5779

That’s why we need to turn D.C. into five new states! And Puerto Rico. And turn North and South Dakota into one state. We might as well merge Montana and Wyoming too!

I kid, but I don’t know if any of us here, young or old, will see an amendment in our lifetimes. That 67 number is too tough.

5780

Great thread on GOP efforts to expand and pack state supreme courts for partisan advantage in recent years.

5781

Well, maybe if it’s some state legislatures that ratify a broadly popular but not very consequential proposed amendment over the course of decades or even centuries… I don’t even remember when the 27th Amendment was ratified, and I was starting to be more politically aware in '92 (when I was a freshman in high school).

5782

Court packing has to be seen as an expedient for an important political purpose, not just sour grapes. It’s almost always been done to specifically get through certain “bottlenecks”. Otoh, we can use it to maintain certain political ends.

As I see it, a Dem administration should pack by default one justice in “retaliation” to the bad faith behavior of McConnell during the Obama administration. This has to be done, tbh, to prevent the GOP and future parties from wielding the operation of government itself as a weapon against their political opponents. Down that road is a future where the GOP refuses to seat any judge, or pass any law, or pass any budget, until a GOP politicians sits on the iron throne, and that sort of precedent setting bad behavior has to be struck down with prejudice.

As to getting “more” seats than that, i think it depends upon the sense of urgency over whatever issue is at hand, and can and should be justified at the time. But filling a bunch of seats “just because” is probably about as negative a precedent as set by McConnell.

[Edit: actually you should seat 2 new judges, one to cancel the GOP judge, the other to balance the equation.]

5783

This is why religion is cancer on society, because it’s used to justify this shit. It’s the most effective means of control and oppression in human history.

hashtaghottake

5784

I think this is too little. The Court was set at 9 in 1869. The country is now 10x the population it was then, the number of states has increased by 50%, from 33 to 50. There is more than a reasonable argument that the Court is not able to move quickly enough on the volume of cases it is offered.

I think there are 11 circuits plus the DC circuit and the military court of appeals. Increase SCOTUS to 13 so that each Justice has only one circuit to look after, and add 4 justices to achieve a 7-6 liberal balance.

5785

Oh, good question. I don’t know about her previous coverage.

5786

There seems to be a concerted effort to conceal / clean up Barrett’s past.

5787

I don’t know that you could, but the reason why you might be able to is that you could use the leverage if, “hey, you either work with us to push through this amendment, or we pack the court, which you can’t stop at all.”

5788

If the past has been any guide, they would fall back on unironically calling packing the court unprecedented, a naked partisan power grab, a disturbance of the norms on which our country is based, with a heaping helping of sputtering indignation a’la Kavanaugh.

I’m fine with changing the size of the court. It’s absolutely legal, which is more than can be said for the shenenigans the GOP has been doing for decades and getting away with because one side follows the rules and laws and one side does not. Legal is good enough for me in this particular case, even if it’s not how the system ideally would work.

5789

Elected Republicans know that their stance on abortion is extremely unpopular with most of the country. So they’re going to pretend that this isn’t about abortion, and when ACB votes to overrule Roe next year they’re all going to act super surprised that such a thing could happen, but resigned that it is how it is.

5790

I believe every Justice since Robert’s has filed supplemtals, Sotomayor left out 98 speeches she gave. I’m not sure what the concerted effort here is considering all the Roe stuff she did put in there.

5791

Like People of Praise scrubbing their website of all mentions of Barrett.

5792

Would anyone doubt that Amy Barrett is against Roe v Wade though? I mean i don’t know anything about why people would hide anti Roe v Wade sentiments unless they felt it reflected not jurisprudential analysis but some kind of moral basis. Trump and the GOP were never going to nominate a pro-RvW judge and Twitter acting a little verklempt over the “scrubbing” and “hiding” of her anti RvW sentiments seems… acting a bit shocked at the rising of the sun and moon.

The real RvW test anyway - because the GOP has effectively ended abortion services in several southern states anyway through ridiculous finagling of medical requirements - is whether the GOP will push for a nationwide ban through the courts. Though attempts to do so will likely bring about a sort of Dred Scott decision that will break the country.

5793

I’m curious if anyone in the hearings will ask her if she is as passionate about ending The Death Penalty, which from my understanding is just as important to the Catholic Church.

5794

I’m guessing that’s it, given the venues.

5795

Given the hard on that the GOP has for the death penalty, it seems likely her religious beliefs are convenient enough to overlook any potential hypocrisy on that issue.

5796

She has written about this exact conflict and has ruled on them in the 7th circuit. It’s a fairly nuanced perspective.

5797

Which death penalty cases / questions has Barrett ruled on?

5798

It was an appeal in Daniel Lews Lee v. T.J. Watson, warden. Decided on July 10, 2020.