10 ms·

This is terrifying in that it's not all that hard to imagine this happening at the federal level in coming years.

by socalnate1 8y ago

astrodust 8y ago
They're already half-way there.
- lamarpye 8y ago
  Sure. Halfway. The proof is so obvious, no need to mention it.
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
I don't see it. I could see the Democrats impeaching five Supreme Court justices, or the Republicans impeaching four. All nine being impeached? I really have a hard time seeing that happening. I guess it might happen if one party (let's just call them the Pinks) holds both houses of Congress. They would probably have to hold the Presidency, too. This party decides to run the country in total disregard to the other party, the established rules, and even the Constitution. Someone brings a lawsuit over something the Pinks have done. The Supreme Court hears it, and rules against the Pinks. Now, for this scenario to work, it would have to be a 9-0 ruling against the Pinks, even though some of the Supreme Court lean toward the other party (let's call them the Browns). Possible? Yes, I suppose. But personally, I find it quite hard to imagine.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- tzs 8y ago
  > I don't see it. I could see the Democrats impeaching five Supreme Court justices, or the Republicans impeaching four. All nine being impeached? I really have a hard time seeing that happening. More likely than impeachment would be expanding the court. The Constitution doesn't say anything about the size of the Court other than it must have a Chief Justice. The number of Justices is set by legislation. A very good case can be made for such an expansion to slow down the amount the Court can change in the short term. 9 worked fine when both parties had strong moderate factions, and so the Court would move a little more conservative under Republicans and a little more Liberal under Democrats. Now the moderate factions have diminished, especially among Republicans, and 9 doesn't provide enough hysteresis.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > A very good case can be made for such an expansion to slow down the amount the Court can change in the short term. No, it can't, at least in terms of a normal legislated expansion, because the immediate effect would be to vastly accelerate the change in the direction of the then-dominant party. Also, a larger court (even beyond the one-time transition) doesn't provide any more stability on average, though it does reduce the variability in the rate of change (doubling the size of the court doesn't change the percent of the court that changes, on average, each Presidential term. But it makes the standard deviation of that percentage less.)
    - tzs 8y ago
      I think reducing the variability does lead to more stability on average. It makes it more likely that a President and the next President appoint the same or nearly the same number of Justices, and so that when the Presidents are from different parties they counter each other. Also, I suspect that on a significantly larger court Justices would be more likely to retire younger, because they would know that their leaving is not going to cause major changes even if they leave during the term of a President they disagree with.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    First: If one side decides to expand the court, I'm pretty sure that "hysteresis" won't be the reason. "We want our side to have more influence" will be the (unstated) reason. Second, though, I'm not sure that you'd get more hysteresis. Let's say that, with a nine-member court, a two-term president is likely to get to appoint two or three justices. Now expand the court to fifteen members, as one side has suggested. Well, now a two-term president is likely to get to appoint four or five justices. I don't think that changes the hysteresis at all.
  - meepmorp 8y ago
    Expanding the SC would be a terrible idea. Apart from the nakedly partisan optics, it guarantees that the other party would just put more justices on the bench when they have a chance. In theory, maybe, it makes sense. Practically, it’s a bad idea.
- SpikeDad 8y ago
  Seems perfectly logical. Impeach everyone as cover to remove the Democratic majority in the court. The Republicans then get to replace all 9. You don't think the Republicans (oh sorry I mean pinks) aren't capable of such blatant political hackery?
- pdonis 8y ago
  > I could see the Democrats impeaching five Supreme Court justices, or the Republicans impeaching four. I don't think either party is going to have enough of a majority in the Senate (two thirds) to get a conviction on an impeachment any time soon.
- socalnate1 8y ago
  You are reading this too literally. It doesn't need to be all 9 justices impeached; the point is justices being impeached en masse for largely partisan reasons. That would/could destroy the courts legitimacy and undermine the rule of law.

This is terrifying in that it's not all that hard to imagine this happening at the federal level in coming years.

astrodust 8y ago

They're already half-way there.

lamarpye 8y ago
Sure. Halfway. The proof is so obvious, no need to mention it.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

I don't see it. I could see the Democrats impeaching five Supreme Court justices, or the Republicans impeaching four. All nine being impeached? I really have a hard time seeing that happening. I guess it might happen if one party (let's just call them the Pinks) holds both houses of Congress. They would probably have to hold the Presidency, too. This party decides to run the country in total disregard to the other party, the established rules, and even the Constitution. Someone brings a lawsuit over something the Pinks have done. The Supreme Court hears it, and rules against the Pinks. Now, for this scenario to work, it would have to be a 9-0 ruling against the Pinks, even though some of the Supreme Court lean toward the other party (let's call them the Browns). Possible? Yes, I suppose. But personally, I find it quite hard to imagine.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tzs 8y ago
> I don't see it. I could see the Democrats impeaching five Supreme Court justices, or the Republicans impeaching four. All nine being impeached? I really have a hard time seeing that happening. More likely than impeachment would be expanding the court. The Constitution doesn't say anything about the size of the Court other than it must have a Chief Justice. The number of Justices is set by legislation. A very good case can be made for such an expansion to slow down the amount the Court can change in the short term. 9 worked fine when both parties had strong moderate factions, and so the Court would move a little more conservative under Republicans and a little more Liberal under Democrats. Now the moderate factions have diminished, especially among Republicans, and 9 doesn't provide enough hysteresis.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > A very good case can be made for such an expansion to slow down the amount the Court can change in the short term. No, it can't, at least in terms of a normal legislated expansion, because the immediate effect would be to vastly accelerate the change in the direction of the then-dominant party. Also, a larger court (even beyond the one-time transition) doesn't provide any more stability on average, though it does reduce the variability in the rate of change (doubling the size of the court doesn't change the percent of the court that changes, on average, each Presidential term. But it makes the standard deviation of that percentage less.)
  - tzs 8y ago
    I think reducing the variability does lead to more stability on average. It makes it more likely that a President and the next President appoint the same or nearly the same number of Justices, and so that when the Presidents are from different parties they counter each other. Also, I suspect that on a significantly larger court Justices would be more likely to retire younger, because they would know that their leaving is not going to cause major changes even if they leave during the term of a President they disagree with.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  First: If one side decides to expand the court, I'm pretty sure that "hysteresis" won't be the reason. "We want our side to have more influence" will be the (unstated) reason. Second, though, I'm not sure that you'd get more hysteresis. Let's say that, with a nine-member court, a two-term president is likely to get to appoint two or three justices. Now expand the court to fifteen members, as one side has suggested. Well, now a two-term president is likely to get to appoint four or five justices. I don't think that changes the hysteresis at all.
- meepmorp 8y ago
  Expanding the SC would be a terrible idea. Apart from the nakedly partisan optics, it guarantees that the other party would just put more justices on the bench when they have a chance. In theory, maybe, it makes sense. Practically, it’s a bad idea.
SpikeDad 8y ago
Seems perfectly logical. Impeach everyone as cover to remove the Democratic majority in the court. The Republicans then get to replace all 9. You don't think the Republicans (oh sorry I mean pinks) aren't capable of such blatant political hackery?
pdonis 8y ago
> I could see the Democrats impeaching five Supreme Court justices, or the Republicans impeaching four. I don't think either party is going to have enough of a majority in the Senate (two thirds) to get a conviction on an impeachment any time soon.
socalnate1 8y ago
You are reading this too literally. It doesn't need to be all 9 justices impeached; the point is justices being impeached en masse for largely partisan reasons. That would/could destroy the courts legitimacy and undermine the rule of law.