NBC News: Democrats introduce bill to expand Supreme Court to 13 Justices

[Grasswire2]

[link:https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/democrats-introduce-bill-expand-supreme-court-9-13-justices-n1264132|


April 14, 2021, 6:00 PM PDT
By Sahil Kapur

WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats will introduce legislation Thursday to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices, joining progressive activists pushing to transform the court.

The move intensifies a high-stakes ideological fight over the future of the court after President Donald Trump and Republicans appointed three conservative justices in four years, including one who was confirmed days before the 2020 election.

The Democratic bill is led by Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee. It is co-sponsored by Reps. Hank Johnson of Georgia and Mondaire Jones of New York.

The Supreme Court can be expanded by an act of Congress, but the legislation is highly unlikely to become law in the near future given Democrats' slim majorities, which include scores of lawmakers who are not on board with the idea. President Joe Biden has said he is "not a fan" of packing the court.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters on Thursday she has "no plans to bring it to the floor."

"I don't know that that's a good idea or bad idea. I think it's an idea that should be considered," she said of the court expansion plan. "And I think the president's taking the right approach to have a commission to study such a thing. It's a big step."

The push represents an undercurrent of progressive fury at Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., for denying a vote in 2016 to President Barack Obama's pick to fill a vacancy, citing the approaching election, before confirming Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett the week before the election last year.

[Demsrule86]

1. Why? We don't have the votes in the Senate.

[Novara]

54. Here we go again

Let's just not try anything unless we have a guaranteed chance of success.

And people wonder why the Dems don't seem to DO anything? They're too cautious? They don't ever propose anything bold?

Defeatist people like you are holding us back.

[In It to Win It]

56. This isn't trying unless the Party is serious about getting rid of the filibuster

The Party seems very much undecided about that, even among us here on DU. That's the first question that needs to be answered before trying because we know we aren't getting any help on this.

[Novara]

58. So, you don't think it's worth doing even if it energizes the Dem voting base?

[In It to Win It]

69. I think telling people what they will get if they vote for us is the better play, not bills of

symbolism.

They actually need to tell people, and be extremely vocal, that "if you want an expanded Court, a Court that reflects the country in diversity and viewpoints that will uphold your voting rights and reproduction rights, we need you to give us 'X' amount of Senators. If you give us 'X', we will have the power to give you 'Y'."

Give us 'X' more senators and we will eliminate the filibuster and give you a Court that you deserve. Sure, they can try to pass this bill but actually tell people what is needed from them. If you're angry with the Supreme Court, give us 'X' amount of senators and we will remake the Supreme Court. Give us 'X' amount of senators, we will pass a bill codifying your reproductive rights.

People need to hear a plan of action from the Party, particularly from the Senators. After they try and fail to pass this bill, then what? Give the people a goal. They know what the people want. Communicate how can they help to make it happen. Mobilize them. I don't think trying and failing to pass this bill does that.

[paleotn]

99. Bills of symbolism are exactly that.

What about framing do people not get? It's a big part OF convincing people that if they DO give the Dems X number of Senators to do Y they'll actually fucking do it and not think of a host of other reasons, batted around in THIS FORUM no less, to plant their asses squarely on their hands and do not one goddamn constructive thing. Otherwise they think the Dems are all blow and no do. Outside of the ACA, we haven't given them many reasons the last 20 years to think otherwise, because....we don't have the numbers in Congress, certain Dems won't play ball, it's hot outside, the season isn't right, the Republitrash might be mean to us.....Ugh.

There once was a Democratic Party that was fearless and kicked Republicans in the nuts. I grew up with that party in the 60's and 70's. I miss it.

[In It to Win It]

108. I don't believe

symbolic bills work as a motivating factor or are particularly convincing.

IMO trying and failing to pass a bill shows ineffectiveness from the Party in charge, rather than motivating and mobilizing people.

[paleotn]

109. NOT doing ANYTHING shows gross impotence.

[In It to Win It]

110. To me

symbolic bill = not doing anything

[paleotn]

113. Sorry, I just can't get through to you.

Not a flame, believe me, but that kind of thinking is about as irritating to me as fingernails on a chalk board. That's wasted time and effort thinking of an excuse. I don't lead like that and I don't expect my elected representatives to lead like that either.

