4 ms·

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 t

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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo ago
      We can distinguish between packing the court in response to the other party doing it and doing A Holocaust, right?
      - ceejayoz 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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.)
        AnthonyMouse 9mo ago
        > Good idea! Pack the court, and in that law, include a trigger provision that repeals it as soon as said amendment is passed. Except then the other party just packs the court again instead of passing the amendment, whereas if you already have the votes to pass the amendment then you would just do that without packing the court.
  - c22 9mo ago
    You also need to control congress or they'll just block you till they get their guy in.
    - AnthonyMouse 9mo ago
      That's when you give them a moderate because you'd both rather that than flip a coin for who gets control of both branches at once first.
      - Sabinus 9mo ago
        Nope, Obama tried that and McConnell still refused.
        AnthonyMouse 9mo ago
        That was in a Presidential election year after Obama had already appointed two other Justices and the vacancy was the deciding vote, and Garland was more of a centrist than the previous nominees but was still left-leaning and would have flipped the court. Then they definitely lose if they confirm him but maybe win if there is a President from the other party the next year, and on top of that as long as they held the Senate even if they didn't retake the Presidency they could just confirm Garland in the fall instead of the summer. That's not what it looks like in most cases. In the first half of any term the next election can't gain you the Presidency but it could lose you the Senate. On top of that, when it isn't the deciding vote, e.g. the first of either Alito or Thomas to be replaced, a moderate is a much better hedge than the coin flip even in the second half of a term, because if you take the moderate and then lose the next election at least you have the moderate in the other party's majority, meanwhile if you win the next election then you keep the majority regardless. Which is to say, that's only likely to happen in the next few years if it happens for the second of the two Justices in the second half of a Presidential term and the Democrats lose the subsequent Presidential election.
- bubblewand 9mo 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 9mo ago
I see no reason we can't have hundreds of supreme court judges.

ceejayoz 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo ago
    We can distinguish between packing the court in response to the other party doing it and doing A Holocaust, right?
    - ceejayoz 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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.)
        AnthonyMouse 9mo ago
        > Good idea! Pack the court, and in that law, include a trigger provision that repeals it as soon as said amendment is passed. Except then the other party just packs the court again instead of passing the amendment, whereas if you already have the votes to pass the amendment then you would just do that without packing the court.
- c22 9mo ago
  You also need to control congress or they'll just block you till they get their guy in.
  - AnthonyMouse 9mo ago
    That's when you give them a moderate because you'd both rather that than flip a coin for who gets control of both branches at once first.
    - Sabinus 9mo ago
      Nope, Obama tried that and McConnell still refused.
      - AnthonyMouse 9mo ago
        That was in a Presidential election year after Obama had already appointed two other Justices and the vacancy was the deciding vote, and Garland was more of a centrist than the previous nominees but was still left-leaning and would have flipped the court. Then they definitely lose if they confirm him but maybe win if there is a President from the other party the next year, and on top of that as long as they held the Senate even if they didn't retake the Presidency they could just confirm Garland in the fall instead of the summer. That's not what it looks like in most cases. In the first half of any term the next election can't gain you the Presidency but it could lose you the Senate. On top of that, when it isn't the deciding vote, e.g. the first of either Alito or Thomas to be replaced, a moderate is a much better hedge than the coin flip even in the second half of a term, because if you take the moderate and then lose the next election at least you have the moderate in the other party's majority, meanwhile if you win the next election then you keep the majority regardless. Which is to say, that's only likely to happen in the next few years if it happens for the second of the two Justices in the second half of a Presidential term and the Democrats lose the subsequent Presidential election.
bubblewand 9mo 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 9mo ago

I see no reason we can't have hundreds of supreme court judges.