3 ms·

Packing the court just means passing legislation. It isn't some criminal thing. The court is an expression of political power. Expressing political power throu

Packing the court just means passing legislation. It isn't some criminal thing. The court is an expression of political power. Expressing political power through it is not stupid.

AnthonyMouse 8mo ago
Packing the court is unprecedented, and as soon as anyone did it, they would both do it continuously. It would also outrage the other party and make the first to do it more likely to lose the next election. So you would get to pack the court for the rest of your current term before the other party gets back in and packs it the other way, and thereafter lose the courts as a check on the party in power forever because the first thing a party would do when they get into power is pack the courts. It's a monumentally stupid idea.
- ceejayoz 8mo ago
  As with partisan gerrymandering, packing the court cannot be the only step. It would need to come with a commitment to a package of difficult to undo (i.e. amendments) reforms. SCOTUS term limits, preventing the Senate from refusing to even consider nominees, bans on justices receiving gifts (https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-un...), revocation of Presidential immunity, etc. You pack the court with an explicit promise to largely return to the old status quo when it's fixed.
  - AnthonyMouse 8mo ago
    Do you really think that if you packed the court, there is anything you could do to prevent the other party from doing the same thing the next time they're in power? Your plan would have to be to prevent them from ever getting back into power, and that's a civil war. On top of that, Clarence Thomas is the oldest person on the court and Alito is only two years younger. By the end of the next Presidential term they'll both be in their 80s. You don't have to pack the court, you just have to be in office for the term or two after this one.
    - ceejayoz 8mo ago
      > Do you really think that if you packed the court, there is anything you could do to prevent the other party from doing the same thing the next time they're in power? I don't think it's 100% possible to stop a determined political movement in the US from doing A Holocaust, but I think it's worth at least trying to make it tough.
      - AnthonyMouse 8mo ago
        We can distinguish between packing the court in response to the other party doing it and doing A Holocaust, right?
        ceejayoz 8mo ago
        The point is your objection also applies to A Holocaust. We can't 100% prevent anything; the Constitution could get amended to permit mass summary executions, with enough votes and public support. That doesn't mean it's not worth trying to make that tougher to accomplish.
        AnthonyMouse 8mo ago
        The way you make that tougher to accomplish is by adding more checks and balances or repealing laws granting excessive authority to the executive. Packing the court would de facto remove an important one. The thing that would help that is a constitutional amendment prohibiting court packing.
        ceejayoz 8mo ago
        > But the way you make that tougher to accomplish is by adding more checks and balances or repealing laws granting excessive authority to the executive. That is what I describe as the "package" of reforms, yes. > The thing that would help that is a constitutional amendment prohibiting court packing. Good idea! Pack the court, and in that law, include a trigger provision that repeals it as soon as said amendment is passed. (This has similarly been proposed in gerrymandering.)
  - bubblewand 8mo ago
    The SC should be formed by lot from judges in the lower courts, every so often (every session might work OK). We form other courts by lot. Constitutionally, there just must be a Supreme Court. It doesn’t say how it should be composed. Packing is a band-aid, and likely to be unpopular. This is a fix with a less nakedly-partisan result, so should be easier to sell.
- UltraSane 8mo ago
  I see no reason we can't have hundreds of supreme court judges.

Packing the court just means passing legislation. It isn't some criminal thing. The court is an expression of political power. Expressing political power through it is not stupid.

AnthonyMouse 8mo ago

Packing the court is unprecedented, and as soon as anyone did it, they would both do it continuously. It would also outrage the other party and make the first to do it more likely to lose the next election. So you would get to pack the court for the rest of your current term before the other party gets back in and packs it the other way, and thereafter lose the courts as a check on the party in power forever because the first thing a party would do when they get into power is pack the courts. It's a monumentally stupid idea.

ceejayoz 8mo ago
As with partisan gerrymandering, packing the court cannot be the only step. It would need to come with a commitment to a package of difficult to undo (i.e. amendments) reforms. SCOTUS term limits, preventing the Senate from refusing to even consider nominees, bans on justices receiving gifts (https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-un...), revocation of Presidential immunity, etc. You pack the court with an explicit promise to largely return to the old status quo when it's fixed.
- AnthonyMouse 8mo ago
  Do you really think that if you packed the court, there is anything you could do to prevent the other party from doing the same thing the next time they're in power? Your plan would have to be to prevent them from ever getting back into power, and that's a civil war. On top of that, Clarence Thomas is the oldest person on the court and Alito is only two years younger. By the end of the next Presidential term they'll both be in their 80s. You don't have to pack the court, you just have to be in office for the term or two after this one.
  - ceejayoz 8mo ago
    > Do you really think that if you packed the court, there is anything you could do to prevent the other party from doing the same thing the next time they're in power? I don't think it's 100% possible to stop a determined political movement in the US from doing A Holocaust, but I think it's worth at least trying to make it tough.
    - AnthonyMouse 8mo ago
      We can distinguish between packing the court in response to the other party doing it and doing A Holocaust, right?
      - ceejayoz 8mo ago
        The point is your objection also applies to A Holocaust. We can't 100% prevent anything; the Constitution could get amended to permit mass summary executions, with enough votes and public support. That doesn't mean it's not worth trying to make that tougher to accomplish.
        AnthonyMouse 8mo ago
        The way you make that tougher to accomplish is by adding more checks and balances or repealing laws granting excessive authority to the executive. Packing the court would de facto remove an important one. The thing that would help that is a constitutional amendment prohibiting court packing.
        ceejayoz 8mo ago
        > But the way you make that tougher to accomplish is by adding more checks and balances or repealing laws granting excessive authority to the executive. That is what I describe as the "package" of reforms, yes. > The thing that would help that is a constitutional amendment prohibiting court packing. Good idea! Pack the court, and in that law, include a trigger provision that repeals it as soon as said amendment is passed. (This has similarly been proposed in gerrymandering.)
- bubblewand 8mo ago
  The SC should be formed by lot from judges in the lower courts, every so often (every session might work OK). We form other courts by lot. Constitutionally, there just must be a Supreme Court. It doesn’t say how it should be composed. Packing is a band-aid, and likely to be unpopular. This is a fix with a less nakedly-partisan result, so should be easier to sell.
UltraSane 8mo ago
I see no reason we can't have hundreds of supreme court judges.