Why Democrats must expand the Supreme Court

[Fiendish Thingy]

?si=hrNycDvrquH6bEZU

[Wanderlust988]

1. The reform must be durable. Just adding 4 seats and nothing else is an exerise in futility.

It will bring short term pleasure but long term pain. The next time Republicans take over, they'll just add 20 Trumpist judges. It's just going to be a silly arms race until we get 100 justice on the Court. This is not serious and will be bad for the long term future of our democracy.

We need a plan to make the Court's some of the justices are assigned randomly and term limits. For our country to continue, we need to have a Court where no one can predict an outcome...either way. There are many ideas of reforms that I support that are more durable that just simply add justices and go home. This is not healthy in the long term.

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. We cannot govern out of fear of what republicans might do

In fact, fearless governance that includes killing the filibuster and expanding the court could give Dems the trifecta for a generation.

If Dems could ram through progressive bill after bill without being obstructed by the filibuster or having the new laws overturned by SCOTUS, tangibly improving the lives of all Americans, voters would reward them with landslide victories and republicans wouldn’t get an opportunity to counter-expand the court for decades (see FDR and the New Deal).

I personally favor expanding to 21 justices- the bigger the court, the less power and influence a single Justice can have, and it will make it much more difficult to have predictable ideological voting blocs on the court.

[Cirsium]

5. Hear, hear

"We cannot govern out of fear of what republicans might do."

That can't be said too may times.

[Wanderlust988]

8. You're wanting to govern out of anger. You need to play the long view, not a short term sugar high

That is what's wrong with so many in our party. They want to govern out of anger. It's not about what the Republicans might do. It's about building respect for the Court again. I actually don't want a Court that just rubber stamps EVERYTHING the Dems want. Our party can pass very extreme legislation. If you don't believe me, look at the bills coming out Sacramento that are even too extreme for Gavin to sign. He regularly vetoes crazy shit the Assembly passes. Our party can be just as extreme as the MAGA.

I don't want a Court to just go along with EVERY Dem law. That's what would happen if you have 4 or 9 justices. The country as a whole will not have faith that the Court is not political.

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. You are completely wrong

I want Dems to govern out of conviction and determination, without fear or hesitation, Like Whitmer did with a one seat majority in the state legislature. In one year they rammed through bill after bill- codifying Roe, raising minimum wage, protecting labor rights, voting rights, and so much more.

That can’t be done at the federal level unless the filibuster dies and the court is expanded.

Without court expansion, there can be no restoration of democracy, no repair of the damage of the Trump era. The only “long game” is waiting decades and hoping a conservative Justice dies while a Dem is president and has a Dem senate, meanwhile voters perceive Dems as feckless and unable to govern.

Your “long game” politics is akin to the “go slow” approach of Dixiecrats on civil rights, and is unacceptable, politically or morally.

?si=uPsK-eqVXtxZaK2x

[Celerity]

4. Your first two solutions would require a Constitutional Amendment. SCOTUS Expansion does not.

Also, I want 6 seats added (so 15 total justices), not 4 (13 total justices). Or even 12 to 16 (16 as absolute MAX) added IF need be.

15 to even 25 total SCOTUS justices is manageable.

Beyond that is problematic.

I prefer 21 as the max total (to 25), but 15 total on SCOTUS would be close to ideal IMHO.

9 total is simply too small, as we are seeing now with the RW gaming that number over the years.

[In It to Win It]

9. This is the way!

[tinrobot]

27. I don't see anything explicitly stating lifetime terms

Here's article 3 section 1 :

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

All it says is they hold offices "during good behaviour" there's nothing about lifetime terms. Congress could conceivably legislate terms.

Of course, anything enacted by Congress regarding term limits would be challenged in... you guessed it... the Supreme Court.

We can only assume how that would turn out.

[Celerity]

33. Article III states that these judges "hold their office during good behavior," which means they have a lifetime

appointment, except under very limited circumstances. Article III judges can be removed from office only through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate.

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-federal-judges

The language about “holding offices during good behaviour” has been interpreted to mean that the only way federal judges can be removed from office is if the House of Representatives impeaches them, and the Senate convicts them, of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Only fifteen judges have ever been impeached (that is, formally accused by the House of Representatives) and only eight have been convicted and removed from office. For practical purposes, any judge who does not commit a crime (or do something equally bad) has “lifetime tenure” and will stay in office until he or she dies or voluntarily steps down. And, as the provision says, Congress and the President cannot retaliate against judges by cutting their salaries.

