The populace probably will never support a court packing scheme no matter how you dress it up, but you do it anyway, and you do it early.
US PoliERA 2018 |OT6| An Unmitigated Disaster
- Thread starter Midnight Jon
- Start date
- Status
he should be the Democrats' topmost priority after his moderation got rejected
#JusticeForMerrick
The atmosphere in this thread has the air of a Fyre Festival board meeting to it.
"Let's just do it and be legends, man."
How will it be done? Legends, man.
What will occur afterwards? Legends, man.
Any unintended consequences you're worried about? Legends, man.
"Just pack the courts and be legends, man."
"Let's just do it and be legends, man."
How will it be done? Legends, man.
What will occur afterwards? Legends, man.
Any unintended consequences you're worried about? Legends, man.
"Just pack the courts and be legends, man."
Or you can just ignore all of the valid points for doing it in the thread and post this garbage about vague consequences you don't even elaborate on.
It's rare you can even get to 2/3rds in the House. The last time that happened was after Watergate (aka the biggest political scandal in history, although Trump is certainly going to give that a run for its money) and even then Democrats just scratched it.
I feel like progressives have this thing where they assume the President can just bully pulpit Congress into doing whatever they want, regardless of party composition or political fallout or any of that. But then again, Trump thinks the same thing too so maybe it's not just a progressive thing.
Or just live in reality where Dems will never, ever in anyway even sniff at attempting it.
Just like they wont touch the fillibuster.
People talk about these things to make themselves feel better, but its not fucking happening
Uh, if you look at my other posts, you'll see that I'm for hardball tactics, but to a point. I very much believe that court packing (as a tactic in itself) is overall unpopular, and doing so could lead to an electoral backlash, which means your court packing is moot because an RRR government could do the exact same. So you'll never get establishment Democrats to support court packing if there isn't popular support for court packing.
If you ever want to reach that stage, we need long term norm change to stop treating the Supreme Court with absolute deference and to chip away at its legitimacy over time. And you do that by treating it as a partisan body and use partisan tactics against it.
So what? You just pack it again when you inevitably gain control again.
the norms are already dead with the Garland thing.
And no, voters have shown they don't care about courtpacking or the fillibuster or other procedural hangups. Thats why the GOP keeps getting away with them.
Number of Supreme Court justices went from 6 to 7 to 8 to 10 and then down to 9, as the country grew.
Why is it a norm to have 9 justices? The country has grown since 1869.
The court is highly unrepresentative of race and gender. Is that a norm worth keeping?
Why is it a norm to have 9 justices? The country has grown since 1869.
The court is highly unrepresentative of race and gender. Is that a norm worth keeping?
and the last time either party had a 2/3rd majority in the Senate was after the 1964 election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1964
Yeah you gotta be trolling with that last point or you're living in the alternate reality where Hillary won, the Dems have at least one house, and Donald Trump is already in a jail cell.
Government shutdown by republicans -> republicans gained seats in 2014
invention of the mcconnell rule -> trump victory and republicans holding both houses.
the public don't give a shit about norms.
Republicans have been disregarding political norms for quite some time now, and they've only been rewarded for it. Adherence to the norms from here on out will only serve to hold us back. As soon as Democrats get into power, they need to do whatever they must to ensure that women, minorities, the LGBTQ, and the poor and middle class are protected. By any means necessary.
Saying the public doesn't give a shit about norms ignores the right wing news propaganda that is much stronger the the lefts, sunclairs likely expansion, or the obvious double standard Dems are held to by the rest of the media.
There is a 1000% chance anything like court packing done by Dems would be treated as a hostile takeover by the media, and they would pay for it the next election. Anyone who says otherwise is living in denial
There is a 1000% chance anything like court packing done by Dems would be treated as a hostile takeover by the media, and they would pay for it the next election. Anyone who says otherwise is living in denial
I honestly get the fear of destroying norms, whoever is in charge. The slippery slope can be frightening. Why do we need 9 judges when we could have 15? Why do we need to keep the Senate with each state getting 2 seats, even if Wyoming and California are so different in population? Why not nuke the filibuster for everything and transform the Senate into the House? Why not have a permanent special prosecutor? And, so on.