[Willto]

132. So you

prefer the illusion of doing something like proposing a bill that has zero chance to pass right now.

The only thing that will reinstate a woman's right to choose is voting more Democrats into office. Until that day (if it happens) there just isn't much that can be done right now. I wish I was wrong. But symbolic gestures don't impress me either.

[SouthernDem4ever]

140. if nothing is introduced

no one is on record.

[Demsrule86]

75. It could make us look weak and make discourage voters...I don't know. I am not for tilting

at windmills. Time for Congress to go home after the hearings and start campaigning. And now the GOP can say we are attacking the courts. Why give them an issue? We need to win seats in purple and red states also.

[In It to Win It]

83. I agree. WE hold the power and WE couldn't get this bill passed! That's all that says to me

I'm not one for symbolic bills when we hold the power.

The Party is not communicating what it needs from voters. Our Party senators are just complaining that Republicans are blocking our bill. Give the citizens the goal. "We have a bill that will make the Court look more like you, diverse in your backgrounds and viewpoints. We have a bill that will make a Court uphold the rights and values that you hold dear and preserve your voting rights, your reproduction rights, your autonomy, your own self-determination. In order to pass that bill, here is what I need from you, the good people of America, vote for Val Demings down in Florida; Vote for John Fetterman in Pennsylvania; vote for Tim Ryan in Ohio; vote for Cheri Beasley in North Carolina. etc etc... We only have 50 senators but we need 55 (or 52, or 60, or whatever number) senators"

A vote for John Fetterman means you will get a Court that looks like you.
A vote for Val Demings means your voting rights are guarded by America's top cop.
A vote for Tim Ryan means expanding worker's rights
A vote for Cheri Beasley means protecting your bodily autonomy

"We have an abortion rights bill written and ready for a vote but getting that bill on Joe Biden's desk means electing those (X amount) senators."

[Demsrule86]

124. This is a wonderful post and I agree 100%.

[paleotn]

100. Oh dear freaking gawd!!!

[Demsrule86]

125. haha...feel better.

[Demsrule86]

129. I want the filibuster gone...but we need at least two more senators to do this.

[In It to Win It]

142. I think that getting 60 Democratic senators is unattainable for the foreseeable future

Maybe we can get 52 or 53, and when the stars aligns perfectly, we get 55 over the next 2 or 3 election cycles.

Assuming we retain the Presidency in 2024, are we willing to wait a few more election cycles to gain a 60 seat senate majority to enact our agenda?

Are we that afraid of Republicans reversing what we do, and implementing their own draconian agenda, that we do nothing big on abortion rights and climate change? Do we let that fear stop us?

Personally, I haven't advocated for nuking the filibuster but mentally, I've accepted the risks of that because I understand why we have to do it. I've come to understand that it is not very likely that we will get 60 senators in the foreseeable future. Obviously, Republicans won't work with us on things like abortion rights, voting rights, or climate change. Therefore, the choice has to be made to do what is necessary to enact our agenda. It appears to be the only path forward. I'm prepared accept the possibility of Republicans gaining power and controlling Congress.

If we, as a Party, is not willing to nuke the filibuster, we will have to learn to do without many things in our agenda because the next Republican to replace McConnell will be worse and more uncompromising. This won't get any easier as time goes past. Imagine that, Mitch McConnell is the best we'll get in the foreseeable future. Every Republican that replaces the existing crop will get worse.

[Demsrule86]

147. The GOP will just end the filibuster anyway...we need to end the filibuster ourselves. We have

to fix the subsidies in the ACA by 23. And there is much that needs doing. We can add to the court with a simple majority. We can pass BBB. We can fix Medicare and extend the Medicaid expansion...we can codify Roe and double dare the rogue court to fuck with us. We need more Senators, more house members, and more state reps too.

[TimeToGo]

91. Sigh

[paleotn]

102. Seriously. I'm with you. Ugh.

[Demsrule86]

127. Lets tell folks that we need to win more seats in order to address this dreadful ruling for

SCOTUS...it is the truth. We can't do anything right now...frame the issue with campaigns.