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-iii/clauses/45#article-iii-section-one-by-richard-garnett-and-david-strauss

The Rationale Behind Lifetime Appointments

Although the Constitution does not explicitly mandate permanent tenure, the interpretation that its language implies life tenure is far from a new perspective. Alexander Hamilton, during the drafting era, championed lifetime tenure as essential for judicial independence, arguing that the judiciary’s lack of military or financial power made it the least threatening branch. Although Thomas Jefferson later changed his stance, the Federalists continued to support life tenure to safeguard judicial independence. Despite critics’ doubts about whether life tenure truly enhances judicial independence, the prevailing rationale today is that this system “insulates [federal judges] from the temporary passions of the public, and allows them to apply the law with only justice in mind, and not electoral or political concerns.”

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/legal-ethics-journal/blog/lifetime-appointments-of-federal-judges-a-double-edged-sword/

BTW, I am fully on board with term limits, but alas a Constitutional Amendment that puts them in place will never pass, or at least not for decades from now, IMHO.

[in2herbs]

31. While the USSC is being revamped the justices should be split up and required to live and reside in the circuit they are

assigned to. They can conduct hearings and everything else via zoom, etc. Justices should also be assigned cases they have proven experience in.

[Cirsium]

6. 100 justices

100 justices on the court would not be bad for the long term future of our democracy. Why would it be? The population is 10 times larger than it was when the number of Supreme Court justices was set at 9.

[Polybius]

11. The building is too small n/t

[Cirsium]

21. There is that

[Qutzupalotl]

28. Use the ballroom.

😁

[in2herbs]

32. Not if the justices were required to live and reside in the circuit they have been assigned.

[travelingthrulife]

15. I agree. Far more judges and rotate the benches they sit on so they cannot

form political alliances as they have been doing.

[Polybius]

10. "some of the justices are assigned randomly and term limits"

That would require a constitutional amendment though, especially the latter.

[travelingthrulife]

16. So what? The Constitution was designed as a living document. We won't survive another court

like this. The only thing that has saved us so far is their incompetence.

[ITAL]

17. Well, a Amendment like that won't pass any time soon for one

Given you need a two thirds majority in each chamber AND three quarters of states to approve. I could maybe squint and see one chamber of Congress getting that kind of majority, but not both. And certainly not approval in 38 states.

[Polybius]

34. I'm just saying that it's not an easy process

2/3rds majority in Congress and 3/ths the states.

[Silent Type]

2. Gonna have to win several elections.

[hardluck]

7. I'm sure you can get bipartisan support to add them right now.

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. January 2029 is the time

But of course you knew that.

[Thunder Chicken]

18. This actually makes me quite nervous

What if the Republicans voted to expand the court to thirteen justices right now while they control the House and the Senate and Trump is in power? Would Trump then get to immediately nominate 4 additional justices? How would that even work?

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. Republicans would have to kill the filibuster to expand the court

Just as Dems would.

The difference is, Dems would expand the court to prevent laws that restore rights and benefit working Americans from being overturned, and republicans would expand the court to remove rights and damage democracy.

Voters would notice the difference,

[Qutzupalotl]

29. Unless the Republicans do it first.

See the problem?

[travelingthrulife]

14. We should add 20-30 judges or more. Our population has grown, why not the USSC?

Set them up in 9 judge courtrooms but rotate them regularly so forming political alliances are more difficult.
Make them term limited.
Restrict the hell out of their grifting with real penalties for infractions.

It isn't too hard if we have the political will.

[RoseTrellis]

20. Can't be an arms race..

How would you feel if the orange anus announced tomorrow that the repute’s were going to add 20-30 judges. Ow because the population has grown as you suggest?

[Renew Deal]

22. Overall, I think it's a bad idea

And probably the worst of the reform ideas because it’s not actually reform. It makes big problems bigger without solving any of the actual problems.

Democrats take it to 12. Republicans take it to 15. Democrats take it to 18.

We would probably be better off with a smaller court and reducing it to 7.

If people want real change, time limit the appointment, enforce a code of conduct and ethics, require more disclosure.

[Fiendish Thingy]

24. The more the merrier

A larger court means each justice has less power and influence, and makes more difficult to form predictable voting blocs.

What people don’t realize is, if Dems expand the court, and govern fearlessly and unhesitatingly , voters won’t give republicans the trifecta for decades (see FDR and the New Deal), by which time Dem laws and programs will be untouchable third rails.

[Seeking Serenity]

23. Jamelle lacks imagination

His video should be on how Democrats must insure that Republicans can never again hold power 🔋 in perpetuality. That's been the Party's biggest mistake over the past 25 years.

[Fiendish Thingy]

25. Expanding the court and governing fearlessly will provide that result. Nt

[Seeking Serenity]

26. Explain, por favor

[bucolic_frolic]

30. Impeachment for ignoring the Constitution is an adequate remedy

They swore an oath. They failed.

[BannonsLiver]

35. Do you guys have a Supreme Court in Canada?

[Mysterian]

36. Reversing the criminal Citizens United decision is imperative

Only a completely corrupt justice would rule that money equals speech.

So pack the fucking court and drive on.