3 ms·

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 p

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.
        ceejayoz 9mo ago
        The idea is to establish a "we can keep the everyone-loses war going, or we can fix it for both of us". It's hardly unprecedented; you're seeing it right now with the decision to reopen the government except DHS.
        AnthonyMouse 9mo ago
        The real way you do this is by thinking ahead for five minutes. We consistently have the problem that everybody realizes checks and balances are important when the other party is in power but that's when they don't have the ability to institute them, and then they forget all about it the next time they're in power. The easiest time to reduce executive power is when your party is in the executive branch to sign the bill.
        ceejayoz 9mo ago
        > The easiest time to reduce executive power is when your party is in the executive branch to sign the bill. This has the exact same problem you're complaining my proposal has; it can be undone, quite easily. Probably more easily.
- SauntSolaire 9mo ago
  And that's a good reason not to do a Holocaust of your own, seeing as you likely don't want to kick start a chain of Holocausts.
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.

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.
        ceejayoz 9mo ago
        The idea is to establish a "we can keep the everyone-loses war going, or we can fix it for both of us". It's hardly unprecedented; you're seeing it right now with the decision to reopen the government except DHS.
        AnthonyMouse 9mo ago
        The real way you do this is by thinking ahead for five minutes. We consistently have the problem that everybody realizes checks and balances are important when the other party is in power but that's when they don't have the ability to institute them, and then they forget all about it the next time they're in power. The easiest time to reduce executive power is when your party is in the executive branch to sign the bill.
        ceejayoz 9mo ago
        > The easiest time to reduce executive power is when your party is in the executive branch to sign the bill. This has the exact same problem you're complaining my proposal has; it can be undone, quite easily. Probably more easily.
SauntSolaire 9mo ago
And that's a good reason not to do a Holocaust of your own, seeing as you likely don't want to kick start a chain of Holocausts.

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.