[Fiendish Thingy]

66. Exactly- it highlights the importance of getting the votes

In November

[onetexan]

82. THIS!!

[Demsrule86]

130. thank you FT...voting is the only way out of this mess...polls are looking pretty good.

[Fiendish Thingy]

133. It's going to take votes, but a lot more than votes

It’s likely going to take a radical departure from politics as usual.

[ShazzieB]

80. It makes a statement.

And I, for one, love the statement it makes!

[paleotn]

94. Nice statement to repeat on the campaign trail....

No, we didn't just wring our hands, cry boo hoo hoo, and do not one goddamn thing. Sorry, but I despise those who waste so much goddamn time and effort thinking of creative ways why we CAN'T do something instead of creative ways in which we CAN. Makes me want to beat my head against a wall.

[ShazzieB]

141. I'm with you!

[paleotn]

93. Symbolism and framing is lost on you?

[Demsrule86]

123. I think there are more important things we could be doing...we need to send Congress home

so they can prepare to win the midterm...make no mistake there will be nothing we can do if we lose the house and/or the Senate.

[OMGWTF]

96. I just learned that there are 21 states whose combined populations are still LESS than CA

So, it's 42 senators vs. 2 senators. Bunchafkingbullshit! I am so GD sick of being pushed around by these small taker states full of ignorant hateful people who are always voting against their (and our) best interests.

[Demsrule86]

150. I am too.

[lees1975]

122. There's a little more pressure on this issue.

At the very least, it applies more pressure to Manchin and Sinema to break the filibuster. It will be gone anyway if the Republicans ever get control of the senate again. If either of them are as outraged as they claim, this might be a good moment to give it a try.

It will also make Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski put up or shut up. How important were women's reproductive rights to either of them if all they are going to do is whine about the two justices that lied to them through their teeth when they were being confirmed? It tells there voters that what they are hearing from them is just noise, that neither of them really care about women's health and reproductive rights.

But if we don't do anything and don't at least make a fuss about it and use it as a wedge, as the GOP would most definitely do if they were in the same position, then we'll have only ourselves to blame for losing control of Congress.

[Demsrule86]

149. Sinema would likely break the filibuster for Roe...but Manchin won't. There is no point in voting.

Let Congress head home and run on Roe and whatever else works and win the votes needed.

[Magoo48]

126. This is always my question. Why aren't we calling a Timely vote on everything?

What happened to, “Failure is not an option”?

[Magoo48]

128. This is always my question. Why aren't we calling a Timely vote on everything?

What happened to, “Failure is not an option”?

[Demsrule86]

148. We don't have he votes...what should we do? Vote anyway. Why?

[Magoo48]

151. Yes, get everyone on the record, every time.

[Marius25]

2. What's the point? It's impossible to pass.

[wryter2000]

4. Maybe to show people they can't snap their fingers and do it?

Or maybe just to show how they feel on the subject?

I know there are progressives here and elsewhere who expect the impossible from Democrats.

[In It to Win It]

62. I think the Party actually communicating to people what's needed is the better idea

Sure, they can show it by trying this bill as they have shown it many times before. They actually need to tell people that "if you an expanded Court, a Court that reflects the country in diversity and viewpoints that will uphold your voting rights and reproduction rights, we need you to give us 'X' amount of Senators. If you give us 'X', we will have the power to give you 'Y'."

Much like the 2020 election. Elect me and you get a pro-choice court pick. Elect me and I'll appoint (and the Senate will confirm) the first black woman to the Supreme Court. Georgians, elect me and you will get $2,000 checks and an expanded child tax credit.

[jmbar2]

74. Very good point !

[jmbar2]

10. It would turbocharge GOTV if it were a possibility

[KPN]

17. Even if it is not, it would turbocharge GOTV including, and perhaps, especially

with young voters who lament what they see as a lack of results enabled by half-hearted measures and attempts. Before anyone alerts me, I'm simply expressing what I hear when I talk with the younger generation via my three adult kids and their partners/acquaintances/associates. It's important to listen to what they have to say if you really want to get them out at the polls for us. Showing strong support for making real change in the near term will be important to them I believe.

