Packing the Supreme Court

[Kevin]

So the Dems want to increase the number of justices, to counteract the present ideological 6-3 advantage conservatives have on the Court. Andy Biggs wants to introduce an Amendment to set the number of justices at 9.

What I'd like to know is why this is such a big thing to fight over?

I couldn't care less if the Dems want to pack the Court. There is no practical difference between that and what the Repubs did under Trump. They jammed Garland, preventing Obama from getting a replacement and then jammed through Barrett. So how is that any different than packing the Court? They did what they wanted because they could. The rules allowed them to do so. So, the Dems are about to change the rules to allow them to do the same - put people they favor on the court to shift the balance, same as the Repubs.

Either way, neither Dems or Repubs are doing anything except trying to get an ideological balance that they like. So why all the fuss?

Until either party starts putting centrists on the Court, it is all court-packing, no matter the method.

[CactusCurt]

The party in power changing the rules of the game is a bad precedent.

[Kevin]

Meh. It is within the power of the ruling party to change the rules, so nothing is being done that is outside the rules of the game.

Both are trying to make the court over in a way that favors their political philosophy. The real problem, to me, is the fact that the Court has been so politicized that it has been dragged into the war between conservatives and liberals. When was the last time a President appointed a centrist?

[CactusCurt]

Ok, when the party in power started the ends-justify-the means bullroar how ever many years ago, did it increase or decrease the division in our country? You can call it a coincidence and sit around waiting for the proof if you want.

[Kevin]

I get it. You are interested in the process as opposed to the outcomes of that process. That's a valid viewpoint.

Of course, it means we could have a process of presidential election by having Paul the Octopus choose our leader the same way it predicts the Super Bowl. Who knows? Might end up with better leaders!!

The Republicans used the existing process to deny Obama a choice he was entitled to make under a rubric that would have made Barrett ineligible. You can't claim that fundamental fair play is important with those mutually incompatible events. Republicans showed that they were interested in doing whatever it takes to get what they want, so game on.

When the process is producing outcomes that are unsupportable, the process should be discarded.

[CactusCurt]

I don’t care which side did it. On balance, looks like it made things worse. That’s enough reason for me to say no to more.

[Kevin]

Each side wants to say "no more" only after they've gotten what they want.

In this case, conservatives want to pack the court, then turn around and be against any further court packing. It doesn't work that way.

[Kevin]

Alan Dershowitz is afraid that packing the court will turn justice into a political game.

Newsflash, it already is.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...political-game

Some Democratic senators and congressmen are ignoring President Biden’s appointment of an expert panel to consider the pros and cons of “packing” the Supreme Court, and are introducing legislation to add four justices immediately. Such legislation, if enacted by Congress and signed by the president, would destroy the credibility of the high court as a neutral arbiter of justice and as a check and balance against the two political branches of our government. It would turn the Supreme Court into a political football to be tossed about by whichever party temporarily controls Congress and the presidency.

Today the Democrats want to add four justices of their own. Tomorrow, the Republicans will want to add six Republican justices. The dangerous precedent created by the Democrats has no limiting principle. If the process of adding justices persists, the bench will have to be expanded to fit dozens of robed political appointees who will see their role as serving the party that appointed them rather than supporting the rule of law.

Justices are already part of the political process. They make headlines only when they seem to fall out of step with the party that appointed them. The justices will write opinions that give roadmaps to the sorts of cases they want to see in the future, so that they can rule on the causes they favor. Any pretense of them being neutral arbiters is long gone. They are actively participating in the political process.

[Phillbo]

None of this would be happening if RBG had resigned when Obama was in power instead of holding out and dying when Trump was in power.....

[Dave Grubb]

None of this would be happening if RBG had resigned when Obama was in power instead of holding out and dying when Trump was in power.....

Or if Mitch McConnell wasn't such an ass and blocked any hearings for Merrick Garland.

[Honda]

Each side wants to say "no more" only after they've gotten what they want.

In this case, conservatives want to pack the court, then turn around and be against any further court packing. It doesn't work that way.

You clearly don't understand the definition of court-packing.

[Kevin]

Pretty sure I do.

According to the David Noll, of the Rutgers Law School:

What does it mean to pack the courts, is it the appropriate response and would it make the courts less of a partisan battleground issue?

People often use "court packing" to describe changes to the size of the Supreme Court, but it's better understood as any effort to manipulate the Court's membership for partisan ends. A political party that's engaged in court packing will usually violate norms that govern who is appointed (e.g., only appoint jurists who respect precedent) and how the appointment process works (e.g., no appointments during a presidential election).

Seen from this perspective, the Barrett appointment is classic court packing. The president nominated a hardline conservative who appears to question major parts of U.S. constitutional law. And the Senate majority changed its procedural rules – invented to deny Merrick Garland a hearing – to ram through the nomination as people were voting.

If Democrats respond to the Barrett appointment by expanding the size of the Court, the immediate effect will be to further diminish the Court's standing and make it hard for anyone to take the Supreme Court seriously.

Paradoxically, I think that's a good development. Restoring a sense of balance to the Court will require Republicans and Democrats to come together and agree on new rules for how justices are chosen and the kind of jurists who serve on the Court. As long as Republicans play hardball with the appointments process and Democrats fail to respond in kind, Republicans have no reason to come to the table. Why bargain when you are getting everything you want?

[Honda]

You stated that the Republicans packed the court. The definition given above is not the traditional definition of court-packing. But as political is this is you can find a definition to say anything you want It to

[Kevin]

I'll repost the relevant section again.

Seen from this perspective, the Barrett appointment is classic court packing. The president nominated a hardline conservative who appears to question major parts of U.S. constitutional law. And the Senate majority changed its procedural rules – invented to deny Merrick Garland a hearing – to ram through the nomination as people were voting.

[Honda]

I'll repost the relevant section again.

Again that is one man's definition and it's clearly not the traditional definition.