3 ms·

They can do it. But the very same Senate Majority leader set the precedent to not confirm appointments in an election year. If McConnell violates this preceden

They can do it. But the very same Senate Majority leader set the precedent to not confirm appointments in an election year. If McConnell violates this precedent that he set, I would strongly advocate for Democrats (whenever they have the Senate) to remove the legislative filibuster and increase the size of the SCOTUS to 17.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rootusrootus 6y ago
I would not be entirely surprised. There was a time when Democrats seemed to be intimidated by threats over nuclear options and such. Now that they know the truth, maybe they won't heed such warnings and decide that they need to win at any cost, just like their opposition.
- tines 6y ago
  > maybe they won't heed such warnings and decide that they need to win at any cost Well, this is how you become what you're fighting against.
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    Or how we get a long overdue new constitution.
ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
That's really just the "end of the Supreme Court" argument. If you pack the Supreme Court once, it'll happen every time a new party has the senate and the white house. Especially since you yourself suggest packing it to give an immediate "Democrat" majority, when it's incredibly likely, even without a new nomination, the Supreme Court remains republican for at least 8 years. Personally I think this is what democrats (and people like you) are hoping for. It'd give an excuse to pack the court day one and maybe not immediately lose all public support.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  I look forward to the day when SCOTUS has hundreds of justices...
- omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
  That depends on how the court is packed, and how it functions after. It's possible that court packing could be seen as a success, even if each side alternates at packing, just because having many justices can minimize some of the court's current limitations. https://time.com/5338689/supreme-court-packing/ https://time.com/5338689/supreme-court-packing/ To put it another way, the size of the House, Senate, and Presidency are determined by the constitution. The Judiciary is the only branch where it's size can be increased without a constitutional amendment, which could favor populism, regardless of who is in power, if it's expanded significantly. Being as small as it is could speak to how the government has a tendency to concentrate/centralize power, even if it's relatively easy to spread that power out.
  - vlovich123 6y ago
    You are incorrect on one thing. The size of the House is not determined by constitution. The only things it guarantees are that there’s a census and that each state gets at least one.
    - ncallaway 6y ago
      It also demands that apportionment of representatives be according to the population of the states. So, yes, the total number isn't fixed but the apportionment is.
      - vlovich123 6y ago
        if I recall correctly the specific rules for apportionment aren’t part of the constitution either are they?
    - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
      Thank you for the correction.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

rootusrootus 6y ago

I would not be entirely surprised. There was a time when Democrats seemed to be intimidated by threats over nuclear options and such. Now that they know the truth, maybe they won't heed such warnings and decide that they need to win at any cost, just like their opposition.

tines 6y ago
> maybe they won't heed such warnings and decide that they need to win at any cost Well, this is how you become what you're fighting against.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Or how we get a long overdue new constitution.

ApolloFortyNine 6y ago

That's really just the "end of the Supreme Court" argument. If you pack the Supreme Court once, it'll happen every time a new party has the senate and the white house. Especially since you yourself suggest packing it to give an immediate "Democrat" majority, when it's incredibly likely, even without a new nomination, the Supreme Court remains republican for at least 8 years. Personally I think this is what democrats (and people like you) are hoping for. It'd give an excuse to pack the court day one and maybe not immediately lose all public support.

gamblor956 6y ago
I look forward to the day when SCOTUS has hundreds of justices...
omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
That depends on how the court is packed, and how it functions after. It's possible that court packing could be seen as a success, even if each side alternates at packing, just because having many justices can minimize some of the court's current limitations. https://time.com/5338689/supreme-court-packing/ https://time.com/5338689/supreme-court-packing/ To put it another way, the size of the House, Senate, and Presidency are determined by the constitution. The Judiciary is the only branch where it's size can be increased without a constitutional amendment, which could favor populism, regardless of who is in power, if it's expanded significantly. Being as small as it is could speak to how the government has a tendency to concentrate/centralize power, even if it's relatively easy to spread that power out.
- vlovich123 6y ago
  You are incorrect on one thing. The size of the House is not determined by constitution. The only things it guarantees are that there’s a census and that each state gets at least one.
  - ncallaway 6y ago
    It also demands that apportionment of representatives be according to the population of the states. So, yes, the total number isn't fixed but the apportionment is.
    - vlovich123 6y ago
      if I recall correctly the specific rules for apportionment aren’t part of the constitution either are they?
  - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
    Thank you for the correction.