[speak easy]

76. The relevant question is, would he sign it?

[paleotn]

105. He's not the fucking pope.

[TomDaisy]

53. defeatist attitude will get us nowhere

[Marius25]

115. It's not defeatist, it's reality.

We do not have the votes to add seats.

[paleotn]

106. Hand sitting and crying boo hoo hoo. That's the ticket!!!

[wryter2000]

3. I'm curious

Is there any written procedure for changing the number of justices? I know the Constitution doesn't specify a number, but was it decided to do that in Congress at some point?

[CincyDem]

5. McConnell unilaterally decided to make the number 8.

I’d like to see Biden just send a nomination ( or two) to the senate. Just send it a have the senate advise and consent.

IMHO.

[wryter2000]

7. Interesting idea

And tell McConnell that he unilaterally changed the size of the Court for over a year. Not that McConnell will listen.

[CincyDem]

11. McConnell doesn't need to listen.

50-50 plus Harris.

Hate to keep repeating my favorite phrase but…make them vote.

Stop dealing with hypotheticals and news sound bites. Put it on the floor and see who salutes.

IMHO.

[SoCalDavidS]

14. The Filibuster Prevents Them From Voting

The Filibuster determines whether it can even be debated and then actually voted up or down.

It takes 60 votes to overcome the Filibuster, not 50 plus Harris.

[W_HAMILTON]

22. It takes 50 + Harris to overcome a filibuster.

Because that's all that would need to reform the rules so that anything can be passed with a simple majority.

Of course, we don't have the 50 part of that equation right now due to Manchin, Sinema, and possibly a few others, but add a few more Democratic Senators in there come election time and we will be pretty close, if not at the threshold. The "quiet" ones on this matter would be easier to sway once Manchin/Sinema are rendered irrelevant on the subject.

[SoCalDavidS]

24. We'll Be Lucky To Gain 1-2 Seats, Let Alone 5 nt

[W_HAMILTON]

30. I think we will gain seats...

...and I don't think it will take five.

Two will be enough to put enough pressure on remaining few holdouts, some of which come from very blue states and will feel the intense pressure every time they return home. That is a far cry from Manchin in West Virginia or even Sinema in reddish/purple Arizona.

[KPN]

32. My crystal ball says we'll gain at least two, maybe more. nt

[SoCalDavidS]

37. I Hope You're Right

With inflation and high gas prices, I'm extremely worried. Thankfully we have some fine candidates running.

But Warnock needs to hold his seat in GA, and Walker is tied or leading that race at the moment. I'll be really depressed if GA votes in a MORON like him.

[KPN]

38. Walker is trending down. The SCOTUS ruling and his history of impregnating women and

creating at least 4 children with absent an father will give more juice to that trend.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

47. We need to hold the House too

If the GOP retake the House, then it doesn't matter how many Senators we have, no law will pass to expand the Court. And unless things dramatically change, our chances of holding the House is extremely slim.

[CincyDem]

70. I'd argue no. The House has nothing to do with presidential appointments.

Nine is a custom, not a law. Biden nominate Jane Doe to the court. Senate approves Jane Doe. And then there were 10.

That’s my read. No law changed. No law broken.

How many things have we learned about in the last 4 years that were thought were laws o my to learn they were Conventions and Customs.

I think 9 is a convention. So does Mitch dine he thought 8 was fine. And when asked what he’d do if Hillary won…he said he’d hold the seat open (iirc).

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

78. No, there is a law

The Judiciary Act of 1869 set the number of Justices to 9. That law would have to be changed in order to expand the court.

[CincyDem]

107. Chit. n/t

[KPN]

31. Well let them vote on cloture then. It's essentially a proxy vote for

expanding the Court. Let's at least see where everyone stands.

[moose65]

81. Not if they're confirming justices

It only takes 51 to confirm justices.

[KPN]

25. I agree. What have we got to lose? We tend to be cautious and measured. Where has

that got us? Just look where we are right now -- women's right to control their own bodies and health is now or soon will be essentially criminalized in many States, income inequality continues to grow, global warming continues to escalate, democracy is on the ropes as is our Constitution.

[CottonBear]

6. Moscow Mitch unilaterally changed the court to 8 for months

He’s a evil, traitorous facist.

