Balancing the Supreme Court with a new Chief Justice.

[kentuck]

IF the Democrats ever regain power, and that is the only hope that some of us still retain, then out of necessity, it is required to reform the Supreme Court.

The people will have to decide who they want to control our House and Senate. If they choose the Democrats, then the Democrats have no choice but to act.

Their first act will have to be to get rid of the filibuster rule with a simple majority. It has done nothing but promote Republican policies for decades. It is time to "86" the filibuster rule.

Then they can expand the Court and change the Chief Justice. Ideally, it would be a 6-6 balanced Court, but they would not be able to change the unconstitutional rulings by this Court. They would need a 13th Justice to correct the course.

Simply because the people of this country cannot live under the rulings and the laws created by this Court. It is necessary to change it.

[Calista241]

1. I kinda feel like a deal was made

to keep the filibuster. Republicans didn't even try to remove it, and it would've helped them now more than any other time, with both houses and the Presidency.

The fact that they didn't remove the 60 vote threshold is going to make it much more contentious if we try to change it again in the future.

[kentuck]

3. They can get whatever they want without the filibuster.

They like the filibuster to keep the Democrats from preventing them from getting everything they want.

[newdeal2]

6. Get rid of it but also know that the Senate favors Republicans

They will have a much easier time getting 51 Senators than us until we can win in red states.

[In It to Win It]

18. I'm willing to take that chance. I want them to live and die by all the policies they claim to like

[SickOfTheOnePct]

9. No, they can't

Without the filibuster in place, this Republican Congess could have done even more damage with this bill than they did.

[kentuck]

17. And with the filibuster, Democrats can do nothing about it..

In this political reality, I would say the latter is worse.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

23. We'll agree to disagree n/t

[moose65]

27. Wait, what?

The Big Beautiful Bill (UGH) was passed with a simple majority. The filibuster had no effect on it, except that the parliamentarian took some things out of it that couldn't be done under reconciliation. Is that what you're talking about?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

38. I'm saying that has there been no filibuster available

They would have added a lot more to the bill that would have been damaging to the country.

Having the filibuster limited to a degree the amount of damage they could do.

[Fiendish Thingy]

31. False

It was a reconciliation bill, and could pass with a simple majority.

Fear of what republicans might do is no justification for inaction, and with the filibuster in place, inaction is guaranteed.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

40. It was only a reconciliation bill

Because that was the only way they could avoid a filibuster.

If you really believe that wouldn’t haven’t added even more terrible legislation had the threat of a filibuster wasn’t there, then we’ll just agree to disagree .

[Fiendish Thingy]

49. We can agree to agree

But I don’t fear what republicans might do without the filibuster, especially if Dems are the ones to kill it first, expand the court, and Ram through bill after bill that provides tangible benefits to the people.

Then the republicans can go ahead and try and repeal legislation that will be extremely popular with the voters.

Without the filibuster, Dems can pass laws creating, in essence, dozens of political “third rails” that people love, Dems get credit for, and republicans repeal at their peril.

I am not afraid.

[kentuck]

50. Do it with a populist gusto.

And dare the Republicans to vote against the will of the people.

[Fiendish Thingy]

61. Precisely

They should fear us more than we fear them.

Look at everything Whitmer rammed through in Michigan in a single year with just a one seat majority in the legislature and no filibuster.

[Scubamatt]

62. Oddly . . .

Last edited Fri Jul 11, 2025, 10:50 PM - Edit history (1)

the filibuster always seems to work to prevent Democrats from getting their policies enacted, yet NEVER seems to get in the way of Republican policies (except perhaps for the famous McCain thumbs down on Obama-care repeal).

Time to change the rules.

[kentuck]

74. You noticed?

That's the way I see it also. Republicans do not pass popular legislation with the voters.

[dsc]

8. They did remove it for the tax cuts

By claiming them to be free by changing the baseline

[Calista241]

12. No, that was still reconciliation.

Changing the filibuster would have given them 10x more power and ability to do much more than what happened.