Like, I'm not saying I agree with it, but I get the fear of some where their lines that will never be crossed eventually does, and then what?
Like, I'm not saying I agree with it, but I get the fear of some where their lines that will never be crossed eventually does, and then what?
We paid for it the last election when we still played by the rules when the Republicans ignored them.
I know, but it's never the same. Anyone who thinks Dems won't be punished incredibly hard by the media and voters because republicans aren't isn't living in reality.
This thread complains all the time about all the obvious double standards we are held to... you think that shit is gonna disappear with fucking court packing? God I wish, but come on
You can also be living in denial by just continuing to allow the GOP to make the Dems their doormat.
But the norms!
Looks at current RRR government who is ignoring basically all norms and is rapidly approaching a constitutional crisis and potential authoritarian state with no regard for the rule of law.
Hmmmmmmm.
You're basically the dude sitting in a room on fire saying, "this is fine."
If y'all want to keep pushing out literally "do nothing" you are the fucking problem.
It's "we can't do anything"
And "but moderates and swing voters"
And "but the norms"
And "the Dems will never do anything"
Well fuck off then.
Keep your useless nothingness to yourselves.
It's "we can't do anything"
And "but moderates and swing voters"
And "but the norms"
And "the Dems will never do anything"
Well fuck off then.
Keep your useless nothingness to yourselves.
I'm not living in any type of denial guy. I just know Dems as they are, Schumer especially aren't going to do what you want them to. Doesn't matter how dire shit gets. That man won't touch the court or the filibuster and this thread acting like he plans to but is keeping it under wraps is sad denial. I wish he was, Christ I do. But fuck no that's not actually in the cards.
Only way it ever does is maybe, MAYBE one of the primary candidates takes that position and it actually proves popular. Then they drag Chuck into it with the power of the Potus wanting it.
Maybe Gillibrand has the balls. Biden sure fucking Doesn't, nor Sanders
The media and the electorate have double-standards. If the electorate weren't uneducated and easily manipulated these double-standards wouldn't be so harsh, but they are stupid, and they are ruled by fear which is easily exploitable - thus a President who "mishandles" an Ebola outbreak is punished, and a President who reduces funding for the CDC is praised.
This is the reality - the Angels are held to a higher standard than the Devils could ever be.
Edit: Which is not to say that "everything's fine", it's just knowing the political reality and trying to work around it.
I keep looking at the elections after and I'm like...
We got shitstomped in the Presidential elections, but we kept majorities in Congress.
Really was a different time back then. :(
Can we please not post twitter conservatives gloating here? They add nothing to the conversation other than: "Look how happy they are, this is bad!"
Jr. somehow makes it possible to hate someone more than his father...
Court packing accomplishes nothing other than make the entire judiciary an indirectly elected new branch of government every 2-4-8 years. Not every blindingly stupid idea has to be thoroughly knocked down with point by point analysis. It's just dumb and makes no sense on any level.
He has no idea he's probably going to Prison does he?
Those numbers from the late '60s to the early '90s are a bit misleading. A lot of those Democrats were racist southerners who aligned with Republicans, giving conservatives an ideological, if not numerical, majority.
The only exception might have been that brief window from 1977, Carter's victory and Republicans' disarray after Watergate, to 1981, when Reagan and his ilk strolled in. Carter was much less liberal than his Democratic Congress and let some sizable liberal majorities go to waste.
Which reminds me - I've not seen any Mueller-related news recently, aside from this, which is mostly speculation? When can we expect something new out of the investigation?
Weren't we told to expect a report on the obstruction charge by summer's end?
Ah, yeah, that rings a bell. Hope Mueller doesn't believe in Valve-time. :p
Sober and correct 'packing the court is insane' takes are hardly saying 'we can't do anything'. I know emotions are running high but this post is not the way forward.
They go low, we step on their neck.
Packing the court is only stepping on our own necks.
The real "best" solution is winning big I8/20 for that sweet map drawing advantage then using that as a nice cushion for 22/24 and hope that within the time between 2020 and 2028 God does us a solid and Atilio or Thomas either get tired or hit by a bus.
