General Discussion

kentuck

(114,408 posts)

75. True.

Reply to Wiz Imp (Reply #56)

Thu Jul 10, 2025, 03:54 PM

Jul 10

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

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

115 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Balancing the Supreme Court with a new Chief Justice. [View all] kentuck Jul 10 OP

I kinda feel like a deal was made Calista241 Jul 10 #1

They can get whatever they want without the filibuster. kentuck Jul 10 #3

Get rid of it but also know that the Senate favors Republicans newdeal2 Jul 10 #6

I'm willing to take that chance. I want them to live and die by all the policies they claim to like In It to Win It Jul 10 #18

No, they can't SickOfTheOnePct Jul 10 #9

And with the filibuster, Democrats can do nothing about it.. kentuck Jul 10 #17

We'll agree to disagree n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jul 10 #23

Wait, what? moose65 Jul 10 #27

I'm saying that has there been no filibuster available SickOfTheOnePct Jul 10 #38

False Fiendish Thingy Jul 10 #31

It was only a reconciliation bill SickOfTheOnePct Jul 10 #40

We can agree to agree Fiendish Thingy Jul 10 #49

Do it with a populist gusto. kentuck Jul 10 #50

Precisely Fiendish Thingy Jul 10 #61

Oddly . . . Scubamatt Jul 10 #62

You noticed? kentuck Jul 10 #74

They did remove it for the tax cuts dsc Jul 10 #8

No, that was still reconciliation. Calista241 Jul 10 #12

It was but it violated the clear rules of reconcilliation dsc Jul 10 #14

Right! kentuck Jul 10 #19

The Senate has to vote to change the rules, and no such vote was taken. Calista241 Jul 10 #20

Do you a cite for that? dsc Jul 10 #72

The American Rescue Plan added 2.2 trillion to the deficit EdmondDantes_ Jul 11 #104

That isn't chasing the baseline dsc Jul 11 #106

We cannot use fear of what republicans might do to justify inaction Fiendish Thingy Jul 10 #32

Yeah something happened Bev54 Jul 10 #41

And exactly when could they have "balanced out the court" even if they got rid of the filibuster? Wiz Imp Jul 10 #51

With the majority, you can do away with the filibuster with a simple rule passed by Rules Committee. kentuck Jul 10 #52

Um, the President doesn't just appoint justices. They have to be confirmed by the Senate. Wiz Imp Jul 10 #56

True. kentuck Jul 10 #75

They had 50 senators it was the lack of will by Bev54 Jul 10 #83

It wasn't the lack of will. Wiz Imp Jul 10 #87

I understand all of that but what I failed to see was the will of the Bev54 Jul 10 #91

How do you know they didn't try to change minds? Wiz Imp Jul 10 #94

The first 2 years the Dems had the house and the senate Bev54 Jul 10 #82

There's a HUGE difference between lacking the will to do something Wiz Imp Jul 10 #88

It wasn't a mistake by the Democratic Party. Wiz Imp Jul 10 #66

I don't disagree but perhaps if they pushed harder to bring those Bev54 Jul 10 #85

Even if I ignore all the current Senators and agree they could possibly be convinced to support court expansion Wiz Imp Jul 10 #93

Justice Kagan would be a great Chief Justice musette_sf Jul 10 #2

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm not mistaken... GiqueCee Jul 10 #55

It is not who they side with, it is following the law. Bev54 Jul 10 #86

and Sotomayor andJackson don't... GiqueCee Jul 10 #89

Of course they do but they are not all monolithic thinkers. Bev54 Jul 10 #90

I am in total agreement... GiqueCee Jul 10 #98

You can't change the Chief Justice, that's fantasy Polybius Jul 10 #4

But he can be impeached. kentuck Jul 10 #7

He won't be for that Polybius Jul 10 #10

Yeah, the Citizens United was a real winner, also. kentuck Jul 10 #13

By "slippery slope" I just meant if impeach a Justice for a ruling we don't agree with it would be unprecedented Polybius Jul 10 #24

I believe we had 60-vote majority when Joe Lieberman was a Senator? kentuck Jul 10 #33

Impeachment of justices is a fantasy that needs to be abandon. Calista241 Jul 10 #16