[dsc]

14. It was but it violated the clear rules of reconcilliation

they are not supposed to add to the deficit but by changing how they counted those tax cuts they were able to add trillions to the debt while claiming not to. It was a direct removal of the filibuster for one of their preferred policies.

[kentuck]

19. Right!

They get everything they want, without pissing off so many voters they cannot get re-elected. It's a fine line they walk. I don't know how much farther they could go without people breaking out the guillotines?

[Calista241]

20. The Senate has to vote to change the rules, and no such vote was taken.

The American Rescue Plan under Biden also had the same 'rule' violated. At the end of the day, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was still a reconciliation bill that passed with the required 51 votes.

[dsc]

72. Do you a cite for that?

I don't recall that at all nor is any coverage now saying that

[EdmondDantes_]

104. The American Rescue Plan added 2.2 trillion to the deficit

https://www.pgpf.org/article/the-one-big-beautiful-bill-act-is-the-most-expensive-reconciliation-package-in-recent-history/

See the graph in the article.

[dsc]

106. That isn't chasing the baseline

that is what I would like a citation for.

[Fiendish Thingy]

32. We cannot use fear of what republicans might do to justify inaction

And the filibuster guarantees inaction.

[Bev54]

41. Yeah something happened

It was a huge mistake by the Dems not to have balanced out the court and to get rid of the filibuster to do so. That one decision alone could have changed the course of not only the legal processes against Trump, but quite possibly stopped his re-election.

[Wiz Imp]

51. And exactly when could they have "balanced out the court" even if they got rid of the filibuster?

[kentuck]

52. With the majority, you can do away with the filibuster with a simple rule passed by Rules Committee.

Poof! It is gone. Then the President appoints more Justices.

[Wiz Imp]

56. Um, the President doesn't just appoint justices. They have to be confirmed by the Senate.

And even before that, legislation would have to pass both the House and Senate setting a new number of seats on the Supreme Court.

But at no point under Biden did the Democrats ever have 50 Senators who would be willing to expand the court and confirm additional justices. There was zero chance of it ever happening.

[kentuck]

75. True.

Democrats have to have a majority. And a little bit of guts.

[Bev54]

83. They had 50 senators it was the lack of will by

Some that prevented that from happening. It should have been tried but instead nobody pushed it.

[Wiz Imp]

87. It wasn't the lack of will.

It was disagreement that it should be done. There were several Senators at least who honestly believed it was the wrong thing to do. You my disagree with their position (I know I do), but it wasn't an unwillingness on their part to do what was right, It was a disagreement as to what was right. At least some of those who disapproved of expanding the court were NEVER going to change their mind. And I remind you again, that Joe Biden repeatedly publicly opposed expanding the court. What would you have said if they had passed the legislation and Biden vetoed it? (which would have been 100% consistent with his public statements). I guarantee, Joe Biden didn't lack the will to do anything.

And you're wrong that nobody pushed it. Several Senators introduced legislation to make it happen and there was never enough support for them to come close to passing.

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/democrats-introduce-bill-to-expand-u-s-supreme-court/

On Tuesday, May 16, a group of U.S. Senate and House Democrats reintroduced the Judiciary Act of 2023, a bill that would add four seats to the U.S. Supreme Court, bringing the bench from nine to 13 justices. The bill was introduced by Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-introduces-sweeping-court-reforms-to-restore-public-trust-as-supreme-court-faces-legitimacy-crisis

Wyden Introduces Sweeping Court Reforms to Restore Public Trust as Supreme Court Faces Legitimacy Crisis

In the wake of recent rulings upending decades of precedent and evidence of unethical behavior, Wyden’s Judicial Modernization and Transparency Act would modernize the courts by expanding the Supreme Court to 15 justices over three presidential terms, prevent political inaction from bottling up nominations to the Supreme Court, and restore appropriate deference to the legislative branch by requiring a supermajority to overturn acts of Congress, among other modernizing provisions to improve access to justice.

[Bev54]

91. I understand all of that but what I failed to see was the will of the

Majority of dem senators or operatives to change some minds. It was simply oh well guess we can’t even try.