[Timewas]

8. Guess we all need

To bend over further, even our own side is against doing what is the only real answer

[asiliveandbreathe]

9. From April 2021??..Am I missing something??

[Xavier Breath]

12. Let's do the time warp again.

[regnaD kciN]

16. This thread should be deleted...

It’s obviously a news story from over a year ago, and has nothing to do with current events.

[Xavier Breath]

18. Yeah, I figured it would be by now

and wanted to post before it was too late. I always miss out on posting in the deleted threads before they're deleted.

[Celerity]

23. Lol. You made it to the land of milk and honey this time!

[Xavier Breath]

28. And now that I'm finally here

I can hardly see what the fuss was all about

[Grasswire2]

33. It has everything to do with now.

Fourteen months ago.

That is the actual fact.

Everyone was bamboozled by thinking that SCOTUS would never dare to act.

[Colbert]

48. You just had to ...

... bring Susan Sarandon into it, didn't you?

[TwilightZone]

29. No, you're not.

I've seen several of these over the past few days. Posters post old news items, trying to pass them off as current events, just to jack people up, and it's gotten rather tiresome.

[Grasswire2]

34. how is it "trying to pass off as current events" when the date of the news article is reported ?

SMH.

That was the point of posting it. To show how long it has been.

[TwilightZone]

43. "To show how long it has been."

LOL. You actually expect anyone to believe that? Please....

[KPN]

35. Oh frigging SNAP!

[RKP5637]

143. It's all wrong, I noticed that too. Unless the wayback machine is working we missed April 2021.

[msongs]

13. sounds like a good idea until....repubs can also use it to add more when they get power nt

[Tetrachloride]

15. 15 is better

[lindysalsagal]

19. Probably a good move it it's doable.

[DFW]

20. If Jerry has joined in

This gives it some weight. What it can't do is buy them time.

[Celerity]

21. Please delete this now, immediately. This article is from April 2021.

[Grasswire2]

49. Is there a rule against posting news articles from the past to compare with current events?

Gee.

Better get busy with re-writing DU rules.

[Totally Tunsie]

67. Perhaps you should have stated that purpose when you made the post.

Would it have been difficult to include the "comparison" in your OP?

It didn't reap the results you desired, because you didn't bother to explain your intent.

This is very misleading, bordering on irresponsible.

[Celerity]

104. You made no mention in the title it's a 14+ month old article

If what you did became the norm here, the result would be a significant diminution in relevancy and clarity of this forum. Look at this thread alone. It contains a large amount of comments simply talking about the date of your OP article. Not exactly an outcome for ideal debate and discussion.

You knew it was a well over one year old article, yet posted in such manner that you left out that vital fact from the title as well as offering no commentary of your own creation acknowledging that fact.

You did post the date, but obviously many posters missed that, whilst multiple ones who did notice it chose to reply about the date, rather than the substance.

Just my tuppence, but I feel it is a 100% legit opinion. Your milage may vary.

[Grasswire2]

111. thanks for the kick. nt

[Demsrule86]

137. Thanks Celerity!

[Demsrule86]

131. Most people think that this is in response to recent events...it is not...thus I think it is

misleading whether you intended it to be or not. At least say that it is from 21 and not a response to what just happened

[RKP5637]

144. It is absolutely wrong to keep this post up. K&R!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[TwilightZone]

26. As I suspect you're aware, that was more than a year ago.

I really wish that posters would stop jacking people up with old stories, trying to pass them off as current events.

[Grasswire2]

36. LOL

You totally miss the point.

[TwilightZone]

39. Nope, your intent couldn't be clearer.

And posts like this are beyond tiresome.

[Hav]

42. This happens from time to time

It seems news articles just pop up in recommendations and people believe they are new stories and post it here without reading the article carefully.
But I agree, unless a comment is provided why a year old article is posted, these threads should be deleted once the mistake is recognized.

[Grasswire2]

50. the date of the NEWS ARTICLE is posted.

Reading for comprehension is important.

[Hav]

60. Don't tell me, I'm not the one who thought it's a new article

You should inform half the posters in this thread who didn't realize it and look like fools. You post a year old article without any commentary at all. It's easy for readers to miss a single line.

[Kid Berwyn]

27. You want to save Democracy?

THAT’S how you save Democracy.

