darthtagnan
DarthTagnan
darthtagnan
Oct 27
1

My point still stands. Elections have consequences. If you are concerned that the Supreme Court could get too big (and I don’t think it will get anywhere to the point of having more than 400 justices in my lifetime, for a variety of reasons, but on the other hand I don’t really care if it does), pass a constitutional Read more

Oct 27
2

I mean, no one on earth was surprised that, once the filibuster was ended for judicial nominations, that it wouldn’t also be used by Republicans when they got power. That is why it was done only after Republicans refused to consider Obama’s judicial appointees. Read more

Oct 27
1

Politics has gotten more progressive (although your definition of “progressive” is dogshit). The Court has not been progressive since Earl Warren.

Oct 27
1

Have you noticed the 5-4 decisions in favor of more progressive positions for SEVERAL generations? Have you considered the moderating force might not be in a direction you desire politically? Read more

Oct 27
3

Agreed. This is unabashed pure power politics at this point, and Democrats are way behind. People who are worried about ‘letting the genie out of the bottle’, need to realize that the worst Republicans could do later is to recreate proportional majority that already actually exists in the High Court right now. In Read more

Oct 27
2

I mean if this is your attitude you should just skip the court packing and start shooting, if you think american conservatives are that much of a threat. Read more

Oct 27
1

Yeah, but Roberts was the swing vote. He’s not a swing vote anymore. There isn’t a swing vote anymore. Even if Roberts votes with the liberals, there’s still a 5-4 conservative majority. Judging from how the right behaves these days, I’m guessing that every little last thing the Democrats try to do is going to be Read more

Oct 27
3

So, I’m not sure why I should care what the court was “supposed to be.” Let’s check back in after two years and see what a “moderating force, slow to change” the court is when they overturn Roe, overturn Obergerfell, overturn Chevron, allow Republicans to make voting even more difficult, etc. Read more

Oct 27
2

Democrats’ base would also love court expansion, and no justice has ever been confirmed this close to an election, so I’m not sure I agree that “no one passes up that kind of opportunity,” and I’m not sure why Democrats should be eager to pass up this opportunity to counteract a 6-3 conservative supermajority.  Read more

Oct 27
2

Interesting argument being made. I’d need to read a better accounting of this, but suffice it to say I’m skeptical that a judge who has been term limited out of office is not being removed from office for a reason other than lack of good behavior, which is why for 100% of the history of this country pretty much Read more

Oct 27
2

He will be less against it if/when he and his party win the WH and both houses of congress and everything they try to do gets shut down by the Supreme Court. 

Oct 26
2

I mean, not showing up would have done nothing.  Term limits would require a constitutional amendment.  Expanding the court would not.

Oct 26
7

Politically viable meaning what? If Democrats win the presidency, and the Senate, they will have the ability to pack the court. What else matters? Read more

Oct 26
7

Who fucking cares? Who cares about heading off (purely hypothetical and speculative) electoral disaster when a 6-3 court can, and will, undo every single thing that a Democratic Congress can pass and a Democratic president can sign?  If the court stays 6-3, Republicans don’t need to win another fucking election for a Read more