Pelosi says she won't bring bill to expand Supreme Court to the floor

[brooklynite]

Source: The Hill

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday she has "no plans" to bring a Democratic-led bill to expand the Supreme Court to the House floor for a vote, while saying such an idea is "not out of the question."

Pelosi was asked during a press briefing if she supported a bill brought forward by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) to expand the Supreme Court by four seats and if she would bring it to the House floor.

"No. I support the president's commission to study such a proposal, but frankly I'm not — right now, we're back, our members, our committees are working. We're putting together the infrastructure bill and the rest," Pelosi said.


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

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/548443-pelosi-says-she-wont-bring-bill-to-expand-supreme-court-to-the-floor

---

But...the base COMMANDS it!

[The Mouth]

1. Tactically not the time.

There are at least five Senators, maybe as many as a dozen, who would vote 'no'

A bridge too far.

[MiHale]

2. But the politicians don't listen to the base...

The sound of money is drowning the base out.

[brooklynite]

5. So you're saying Pelosi is listening to her donors?

[Griefbird]

14. Maybe she's counting votes.

[riversedge]

17. Of course she is. It is what she does best.

[Devil Child]

3. A sensible decision! N/T

[Lonestarblue]

4. Good! It's too early, and Biden's commission has not had time to make any recommendations.

It could well be that the commission will recommend term limits instead. To my way of thinking, this is not an issue to be raised before the midterms.

[LudwigPastorius]

6. If we're going to try to do this, it needs to be BEFORE the midterm election.

Republican fuckery (gerrymandering) makes our thin majorities in Congress possibly a temporary situation.

[Grasswire2]

13. tempus fugit

Carpe diem.

Use to the fullest the power granted to Dems in the election. It may be gone soon.

[jmowreader]

7. I think at this point I'd prefer the Supreme Court be term-limited

However, if they want to expand the Court the ideal thing would be to create multiple Supreme Court panels. The Constitution does not specify the configuration of the Court, so they could expand the Court to three or four 9-member panels in different locations and assign the Chief Justice to run the certiorari pool, a group of lawyers whose job would be to decide the cases the Court will hear. The logic in having multiple panels is that the country has grown far too large for one panel to provide sufficient redress.

Given that, if we couldn't get multiple panels allow each president to place three members on the Court, whether they serve one term or two. This they would do in the first year of their administration. When the new members are seated then the three most senior members get to move either to Senior Judge status and hear cases in the circuit courts or to a Chief Judge position on one of the circuits.

[ripcord]

8. Not the time

If this is going to be successful there would have to be a lot more groundwork done.

[rickyhall]

9. One may not last much longer while another ought to be impeached (IMO).

[bucolic_frolic]

10. Mitch packed the Court by snuffing the Garland nomination

That needs to be studied as well, and pointed out at every turn. We need to tilt the table to our side once in awhile. This has been a crooked game as far back as the Reagan administration. And the money trail that funded this right wing tilt should be exposed and prosecuted.

[LisaM]

11. I agree with you.

I don't think it's the time to enlarge the Supreme Court (though I think an expanded bench is definitely something to consider down the road).

But the reasons this is coming up are good ones. Trump did pack the Court. And the 2000 election in which the SCOTUS essentially decided their own makeup should also be studied. There were a number of justices who should have recused themselves and did not. Among other things, Sandra Day O'Connor was heard saying on election night that "this is terrible" when she thought Gore might win!!!

It has been tilted against us, and I think your approach of studying these things is a smart one.

[Mawspam2]

12. The reason this was brought up in the Senate...

...was to use as a bargaining chip. We'll keep the SCOTUS at 9 if you agree to DC / PR statehood.

[onenote]

22. No

[Polybius]

23. Neither will happen

We don’t have 60 votes.

[JohnnyRingo]

15. I believe that's wise.

The GOP would wield it like a battle ax and likely win congressional seats over it.
Like a hot coffee, it sounds good, gets the job done, and can be so satisfying until it gets thrown in your face.

[LiberalFighter]

16. It is time for it to happen but best for the commission to do their study first.

[oasis]

20. Exactly. Commission first!!

[llashram]

18. this

the Speaker and my CIC have my trust...

[louis-t]

19. I'm glad Nadler brought it up now, though.

I think I hear Republican colons in spasm.

[FlyingPiggy]

21. I sure hope expanding scotus will be entertained before it is too late

[More_Cowbell]

24. "no plans" is not "won't"

She didn't want to impeach Trump at first, either. So she said.