Impeachment and conviction are two different stories. kentuck Jul 10 #21

But you can change the rules on his authority Fiendish Thingy Jul 10 #34

Actually, you could Mountainguy Jul 10 #37

Isn't that what happened when Roberts was named Chief Justice? kentuck Jul 10 #39

The "Chief Justice" is not simply a member of the Court... appmanga Jul 10 #81

Which, again Mountainguy Jul 10 #97

Congress can actually do considerably more to rein in the Supreme Court unblock Jul 10 #5

You forgot the caveat Polybius Jul 10 #11

Congress can vote to change the law, right? kentuck Jul 10 #15

Sure Polybius Jul 10 #25

Nope Fiendish Thingy Jul 10 #30

See my last reply Polybius Jul 10 #59

Only if we elect a congress committed to doing so Fiendish Thingy Jul 10 #64

If not, we may have no other choice but to just wait, since Roberts, Alito, and especially Thomas are old Polybius Jul 10 #65

The first post on this particular sidebar ITAL Jul 10 #67

AFAIK the constitution is mute on the role of the chief Justice. Fiendish Thingy Jul 10 #69

Which would seemingly to lead us to Jackson's apocryphal challenge to Marshall. tritsofme Jul 10 #22

Well, if we're ignoring the constitution, all bets are off. unblock Jul 10 #26

The constitution can be interpreted Polybius Jul 10 #57

Congress can't make up powers for themselves, sure unblock Jul 10 #70

Nope Fiendish Thingy Jul 10 #29

We weren't talking about just expanding, I know that's fine Polybius Jul 10 #58

The powers the SCOTUS claims were only established via Marbury vs Madison Fiendish Thingy Jul 10 #63

Two questions that should be a litmus test for any Dem senate candidate: Fiendish Thingy Jul 10 #28

I agree that expanding the Court is the only way to undo the damage by Trump and Robert's Court. kentuck Jul 10 #35

Well, there are lots of other ideas Fiendish Thingy Jul 10 #45

Ketanji Brown Jackson for Chief!!!! elleng Jul 10 #36

Like their patron saint The Wizard Jul 10 #42

Republicans CAN NOT block a Democratic President from appointing a Supreme Court Justice as long as the Wiz Imp Jul 10 #54

13th Justice gfarber Jul 10 #43

Nice rhyme. kentuck Jul 10 #44

Best thing is to get rid of it Nasruddin Jul 10 #46

We need to get rid of the debt limit. markodochartaigh Jul 10 #47

Expand the court! We have to! LymphocyteLover Jul 10 #48

Perhaps it is unfortunate...? kentuck Jul 10 #53

I believe Chief Justice is an administrative role. LeftInTX Jul 10 #60

Now is not the time to be talking about expanding SCOTUS Shrek Jul 10 #68

Same thing for killing the filibuster FBaggins Jul 10 #71

It doesn't matter if they pass a new ruling by a 6-3 vote or a 9-3 vote. kentuck Jul 10 #77

Maybe not now Shrek Jul 10 #79

It seems like ForgedCrank Jul 10 #73

I think we've had time to "remember yesterday"... kentuck Jul 10 #78

If we change the rules to add SC justices, then nothing is stopping Republicans from doing the same. pcdb Jul 10 #92

what would the Repubs like to do that they haven't already done? kentuck Jul 10 #95

Suggest arrest of 6 of 9 Kid Berwyn Jul 10 #76

Arrest them for what? Shrek Jul 10 #80

Great! Maybe we can use our imagination? Kid Berwyn Jul 10 #84

Label them ForgedCrank Jul 10 #96

Trump is tossing citizens in prison without due process... Kid Berwyn Jul 11 #99

Those things ForgedCrank Sunday #115

OK, and then TnDem Jul 11 #100

I do not think that is a legitimate concern. kentuck Jul 11 #101

Yes it would TnDem Jul 11 #102

That would be true if there was no political price to pay. kentuck Jul 11 #103

Now on rocket fuel TnDem Jul 11 #105

We will have to disagree on this one. kentuck Jul 11 #107

History TnDem Jul 11 #108

We have that Court right now. kentuck Jul 11 #109

No we don't TnDem Jul 11 #110

No.It would not. kentuck Jul 11 #111

OK, what do the voters have to do with it TnDem Jul 11 #112

Unless the voters lose their right to vote... kentuck Jul 11 #113

Maybe so...but remember TnDem Jul 11 #114