[Wiz Imp]

94. How do you know they didn't try to change minds?

In fact, there were far more Democrats supporting it in 2024 than just 2 years earlier. Likewise, the legislation reintroduced in 2023 got far more support than it did initially in 2021. But Manchin and Sinema were never going to change their minds and without them - passage of court expansion was impossible.

To be honest, imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices would be much easier to pass. No, it would not solve all the problems that court expansion would, but it would be a huge improvement over the status quo. Even a majority of Republicans favor term limits.

https://www.axios.com/2024/09/13/supreme-court-term-limits-ethics
Most Americans back term limits for Supreme Court: poll

Breaking it down: 69% of people in the Annenberg survey support a mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court justices, and 68% endorse term limits for the justices.

President Biden recently endorsed term limits, under pressure from his party's more liberal wing.
Such a system would give each president the ability to appoint two new justices, so the ideological makeup of the court would track more closely with voters' electoral preferences.

https://apnorc.org/ap-norc-poll-2-in-3-in-us-favor-term-limits-for-justices/
AP-NORC poll: 2 in 3 in US favor term limits for justices

WASHINGTON (AP) — About 2 in 3 Americans say they favor term limits or a mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court justices, according to a new poll that finds a sharp increase in the percentage of Americans saying they have “hardly any” confidence in the court.

The poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds 67% of Americans support a proposal to set a specific number of years that justices serve instead of life terms, including 82% of Democrats and 57% of Republicans. Views are similar about a requirement that justices retire by a specific age.

https://www.judges.org/news-and-info/many-judges-support-term-limits-for-scotus-but-its-complicated/
Many judges support term limits for SCOTUS, but it’s complicated

Ask judges if they think there should be term limits for justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, and you get strong and widely varying opinions.

We know because our Question of the Month* emailed to NJC alumni in November asked, “Do you support the concept of an 18-year term limit for justices of the Supreme Court of the United States?”

The final tally: 399 judges voted, and approval of the 18-year term limit won 57.5 percent to 42.5. percent.

The question asked about an 18-year term because in October, a bipartisan group of legal experts, which included a federal appeals court judge and a former U.S. solicitor general, endorsed that term length. The group called the proposal a “vital reform” that would reduce partisanship and improve the judiciary’s overall reputation.

[Bev54]

82. The first 2 years the Dems had the house and the senate

Harris was the tie breaker and they could have done it, if the will was there. Now those who opposed going in that direction have some responsibility.

[Wiz Imp]

88. There's a HUGE difference between lacking the will to do something

and disagreeing with something. Again, the problem wasn't a lack of will, if was a lack of enough Senators who agreed with the action.

[Wiz Imp]

66. It wasn't a mistake by the Democratic Party.

While Joe Biden was President, there were never 50 Democratic Senators willing to expand the court and confirm additional justices. Most Democratic Senators would have approved such a move, but some would not. Any criticism should be directed completely and specifically at those Senators not willing to expand the court.

And remember, Joe Biden himself stated he opposed expanding the court, though I believe he would have changed his mind if he could have gotten the votes in the Senate.

Current Democratic Senators who have publicly stated opposition to expanding the court in the past (some may have changed their mind since then):

Mark Kelly
Maggie Hassan
Raphael Warnock
Angus King
Catherine Cortez-Masto

These are the ones I found quickly. There may be others.

[Bev54]

85. I don't disagree but perhaps if they pushed harder to bring those

Senators around it could have been done, including with Biden. The hesitation to do what needed to be done is not a good look for the party and is a big part of the results of this admin. Many of the legal experts were ready to go.

[Wiz Imp]

93. Even if I ignore all the current Senators and agree they could possibly be convinced to support court expansion

The elephant in the room (or more appropriately elephants) Joe Manchin & Krysten Sinema. (Jon Tester also opposed it) There was no way in hell either were ever going to vote for it and there was nothing that could ever be done to change their mind. Whatever their reasons for opposition, it certainly wasn't a lack of political will. Without their votes, there was zero way to get it passed.

