Well, the 'fathers' of the country, though they discussed it, really couldn’t find a way to prevent a group of legislators who would be so unconcerned about the general welfare of the country as to lead it to destruction rather than prosperity.The Republicans controlled both institutions through minority rule; the people were ignored.
True. What happened when they had enough to get rid of the ACA? Their own constituents were against it.The GOP has no actual policy that they can get majority support for among their own. There is likely no downside to getting rid of the filibuster. Packing the court though, I can see that escalating.
SCOTUS commission was designed to go nowhere. While Democrats SHOULD pack the court, they aren't going to.SCOTUS commission is going no where.
Biden commission on Supreme Court isn't moving fast enough — or thinking big enough | Salon.com
How will that work in 50 years when the supreme court has more members than congress?SCOTUS commission was designed to go nowhere. While Democrats SHOULD pack the court, they aren't going to.
How will that work in 50 years when the supreme court has more members than congress?
It's an incredibly myopic view to see this as a solution rather than an extension of the problem.
No, it's the only clear-eyed solution because it recognizes reality for what it is instead of what we wish it was. Conservatives do not care about violating norms of judicial confirmations to get their way. Liberals do. This has led to an asymmetric situation where despite Democrats winning the presidency 5 out of the last 8 times in the last 30 years (and really, the popular vote 7 out of 8) we have a situation where there is a conservative supermajority on the court.How will that work in 50 years when the supreme court has more members than congress?
It's an incredibly myopic view to see this as a solution rather than an extension of the problem.
The answer to the court is term limits without grandfathering. 18 years effective immediately.
It's short sighted. The next republican president will just add more justices to swing the court the other way.No, it's the only clear-eyed solution because it recognizes reality for what it is instead of what we wish it was. Conservatives do not care about violating norms of judicial confirmations to get their way. Liberals do. This has led to an asymmetric situation where despite Democrats winning the presidency 5 out of the last 8 times in the last 30 years (and really, the popular vote 7 out of 8) we have a situation where there is a conservative supermajority on the court.
So what I propose is that liberals wake up and realize that since conservatives don't care about judicial norms anymore, they shouldn't either. When you don't have norms to constrain behavior what do you use instead? The power you have. Add justices to balance back out the norm violations of the Republicans and then offer them a deal to reform the court once and for all to stop this stupidity. If they refuse to deal, add more justices. Rinse, repeat.
Sincerely though, if you have a way to make Republicans respect judicial norms again without expanding the court I'm open to hearing it. I just have no idea what that would be because I'm very confident they look at their actions over the last 5-6 years and see them as an unmitigated success.
It's short sighted. The next republican president will just add more justices to swing the court the other way.
Violating conformation norms is a joke. We now go back to childhood to look for possible impropriety's to stop a conformation. When did that become the norm?
The insanity needs to stop, but it won't because polarization is a winning strategy. Foolish short term "wins" are the entire game at this point, and they're a game that won't end well.
It’s exactly the opposite, it’s the only long term solution. You need to look past the short term action and see how it changes behaviors long term.It's short sighted. The next republican president will just add more justices to swing the court the other way.
It’s not a joke, it’s been a bipartisan consensus for all of US history that the president fills vacancies in the Supreme Court. That ended in 2016.Violating conformation norms is a joke. We now go back to childhood to look for possible impropriety's to stop a conformation. When did that become the norm?
Thanks for making my point for me. The games with the court won’t stop so either the Democrats can realize this and try to establish new norms through the exercise of power to show the republicans that norm violation incurs costs or they can let them just keep doing it, which they will.The insanity needs to stop, but it won't because polarization is a winning strategy. Foolish short term "wins" are the entire game at this point, and they're a game that won't end well.
Hey @Greenman, see what I mean?With any luck at all Justice Breyer won't step down this year, Republicans will take the Senate in 2022 and we'll wait till a Republican is elected to the Presidency in 2024 before we seat another Justice.
How will that work in 50 years when the supreme court has more members than congress?
It's an incredibly myopic view to see this as a solution rather than an extension of the problem.
Now that Texas, Mississippi, and the 5th Circuit have all pushed full speed ahead on effectively overturning Roe in upholding abortion restrictions previously explicitly ruled unconstitutional, and the Supremes as a result now have 2 cases from the 5th that would let them reverse the precedents more broadly … if Democrats want to preserve abortion rights, joining in late on the long-standing Republican strategy of court packing may be only recourse.
Although it may already be too late. Conservative dream outcome from violating norms to pack courts with Republicans for the past decade appears about to finally bear fruit.
The filibuster is gone the second Mitch wants it to be, Dems might as well do it first in an attempt to save the country.Don't do it. GOP will likely be back in power soon and it will backfire. I don't think they will have a filibuster-proof Senate majority so for the time being, we may actually need to rely on it.
Don't forget someone they were able to put killing the ACA through without the filibuster, but voting rights and minimum wage, nope those need 60 votes.If you think the GOP would let the filibuster stop them from accomplishing their goals you are living in a fantasy world. In case you haven't noticed, the GOP has already abolished the filibuster for every type of governance they care about. It baffles me that more people do not realize this.
Let's look at the tape:
1) When Democrats tried to filibuster GOP judges the GOP moved to abolish it for judges until the Democrats capitulated.
2) When Democrats gained power the GOP filibustered judges at a greater rate than at any other time in history until the Democrats abolished it for all but SCOTUS nominations.
3) When a GOP SCOTUS nominee came up they immediately abolished the filibuster for SCOTUS.
4) When the GOP saw it was able to block an Obama SCOTUS nomination by refusing to vote on it they said SCOTUS justices shouldn't be confirmed in an election year.
5) When the GOP had a nomination in an election year they said 'just kidding' and confirmed a justice not just in an election year, but literally three days before the election.
The way it works now is that the filibuster exists for Democratic priorities and not for Republican ones. Surely you can see how when Democrats need 60 votes for their bills and Republicans need 50 for theirs, how this is long term bad for the country. The filibuster was never intended to exist in the first place, let's fix the historical error once and for all. Abolish it entirely.
The filibuster is gone the second Mitch wants it to be, Dems might as well do it first in an attempt to save the country.
Exactly. The filibuster is ALREADY abolished for Republican legislation. The only question is if we should abolish it for Democratic legislation too.Don't forget someone they were able to put killing the ACA through without the filibuster, but voting rights and minimum wage, nope those need 60 votes.
Yes, people really underestimate the extent to which any new legislation passed by the Democrats will be struck down by the Supreme Court.Who needs to pass actual legislation when the courts you've packed will just re-interpret existing law and strike down precedent to your liking? Much easier.
Yes, people really underestimate the extent to which any new legislation passed by the Democrats will be struck down by the Supreme Court.
People always say ‘pass Medicare for all!’ and things to that effect. While that’s nice and all, do they really not realize that conservatives will invent a legal rationale to challenge it and the Supreme Court will likely go along with it, at least in part?
Lol, "My side can act like children with immunity, but your side better act like adults!"It's short sighted. The next republican president will just add more justices to swing the court the other way.
Violating conformation norms is a joke. We now go back to childhood to look for possible impropriety's to stop a conformation. When did that become the norm?
The insanity needs to stop, but it won't because polarization is a winning strategy. Foolish short term "wins" are the entire game at this point, and they're a game that won't end well.