packing the court."

It should be expand the court to rebalance the stolen seats.

[CTyankee]

11. Yes, I agree. However, regrettably that is listed under the rubric of "Packing"

[DFW]

8. Will they have a choice?

If the radical right owns the Court, Republicans will flood the country’s legal system with challenges to every initiative Democrats pass. The right wing SCOTUS will be salivating at the chance to nix every one. Voting rights, abortion rights, civil rights, all hinge on a Supreme Court that will uphold them. A 6-3 radical right majority will not.

[sarisataka]

23. Probably not nt

[Wanderlust988]

26. There may be "judicial reform" not court packing

I think the only way all Dems get on board is if there's a fix for the SC where it's not partisan anymore. I don't think Dems will pass a true court packing, just simply adding justices and that's it. I think they may pass something where they rotate judges from the lower courts, etc., so it'll be something not as partisan. That may happen. But I don't envision a true court packing and nothing else.

[Drunken Irishman]

30. First, the Democrats need to win back the Senate to even begin the discussion.

Second, Democrats have to have the votes to do it. They'd have to get rid of the filibuster since the GOP likely would force it to 60 votes and I doubt they'd have the votes then.

So...it's a tough proposition.