Sigh,
Edit: or add PR as a state, those extra seats in both chambers would also help a bunch
Sigh,
Edit: or add PR as a state, those extra seats in both chambers would also help a bunch
Court packing is the definition of useless, since in the long run, it'll only lead to a Supreme Court arms race with every administrational changeover. Furthermore, it presumes that Democratic voters care enough about securing the Supreme Court to countervail what would undoubtedly be a furious Republican reaction, and given 2016 that seems like a questionable presumption at best. That's really the crux of the matter: you have to have voters firmly on board before you can push through such a policy without losing all the progress you've made. The messaging has to be better first.
But even if Democrats could make their voters care about the Supreme Court, packing the Court might become politically undesirable for a different reason: anger over the composition of the Court would then become a major, potentially decades-long wedge issue to use against any potential Republican candidate, just as it has been used against Democrats. Particularly if this Republican Supreme Court nullifies popular Democratic legislation on already key issues (such as implementing health care) or if anger at the Court's rightward slant could be tied to other controversial issues.
Of course, this is much more difficult and painstaking task, but that doesn't make it wrong.
If increasing the number of judges were to happen, though, this would be a pretty clever way to go about it while still trying to maintain some goodwill. The Republicans would still take it as an affront and just add one of their own the next time, however.
Yeah, I'm not saying do nothing, but the tactics by Dem politicians have to be more subtle than something like court packing, which is drastic and easily understandable compared to something like violating senate norms. And from a historical standpoint, even though FDR won reelection by a overwhelming majority, his court packing scheme was ultimately unpopular with both Congress and with the general populace.
I think it's okay to talk about it, though, as long as we understand and communicate that it's not realistic at this time, because one day it might be (like with Abolish ICE, even though it's more a part of comprehensive immigration reform). It's more about shifting the overton window. But at the very least, the faster we can get people to treat the Supreme Court as partisan (because it already is), the easier it is to use partisan tactics to pressure it (and we can directly protest the justices already!).
I think it's okay to talk about it, though, as long as we understand and communicate that it's not realistic at this time, because one day it might be (like with Abolish ICE, even though it's more a part of comprehensive immigration reform). It's more about shifting the overton window. But at the very least, the faster we can get people to treat the Supreme Court as partisan (because it already is), the easier it is to use partisan tactics to pressure it (and we can directly protest the justices already!).
Figuring out a long term strategy on how to maintain the senate is the best thing to “do” right now.
It’s the most important thing. Because even if we lose the presidency, this all could have been avoided with a senate majority
If we had won the presidency but not the senate we would have gotten nothing either
We don’t have the votes to pack the court either. McConnell was only able to pull this by avoiding a hearing because he couldn’t have avoided Garland getting confirmed had he gotten on.
I can see at most maybe 10 senators signing off on court packing if we tried. But as a national party it is not a 50 state strategy because there’s almost no way to justify it for most senators trying to run bipartisan campaigns in red or even purple areas. Most people don’t care about procedural norms on what is brought to the floor but I’d say this goes beyond that given we’d need more than one person to sign off on it like not hearing Garland did.
It’s the most important thing. Because even if we lose the presidency, this all could have been avoided with a senate majority
If we had won the presidency but not the senate we would have gotten nothing either
We don’t have the votes to pack the court either. McConnell was only able to pull this by avoiding a hearing because he couldn’t have avoided Garland getting confirmed had he gotten on.
I can see at most maybe 10 senators signing off on court packing if we tried. But as a national party it is not a 50 state strategy because there’s almost no way to justify it for most senators trying to run bipartisan campaigns in red or even purple areas. Most people don’t care about procedural norms on what is brought to the floor but I’d say this goes beyond that given we’d need more than one person to sign off on it like not hearing Garland did.
Still haven't seen a convincing argument that packing the court would do that. Same posters are saying, "let's hope a conservative justice freakishly dies and maybe the GOP won't block another pick."
That makes a lot more sense. /s.
Actually that poster (me) said explicitly get a senate majority then hope one leaves or dies because they wouldn't be able to block shit. Stop trying to strawman people with shit they didn't say
- Status