[brooklynite]

40. Speaker Pelosi said it would not be brought up. It wasn't brought up. Discuss.

[dalton99a]

41. I approve.

[thesquanderer]

45. re: "including one who was confirmed days before the 2020 election."

AND one who's there because the Republicans PREVENTED one from being confirmed well before the 2016 election. The party of having their cake and eating it too.

[48656c6c6f20]

46. Oh noes!

Now you went and did it, summon the IT CAN'T BE DONE BRIGADE AT ONCE! Oh never mind you're already here.

[Grasswire2]

51. huh? NT

[TomDaisy]

52. GOOD. START MOVING OVERWHELMING PUBLIC OPINION IN THIS DIRECTION

[h2ebits]

57. YES!!!!!

[SergeStorms]

55. April 14, 2021.

Why is everyone going ballistic about this?

[LudwigPastorius]

61. !

[Tarc]

59. April 14, 2021

[ancianita]

63. Hell yeah it's an idea that should be considered! Go, Nancy! Let's get the women public thinking!

[YoshidaYui]

64. Will this be enough?

[krispos42]

65. There are 13 Federal Appeals Court jurisdictions

Each one has a SCROTUS justice assigned to it, ergo there should be 13 justices.

[ancianita]

72. Roberts, Alito and Kavanaugh run at least 2 districts each. That's why red state AG's go to them.

FEDERAL DISTRICT ASSIGNMENTS

CIRCUITS:

DC — John G. Roberts
First — Stephen Breyer
Second — Sonia Sotomayor
Third — Samual Alito
Fourth — John G. Roberts
Fifth — Samuel Alito
Sixth — Brett M. Kavanaugh
Seventh — Amy Coney Barrett
Eighth — Brett M. Kananaugh
Ninth — Elena Kagan
Tenth — Neil M. Gorsuch
Eleventh — Clarence Thomas
Federal Circuit — John G. Roberts

Of the 13 Federal Districts in the U.S. Federal system.
Roberts oversees 3 -- the DC, 4th District & the Federal District
Alito oversees 2 -- the 3rd and 5th Districts.
Kavanaugh oversees 2 -- the 6th and 8th Districts.
The other six justices oversee ONE District each.

[paulkienitz]

68. kind of a weak substitute for impeaching the perjurors

[mrsadm]

71. Obama should have started fixing the Supreme Court problem

Back when Mitch McConnell denied him an appointment… he should have played hardball to get the appointment.

[lefthandedskyhook]

73. ...and FDR should have implemented healthcare

I'm not quite sure how we fix these things from the past, but there's plenty to do now!

[Demsrule86]

90. Oh really and how we would he do that since he did not have a Senate majority?

[Demsrule86]

77. This thread is over a year old...for God sakes, delete it.

[Grasswire2]

87. no, the news article is over a year old; date displayed in the OP.

The thread is today.

[Midnight Writer]

79. How many times did Republicans put up anti-abortion bills, even though it was a protected right?

Hundreds.

They kept plugging away at it until they got it through.

Every journey starts with a single step.

[JoeOtterbein]

84. K n R ! Thanks for posting!

Good news!

[Demsrule86]

86. This is from 2021.

[denbot]

85. Yupper's, 13 cuircut courts, 13 Supreme Court Justices.

Make it so starting 2022 if not by E.O.

[Moostache]

88. Look, this won't be popular, but needs to be understood...

The Court is broken. It is NOT a legitimate court any longer and it really pre-dates the usual suspects of McConnell and Trump or Garland or Scalia. It was broken in 2000 when the court politicized the POTUS recount in Florida and allowed the nonsense that went on with the Brooks Brothers Riot and the handing of the Presidency to W. by a court full of compromised justices.

It has only gotten worse.

We allowed this to get far when the Obama Adminsitration refused to shut down the whole fucking shit show government when McConnell pulled his stunt. There should have been ZERO government business for the duration of McConnell's intransigence and Obama should have been giving nightly updates to the country and named names and pointed fingers directly at the soft coup that was taking place. 1 seat stolen.

We allowed this to get to this pitch when no one pulled RBG aside after her FIRST bout with colon cancer and suggested that helping to select a successor would serve the long-term gains she was instrumental to better than dying on the bench would. That was lunacy and allowed RvW to fall at the hands of Comey-Barrett and her religious zealots.

