Why not pack the Supreme Court?

[Hugabear]

If the rethugs want to play dirty, why not hit them back? It's been done before, we didn't always have nine members on the SCOTUS. There is no Constitutional limit to how many justices there can be. Add enough progressive justices to counter the neocons. If we don't, if we allow the conservatives to continue to rule the SC, we can pretty much kiss our country goodbye.

[Jim Sagle]

1. Two reasons. 1) The Dems are bought and 2) they're yellow.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Roosevelt tried it in 1937 and it didn't work.

[TexasObserver]

4. It backed down the old stalwarts on the Court, so it did work, in that sense.

It could work now. All it takes is the votes.

Most Americans would welcome creating a court that belongs in the 21st, not the 19th, century.

[FBaggins]

3. Because you can't just add to the court

You have to pass a law.

A law that can be filibustered... and then used against us.

Do we REALLY want a reputation for trying to change the rules when we can't win under the existing ones?

[scheming daemons]

5. What stops the next GOP President from doing the same thing?

At best... AT BEST.... we get a liberal court until 2012.


Then the very action of doing this gets Dems swept out of office.. including Obama... and then President Palin increases the court again to restore a conservative majority.


Do you people actually think these ideas through?

[TexasObserver]

6. It could be done, and should be tried.

[scheming daemons]

7. THINK!

At best... increasing the SCOTUS to 11 gets liberals a 6-5 edge until 2012.


Then... when Obama and the Dems are swept out of office because of their hubris of stacking the court in 2012, the newly-elected GOP President and congress increase it to 13 and the conservatives have a 7-6 edge.



Use the brain God gave ya....

[TexasObserver]

8. It's the smart move, whether you realize it or not.

I have suggested expanding it to 18 justices, and if the GOP tries to expand it in the future, that's their play.

[notesdev]

9. That will work just as well

as, say... making it so the governor of Massachusetts no longer appoints a successor to a departed Senator, and having a special election instead, because John Kerry is going to win the Presidency in 2004 and we can't let Romney appoint his replacement.

The lack of foresight around here is stunning sometimes.