[musette_sf]

2. Justice Kagan would be a great Chief Justice

[GiqueCee]

55. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm not mistaken...

... Justice Kagan has sided with the Sinister Six more than once. I'm not sure I'd choose her. Besides, I don't think that the Chief Justice can be replaced without an impeachment, regardless of how much Roberts would deserve it.

[Bev54]

86. It is not who they side with, it is following the law.

[GiqueCee]

89. and Sotomayor andJackson don't...

... follow the law? That's a rabbit hole I'd avoid, were I thee.

[Bev54]

90. Of course they do but they are not all monolithic thinkers.

I don’t expect to agree with every decision made by judges. The problem is the right wing judges do not follow the law on anything that is politically and religiously against their personal beliefs. I don’t see Kagen that way; but then I am a firm believer that the courts should never be political, unfortunately that is the system you have which is a huge problem.

[GiqueCee]

98. I am in total agreement...

... with regard to political affiliations in the judiciary. There have been justices that eschewed ANY political affiliations and didn't even vote. THAT should be mandatory, and I don't think that presidents, or any other politician, should have a hand in selecting judges. It should be a jury of their peers; jurists of impeccable reputation, should select them with NO input from politicians who could benefit from coerced decisions. Are you listening, Chief Justice Roberts, you fucking snake?

[Polybius]

4. You can't change the Chief Justice, that's fantasy

One he is confirmed, the only way out is on his own.

[kentuck]

7. But he can be impeached.

Maybe that would be better? What he has done to the 14th Amendment, the immunity ruling, and other abhorrent rulings should be enough to convict. But, if not, he will live the rest of his live under that cloud. And he would not have a majority on the Court.

[Polybius]

10. He won't be for that

He's allowed to rule as he chooses, unless he specifically says something like "I'm purposely going against the law of the land because I hate the 14th." He's smart though, he would simply say it's his interpretation of the Constitution. Impeaching him also would open up a slippery slope.

Finally, while impeaching takes just a simple majority in the House, convicting and removing takes 67 votes out of 100.

[kentuck]

13. Yeah, the Citizens United was a real winner, also.

No one would expect Democrats to have a 67-vote majority again. "Slippery slope"? You mean it can get more slippery than it is already? His interpretation of "birthright citizenship" is going to be tested, it appears. Many say that his ruling was not about "birthright", but we will see. A Judge has ruled in favor of a class action suit against his ruling.

[Polybius]

24. By "slippery slope" I just meant if impeach a Justice for a ruling we don't agree with it would be unprecedented

Also, he didn't rule on birthright citizenship, but the technicality. That ruling is next year. A couple of weeks ago, they ruled on if a federal judge can strike down the law nationwide. 6-3 said no, only in states that are challenging.

Had they struck down birthright citizenship, then no federal judge "could file a class action suit against his ruling." Because then it would be the law of the land. The SC is the final say. Like I said, next year they rule on it.

You're right about the 67 vote majority. When was the last time we had that many?

[kentuck]

33. I believe we had 60-vote majority when Joe Lieberman was a Senator?

But that included Independents voting with the Democrats. The last time Democrats controlled Senate with more than 60 votes was when Jimmy Carter was President, after Watergate.

[Calista241]

16. Impeachment of justices is a fantasy that needs to be abandon.

It's never going to happen. We're never going to have 67 votes in the Senate to accomplish this. Talking about it is a giant waste of time and effort.

We can't get a single Repub Senator to say a single bad thing on record about Clarence Thomas taking benefits from his 'friends'. The idea that we're going to get 17 - 20 of them to say "let's get rid of this guy, and make sure the Dems can get their own ideologue on the court" is the height of fantasy.

[kentuck]

21. Impeachment and conviction are two different stories.

He could be impeached with that understanding. He has earned it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

34. But you can change the rules on his authority

The authority of the CJ is not enshrined in the constitution, and so a law could be passed to say the CJ may not block consideration of any case if the majority of the court overrules the CJ.

[Mountainguy]

37. Actually, you could

The constitution doesn't provide for how a chief justice is chosen. All that would need to be done if for congress to pass a law that changes how it is done.