Fixing this is going to require a rebalancing of the court to reflect the will of the country and not the will of the states. The idea of separate state's rights to solve a question of fundamental human rights was already adjudicated via Civil War from 1861 to 1865. Failure to fix the court and allow the justices to be brought in line with the country NOW instead of the country from 1861 will ensure that round 2 is going to happen and this time is won't be hundreds of thousands dead, it will be millions.

Either the SCOTUS is fixed and votings rights restored/protected, women's bodily autonomy and private decisions that affect individuals and not the state (contraception, marriage and property rights, and who puts the naughty parts while consenting adults) returned to the people directly - instead of their "elected representatives" from the gerrymandered mess we have now...or the results will be a second civil war and partioning of the continent into separate states. Its that or constant guerilla warfare in all contentious regions across the map. Its water rights disputes that erupt into full blown battles. Its militias feeling empowered to enact their own laws in defiance of a federal authority. Its all out war and destruction.

And someone had better secure the nukes, NOW. Or its going to be a hell of a lot worse very quickly.

The signals have been made, the writing is on the walls everywhere - a collapsing economy with hyper inflation to drive away Democratic supporters, a compromised election system with no voting rights protection (and further state-level shinanegans for who counts the votes and certifies them) to reduce turn out and now a renegade SCOTUS out for privacy rights in favor of theocratic autocracy? None of that even considers the question of why the fuck is Donald Trump not in prison planning for his day in court for what is already known about J6?

This is as serious a crisis as the republic has ever faced from within. The question of surviving another decade has been off the tables since 1812. It is literally back and staring us in the face. This is not something voting alone can overcome. This requires a wholesale change in the structure of the SCOTUS, the rules of the SENATE and the guts of the Executive branch.

Its not a question of "if", its "when"... act now and maybe we survive I give it 50-50 odds.
Wait until after the mid-terms? Carve the grave marker now:

USA
1789 - 2022

[JCMach1]

98. Meanwhile, the Electoral College is still broken... We have known how dangerous that is

Since 2000

[myohmy2]

101. +1...

...

[Grasswire2]

112. Nicely said -- please post this as an OP too.

Prescient, and troubling, and important.

[MrWiggles]

89. Good luck.

The right will block ANY attempt to expand the Supreme court.
But if they get the WH, and control of the house and senate
you can bet that THEY will expand the court and add another
4 right wing FASCISTS to the court.....and then SCREAM
when Democrats are opposed to THEIR power grab.

[calimary]

92. YEEEEEEEEESSSSS!!!!!

It’s about time!!!!!

Since the bad guys cheated and out their thumbs in the scale, we have to take drastic action. Sorry! We. Just. DO!!!!! We. Just. HAVE. TO.!!!!!

[Totally Tunsie]

97. This article is over a year old - April 14, 2021.

[calimary]

116. Which makes it even worse.

What happened to it?
Who backed it?
How hard did they back it?
What did they do about it?
Did they promote it? At ALL?
Did they make ANY noise about it? ANY? WHERE were the press conferences and hearings and speeches in high-profile venues? Was ANYBODY out there going on local and/or national TV bringing this to wider public attention? Or on the radio? Or in any of the major newspapers? Hell, I watch A LOT of news. I saw NOTHING about this - anywhere!
Where’d it go?
Is it still happening - or do we have to start over?
And DO ITS PROPONENTS EVEN UNDERSTAND the stakes by now - that this is a five-alarm fire? No, I take that back. This is a TWELVE-alarm fire. And not a Cat-5 hurricane but a category-15 hurricane! Do our reps even get this? At long last?

WHY was this treated like “our best-kept secret” when they needed to be out there vocally, in public, at press events, writing guest editorials all over the place, making noise, generating interest, urging the public to call other reps about it? WHERE was the nagging and reminding and making a steady nonstop stink? Hell, did anybody get a whiff of ANYTHING along these lines???

