I havenât made an error. The Constitution gives the President the power to appoint federal judges. Those judges serve as long as they like unless removed by impeachment for bad behavior. There is no debate at all over whether lifetime tenure is mandated by the Constitution. It is.
Whatever you find wrong with my debating style, I promise you this: if I attribute words to you that I include in quotes, they will be words you actually used.
Totally fair. I aplogise for that. You did not say âcluelessâ. Happy to edit my post if needed.
Many thanks. For what itâs worth, I also want change, and I want Dems to be better. I just donât want people wasting energy on things that canât be done.
Fair. Picking this up though, I do wonder how crazy it is? I mean the current interpretation and way the system of government in the USA has failed, repeatedly, the past twenty years. I do wonder if a constitutional reform might actually happen? I dunno, it seems crazy now but as trump has taught us, the unthinkable can happen, so maybe?
Not sure Iâm taking the White House at their word.
35 states. Thatâs not going to happen anytime soon.
Maybe if the millennials finally wake up and realize their political power some decades from now, perhaps.
Always wise.
Yes. All the ideas that require amendments are basically off the table.
We can pack the Court because the number of Justices is a matter of law, not the Constitution. But nothing stops the Republicans from doing the same thing when they have power again, which they will. So the Dems add a couple or more to shift the balance left. Then the Reps do the same thing to shift the balance back. Pretty soon we have 3 dozen Justices. Not sure thatâs going to work out the way we wanted.
Yeah, itâs not a tenable solution.
(Unless they increase the number, then pass a law limiting the number to 11 and include a poison pill if that ever gets overturned. Of course, Iâm kidding.)
magnet
3873
OK, now suppose the next vacancy opens up when Democrats control the Presidency and Senate. And suppose itâs Thomas that retires, thus the majority moves to the left. Letâs also suppose that Ginsburg and Breyer are replaced by liberals, ensuring a longstanding liberal majority.
The question is, do you think that Republicans would hesitate to pack the court at next opportunity?
Menzo
3874
McConnell has proven that there is no depth to which Republicans will not sink to get what they want, especially with the Supreme Court.
magnet
3875
But if itâs true that Republicans wouldnât hesitate, then there is no reason for Democrats to hesitate. Itâs inevitable.
What makes this an inherently bad thing? Wonât more justices lead to a more representative branch of the government?
Given a choice of going back and forth packing the court or having 5 highly partisan dudes sending us straight back to the 1950âs for the next three or four decades, Iâll take the former.
Even though rage-me wants to pack the court, itâs a bad idea. Thatâs what authoritarian regimes do. The pro and con here. IMO the con outweighs the pro.
Edit; Ultimately the power the Supreme Court holds in another failing of our political system. Itâs not designed for hyper partisanship, but thatâs what weâve become.
This seems to have passed into popular lore, but Bork was not filibustered. He got a full hearing by the SJC, which rejected him by a vote of 9-5. Despite that vote, he asked for a debate by and vote from the full Senate, which he was given. The nomination was rejected by a vote of 58-42. The vote was bipartisan in that 2 Dems voted to confirm him while 6 Reps votes against him.
The Republicans were enraged that the Senate didnât rubber stamp Reaganâs nomination, but no norms were violated. It was not the first time the Senate decided not to accept a nomination to the Court, and Bork was given the full process and an up or down vote.
I mean it wonât have the effect proponents think. We pack the court, we get e.g. Constitutional rights for LGBTQ people. Reps pack the court and strike down those rights. We pack the court and restore them. And so on. It doesnât solve any problem.
Probably not. But it wonât solve anything, because the next majority can always trump the last.
magnet
3880
Thatâs like saying âIncreased military spending is what authoritarian regimes do.â Thatâs true, but it doesnât mean that only an authoritarian regime would do it.
In the US, the main effect would be to reduce the ability of the judiciary to act as a check on the other two branches. And while reduced checks sounds scary, keep in mind that the U.K. has a system in which a single branch is not checked by anything at all besides elections. So I think our democracy could survive.
There is no upside for voting with Republicans. Ever.