Justices are given lifetime terms in the constitution, but Chief Justice is an office within the court, and that Justice would simply remain as an associate Justice if another member took that seat.

I think the obvious choice would be to make the seat open on a yearly basis with the current court voting for who will preside.

[kentuck]

39. Isn't that what happened when Roberts was named Chief Justice?

And Rehnquist hung on for a while as Associate Justice? He did not resign immediately?

Edit: Rehnquist died as Chief Justice Roberts was appointed as Chief Justice by George W Bush, instead of picking someone already on the Court.

[appmanga]

81. The "Chief Justice" is not simply a member of the Court...

...his title is actually "The Chief Justice of the United States", and has more responsibilities than assigning who writes opinions.

https://supremecourthistory.org/supreme-court-civics-resources/role-of-chief-justice-of-the-united-states/

[Mountainguy]

97. Which, again

Is an office within the court. It's appointment is not outlined in the constitution nor is the length of the term as "Chief".

[unblock]

5. Congress can actually do considerably more to rein in the Supreme Court

Article III, section 2 includes:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

I don't know what's been tried in the past, but sounds to me like congress could severely constrain what the Supreme Court can and can't do by making exception and regulations that prevent them easily overturning inferior court decisions or even hearing certain types of cases at all.

[Polybius]

11. You forgot the caveat

They can simply strike that down any law limiting their power, since they have the final say.

[kentuck]

15. Congress can vote to change the law, right?

Or does the Congress have no recourse?

[Polybius]

25. Sure

But then they can strike it down, saying something like they would need a constitutional amendment instead. And honestly, they might strike it down 9-0. Who wants to limit their power?

[Fiendish Thingy]

30. Nope

Congress has expanded/contracted the size of SCOTUS several times since the founding, and the supremes can’t do a damn thing about it.

Expand the court, fill the new seats, swear them in.

Easy peasy.

[Polybius]

59. See my last reply

Yep, I know Congress can pass expanding the Court. Will they though?

[Fiendish Thingy]

64. Only if we elect a congress committed to doing so

It must be a litmus test for every Dem candidate.

[Polybius]

65. If not, we may have no other choice but to just wait, since Roberts, Alito, and especially Thomas are old

It might be hard, since FDR wanted to expand but didn't.

[ITAL]

67. The first post on this particular sidebar

Was not about adding new justices, but whether Congress should attempt to restrain what sort of cases the Supreme Court even sees, and if the Court would rule against that being Constitutional if Congress tried. Even new justices with a Democratic bent may rule against Congress taking away their authority on things.

[Fiendish Thingy]

69. AFAIK the constitution is mute on the role of the chief Justice.

Congress can put jurisdiction stripping language in any law, taking away SCOTUS’ power to review the law, unless/until a state becomes a plaintiff, then it becomes a constitutional matter.

Of course, in any significant challenge to a law, states often find a way to be a party to the complaint.

[tritsofme]

22. Which would seemingly to lead us to Jackson's apocryphal challenge to Marshall.

[unblock]

26. Well, if we're ignoring the constitution, all bets are off.

And yes, the right wing sure seems heading in that direction.

But to whatever extent we're still following the constitution, then no, the Supreme Court can't seize powers plainly reserved to congress.

[Polybius]

57. The constitution can be interpreted

There are some very real reasons why a simply majority vote limiting their powers would be unconstitutional.

[unblock]

70. Congress can't make up powers for themselves, sure

But they can certainly act on powers the constitution clearly gives them.

And sure, the Supreme Court can interpret the constitution, but they can't make stuff up or ignore sections entirely.

At least not when the institutions act as intended. The framers meant for there to be congressional checks on Supreme Court powers. In practice, I don't see this congress using such powers, a certainly not in a good way. But congress does have those powers, at least on paper.

[Fiendish Thingy]

29. Nope

Congress has expanded and contracted the size of SCOTUS several times since the founding of the nation.

Once they pass the law expanding the court, the president fills the new seats, and the current MAGA court can’t do a damn thing about it.

