3 ms·
Four. Whatever trump got plus one for Garland. Also make DC a state on day 1.
by ianai 6y ago
Four. Whatever trump got plus one for Garland. Also make DC a state on day 1.
- jessaustin 6y agoYou're really expecting a landslide, aren't you? Democrats are doing the exact same thing this time they did last time, and they're expecting the virus to save them. It might not happen...
- jcalvinowens 6y agoIt wouldn't take anything close to a landslide for the senate to flip. My point is: if the Democrats win the senate and the presidency, it doesn't really matter if Trump fills this vacancy. There is zero doubt they will stack the court when in power if he does.
- jessaustin 6y agoI hope you're right. Stacking the court with a certain sort of justice would convince a lot of people to give up on this polity. The sooner this threat to humanity can be broken up in smaller parts, the better.
- elihu 6y agoThere is plenty of doubt about whether a Democratic majority in the Senate would add seats to the Supreme Court. It would only take a couple of holdouts to stop any bill that does this, and a lot of Senators are really reluctant to do anything that might be construed as rocking the boat. I absolutely think that Democrats should expand the court, but (along with substantially reforming the filibuster) I don't have great confidence in Senate Democrats to actually do it if the opportunity presents itself.
- ianai 6y agoWrite your senators and do your civic duties!
- bargl 6y agoI for one, hope to all hell, this doesn't happen. It would make the supreme court just an extension of any party in power of presidency and senate. This is also, not to say I want freaking TRUMP to appoint the next justice. I just don't want to see it become a game of who's got the most votes. I was very opposed to Obama losing his appointment. I just don't want the precedent of 9 to change.
- jcalvinowens 6y ago> I for one, hope to all hell, this doesn't happen. It would make the supreme court just an extension of any party in power of presidency and senate. I completely agree, but at this point I think it's inevitable.
- tstrimple 6y agoI, for one, am tired of "precedent" being broken benefiting Republicans and Democrats continually being expected to "take the high road".
- ModernMech 6y agoThe precedent for 9 did change. Republicans changed it to 8 justices in 2016, and then back to 9 again in 2017 because it suited them politically. I don't see why Democrats should be shy about changing the number of justices this point.