The cupboard was fucking BARE. WHAT, we’re they afraid if they spoke up or draw attention to themselves, somebody might get mad at them? Well boo-hoo-hoo to THAT! You’re afraid of threats and somebody has a gun? Then, dammit, you have staffers. You can make speeches on the floor of the House and Senate! You can hold press conferences IN the Capitol building where there’s a lot more security these days. You can do phone and on-camera interviews from the safety of your well-protected offices!

Doesn’t ANYBODY believe in making noise about anything anymore, or must we all be obsessed with being low-key and oh-so-polite and DON’T raise your voice for Pete’s sake…

Does NO ONE back there in DC understand the value of promotion? And making noise? By now, for Pete’s sake?????

I’m so tired of being disappointed and under-impressed!!! It’s downright INFURIATING!!!!

[Grasswire2]

121. EXACTLY.

What happened to it??

Where was the messaging?

Where was the urgency?

Where was the FEAR and the determination to do something?

[MrsCoffee]

138. Judiciary Act of 2021

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2584?r=1&s=1

Last Action:

10/19/2021 Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
Action By: Committee on the Judiciary

It has 56 Co-sponsors.

[myohmy2]

95. sounds reasonable...

...I'm convinced if the turtle had our slimmest of majority he would somehow figure out a way to drive a semi through it and get what he wanted...

...sometimes we just don't appear to be hungry enough...

...just do it...

[aggiesal]

103. This is how I see it ...

Most people think more liberal instead conservative.
They don't usually vote for the (D)'s platform but if you ask about each platform item, they agree with it.
Example, legalization of pot. Everyone wants it, but some vote for (R)'s who vote against it.

Saying that, (D) presidential candidate have won the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 election, but
have only confirmed 4 of the last 20 justices.

The 2000 stolen election would have produced 2 justice appointed by Bush, for Gore that we didn't get (assumption that Gore would win the second term).

The Merrick Garland seat stolen by McTurtle, belonged to Obama
And of course RBG's seat rushed through under Pendejo45.

With the Bush appointees and the Obama's stolen seat, that would have been a 3 justice swing. SCOTUS would have been 6-3 with 5 liberals, and Garland as swing with 3 Conservatives.

This would have been a more accurate SCOTUS in 2022.

Is it time for 13 justices? Yes.

I also believe that only 9 justices should hear any case, with the majority always slanted in the direction of who holds the WH.
That way, to the victor goes to spoils.
If you lean to the left all the time, you'll go in circles.
Likewise if you lean to the right all the time, you'll go in circles as well.
This way it always straightens out every 4 or 8 years.

Also, you can't contest a specific constitutional point because you'll never know when it will reach SCOTUS and who's in charge.
Now cases can reach SCOTUS knowing which direction it's going to go.
Gay rights, Contraception & ACA are all on the chopping block because they know this court has enough to overturn every decision.

Again, just how I see it.

[USALiberal]

117. Why the old article?

[Grasswire2]

120. important to show that this was under consideration and newsworthy 14 months ago.

For the record.

[CousinIT]

119. Goddammit. THE COURT IS ALREADY PACKED. It needs to be UNpacked...

.restored, rebalanced. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG with the media that they can't SAY this? What is wrong with Joe Biden and Democrats that THEY can't SAY THIS?

IT'S THE GODDAMNED TRUTH.

[malthaussen]

134. Hmm. I don't think the Legislature has that power.

It would seem to violate the Separation of Powers clause, but it is a grey area. The number of Justices has never been legislated before.

So, what happens if the law passes, it is challenged in court, and the USSC has to rule on its Constitutionality?

-- Mal

[dlk]

135. There are 13 Appeals Courts

The last time the Supreme Court was increased to nine justices was when the number of appeals courts expanded to nine. Given the case backlog in all of the courts, it would be the logical thing to do, and should have been done ages ago.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

136. The problem: when they get the Senate, they will expand to 19

...and so on...

We need to amend to set a number, and end service for life. Either a 20 year limit, OR 12 years, then an option for the President to retain or replace; and another 12 years. Finally, the Senate gets 45 days to decide. If they haven't decided by day 46, they are locked in the Capitol by US Marshall's and can't leave or recess until they decide yes or no.

[Sogo]

139. It's really an insult that they let this post with year-old information stand.

It should be deleted!

[RKP5637]

145. Absolutely!!! K&R!!!!!!!!! n/t