[Polybius]

58. We weren't talking about just expanding, I know that's fine

I was responding to the other user who was talking about a Congress passing a simple majority vote limiting their powers.

[Fiendish Thingy]

63. The powers the SCOTUS claims were only established via Marbury vs Madison

And since Dobbs has established we are now in a Post-stare decisis era, everything is on the table.

[Fiendish Thingy]

28. Two questions that should be a litmus test for any Dem senate candidate:

Do you support court expansion, including expanding SCOTUS to at least 13 seats?

Do you support eliminating the filibuster in order to do this?

There would probably need to be some sort of new legislation to create a new chief Justice opening, like term limiting or something, and that would have to pass constitutional muster in any case. Expanding to 13 seats, regardless of whether there is a new chief Justice, would create an 7-6 shift against the current MAGA majority.

Additional legislation would be needed to reform the courts, especially Clarence’s bribes.

But expansion is the only way Dems can pass legislation that will undo Trump’s and the Roberts court’s damage, and not have those laws overturned by SCOTUS.

[kentuck]

35. I agree that expanding the Court is the only way to undo the damage by Trump and Robert's Court.

Does anyone have any other ideas, other than letting the status quo worsen?

[Fiendish Thingy]

45. Well, there are lots of other ideas

All of them bad, and all of them ensuring gridlock and the ongoing enshittification of democracy.

[elleng]

36. Ketanji Brown Jackson for Chief!!!!

[The Wizard]

42. Like their patron saint

Mitch McConnell, they will resort to every unethical stunt in the book to prevent a Democrat from seating a Supreme Court justice. The question is, will Democrats have the guts to stand in the way of Republican political chicanery.

[Wiz Imp]

54. Republicans CAN NOT block a Democratic President from appointing a Supreme Court Justice as long as the

Democrats have a majority in the Senate at that point time. There is absolutely nothing Republicans can do, unethical or not, in that situation. They were only able to block Garland because the Republicans had the Senate majority at the time. The Senate at the time had 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats/Independents caucusing with Democrats.

As point of fact, Ketanji Brown-Jackson was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 2022 when the Senate was split 50/50. Democrats only had a majority at the time due to Kamala Harris as VP being able to break ties.

[gfarber]

43. 13th Justice

If Dems ever regain their power,
They'll change the Court, and soon, not an hour.
With filibusters gone,
A new act will be drawn,
To fix laws that stink, like a sour flower.

They'll balance the Court with a shift,
A 6-6 split, a much-needed lift.
But to make things right,
They’ll need a 13th in sight,
To end rulings that cause a rift.

[kentuck]

44. Nice rhyme.

[Nasruddin]

46. Best thing is to get rid of it

The Supreme Court doesn't solve problems, it creates them. Or holds them in place.
The next best thing would be, as someone suggested, scoping the SC to only have jurisdiction over its constitutionally enumerated items. At least it would limit their opportunities for mischief.

Term limits in the federal judiciary are essential. This takes the pressure off a lot of current problems (but probably will create some new ones).

Perhaps we do need a real supreme court as an arbiter at the top of the system - the German supreme court might be a better model; at least it has interesting features.

Too bad most of this if not all requires constitutional amendment. A good idea but really difficult.

[markodochartaigh]

47. We need to get rid of the debt limit.

If the Democratic party can get control this next election then they need to hammer home the largest increase in the debt in history by the Republicans. And under cover of this, the debt limit needs to be dropped.

[LymphocyteLover]

48. Expand the court! We have to!

[kentuck]

53. Perhaps it is unfortunate...?

But Democrats can no longer think like "moderates". They have to change their thinking to populist activists.

[LeftInTX]

60. I believe Chief Justice is an administrative role.

He doesn't "preside". I think he's responsible for things like "chambers" and making sure they have what they need etc. Do they have enough staff? Do they need more"? Stuff like that....

It's sort of an "extra-curriculum" role.

[Shrek]

68. Now is not the time to be talking about expanding SCOTUS

Unless you want the Republican majority to do it now, and let Trump appoint 2 or 4 new justices.

[FBaggins]

71. Same thing for killing the filibuster

[kentuck]

77. It doesn't matter if they pass a new ruling by a 6-3 vote or a 9-3 vote.

It has the same value. Not a real concern, in my opinion.

[Shrek]

79. Maybe not now

But in 2029 a hypothetical Democrat could switch it from 3-6 to 5-4 with just two vacancies.

It's much harder to overcome 3-8 or 3-10.

[ForgedCrank]

73. It seems like

many forget that politics are circular. Remember demanding a simple majority for judges? Look what that's gotten us now. Things like the filibuster rule are the low amperage fuse that protects them, and when it isn't protecting them, it protects US. We're going to have to start better remembering yesterday and get better at forecasting tomorrow before we are so quick to tear down these rules that are in our way only half of the time, but saving our asses the other half. Expanding the court will turn into yet another disaster. You appear to be unaware of what the GOP will do when "expanding the court" is given a green light. The court was never meant to be political, in fact, it's prohibited. Yet, look at what we (yes, all of us) have turned it into.
Congress writes laws, not courts. We need congress to stop churning out garbage laws with vague language or missing variables that leave them open for interpretation, not packing the court with left or right leaning justices. That goes against everything the system is designed to stop from happening.

[kentuck]

78. I think we've had time to "remember yesterday"...

Just my opinion. But I think we cannot continue to do nothing. We have to do something. We are where we are because some people were too fearful to even try.

[pcdb]

92. If we change the rules to add SC justices, then nothing is stopping Republicans from doing the same.

As many have pointed out, each party in power will just expand the supreme court to get what they want, which means the judicial branch won't really exist anymore.

[kentuck]

95. what would the Repubs like to do that they haven't already done?

In my opinion, it is only a hindrance to the Democrats and to the will of the people. Each Party will have to answer to the people for their actions. Neither Party wants to lose power if they are in the majority.

[Kid Berwyn]

76. Suggest arrest of 6 of 9

They are traitors, just as much as Trump.

[Shrek]

80. Arrest them for what?

You have suggested treason but that's a crime very specifically defined in Article III, and no sitting Justice has come remotely close to committing it.

[Kid Berwyn]

84. Great! Maybe we can use our imagination?

Better yet, look at all of Trump's criminality and charge the Supreme Six as co-conspirators. The facts show they aided and abetted Trump and his acts of Insurrection, Espionage and Obstruction of Justice.

Seeing them join Trump in prison would be justice, seeing how "Just-Us" John Roberts did when he found in the Constitution that Putin's puppet Donald J Trump could do whatever he wants; and that he's immune from prosecution just as long as he's in office or the traitors on the Supreme Court say so.

[ForgedCrank]

96. Label them

as fascist Hitler Nazis, then throw them in prison for it. Am I reading you correctly here?
Who do you suggest carry out these orders and under what authority?
Or I can assume that your suggestions are not serious and simply borne of frustration, which I really hope is the case.
Regardless, other people read this stuff on the internet and it doesn't help our cause much.

[Kid Berwyn]

99. Trump is tossing citizens in prison without due process...

…destroying the free press, destroying the NATO alliance, manipulating markets and the planet’s economy for chaos and cronies — worst of all, tearing up the Bill of Rights and shredding the Constitution aided by the corrupt Supreme Court he packed — and I’m supposed to accept it as legal and shut up?

I don’t think so. And I thought I knew you.

[ForgedCrank]

115. Those things

mentioned are all just social media talking points. The ones that aren't outright untrue and exaggerated beyond comprehension and it is being used to divide. If one does the most minimal of research they will find that most of it is very obvious disinformation. You may not like it, but that's the painful truth. Trump is already an asshole, we don't need to be making shit; he looks bad enough all on his own. Just look at the budget bill he is so proud of for one example. When we go around calling everyone Hitler and claiming he is rounding up people for no other reason that being brown, the other 65% of the country is rolling their eyes at us. "I don't care" isn't a proper response either because we HAVE to have those votes. This isn't the way forward, it exploded in our faces just 8 months ago, and it's not going to magically start working now either.
You either know me or you don't. I've never waivered in my positions. I don't go along just to get along. I don't have 1/4 million pellucidly clear posts asking if Trump is dead every morning because if I agree with something, there's not much call for a comment.
I probably won't last much longer here. One of the voices of reason who I respected got banned here for telling the truth. It's kind of sad when you post legal text as written in law, and it gets flagged and deleted. Reality isn't always nice, but we still have to live in it.

[TnDem]

100. OK, and then

The Republicans get back in power and expand the court to 15 members. Then we get back in power and expand it to 25 and so on.

Where does it end?

[kentuck]

101. I do not think that is a legitimate concern.

Why would they want to expand the Court, except to change the laws that people support? Then, changing laws that negatively affect a large majority of the people can have political consequences. That is why the Big Ugly Bill put off the Medicaid cuts until after the next election. They do not want to face the political price. That has to be configured into the equation. The number of Justices is irrelevant if they do not change the laws and policies that affect people's lives. They could have a hundred Justices and it would not matter.

[TnDem]

102. Yes it would

WIth 100 justices or even 20, the very words of the constitution could be reinterpreted to mean literally anything, and I mean anything.

Why do you think that both sides have toyed with the idea of expanding the court?

It's because it's like a heroin fix....Probably feels really good, (immediately more rulings your way), until the crash hits you, (they take power and reverse everything the former court did and then some).

[kentuck]

103. That would be true if there was no political price to pay.

Do anything you want. Pass whatever feels good. Don't worry about what the voters think. If that was what they believed, then your comments would have more weight, in my opinion. We see what this Court has done but we have not yet seen what the voters will do?

You say, "WIth 100 justices or even 20, the very words of the constitution could be reinterpreted to mean literally anything, and I mean anything."

How is that any different than what they are doing right now?

[TnDem]

105. Now on rocket fuel

If you think THIS is bad, the expand the court...We will orgasmically get our way for a few years and then the blowback will be epicn when they expand more...Then we do, then they do, until the court has 20,000 justices.

[kentuck]

107. We will have to disagree on this one.

What laws would an even bigger right-wing Court change that they would not change today?

[TnDem]

108. History

Read it....

Germany was a bearable place to live till Hitler changed enacted the Nuremberg laws in 1935... That was done with a complicit Reichstag and puppet court.

That changed everything and life in the 3rd reich changed forever from September to November of 1935.

[kentuck]

109. We have that Court right now.

What should we do about it?

[TnDem]

110. No we don't

Think of it this way.....Give the legislature the ability to add about ten more Alito's to the court and tell me what kind of opinions would come forth from EVERY SINGLE decision? We wouldn't even have to wait for the decision.

OK, so we then add ten more RBG's and they add ten more Clarence Thomases and before you know it, the court consists of fifty "justices" with every new election adding scores more.

[kentuck]

111. No.It would not.

We cannot take the voters out of the equation as it they do not matter. The Court has changed the number of Justices several times in the past, and what you say, did not happen.

[TnDem]

112. OK, what do the voters have to do with it

And where am I wrong?....We add two, they are four, we add five more, they add ten.

What happened to the court's numbers 100 years ago has no bearing on what you are suggesting.

[kentuck]

113. Unless the voters lose their right to vote...

..which is not out of the realm of possibilities, they will usually reward or punish those politicians that they feel do not vote in their interest. (These times may be an exception?) But if a Supreme Court, for example, rules that a large number of people can be cut off their healthcare, or Medicaid, then they will likely vote those politicians out that "legislated" such a law, and they would no longer be in a position to appoint another Supreme Court Justice until they were back in power. Then, they might think twice about screwing the people again. We might test this theory in the next election?

[TnDem]

114. Maybe so...but remember

Something that I have witnessed for decades of doing this is the pendulum always swings back.

I worked on the campaign of a state senator her in Tennessee who went on to win Al Gore's old Congressional seat..I saw this repeatedly with that seat alone.