BREAKING: Biden Looking into Expanding the Supreme Court

Damn right!

America wants this! It's needed.

This is why people voted for him. DO IT!

Manchin forced him to do this. If Manchin isn't going to allow Democrats to pass voting rights legislation, then Biden has no choice but to expand the SC so they can do something about it.

Biden needs to do something monumental to avoid America from devouring itself. The American ppl are with him.

This tells me he isn’t serious about doing it, he just needs to show the base that he looked into it. Wise move.

I looked into fucking pussy at some point or another.

Doesn't mean I ever really planned on fucking pussy, however.

Kiss 2024 goodbye.

I don't know... I like having a bit of balance between the branches. Plus, I'd like to see affirmative action in education overturned.

This was Pete's idea.

If he were serious about doing it, he’d call for congress to do it now.

“Government Commission” = Long report released on a Friday at 4:59 PM in 6-8 months, never mentioned again.

Which is fine. This is the smart thing for him to do. Independent voters are not in favor of this.

This will be another win.

Good! There is NO playing nice with Republicans. Load up the court.

Where would it end though? Doesn’t this open the door for Republicans to do it too?

^^^ yes, the Republicans will just counter this move next time they're in office

R14 that's what I wonder as well, even if it'd be nice to get them back for stealing a nominee. That should've never been allowed.

Doubt Manchin will go along with this.

Radical left are hijacking our government! Don’t ya see it? 🤡

The SC is nothing but a political tool these days. The whole system is already broken.

This is how you put the fear of God into those rightwing stooges.

[quote]yes, the Republicans will just counter this move next time they're in office.

Please. They'll probably do it anyway - even if Democrats don't. If it's one thing I've learned over the past four years, is that Republicans will never cease to show what absolute stop-at-nothing shameless scumbags they are. They can no longer be shamed. They actually double down on how vile they can be. They wear evil as if it were some kind of badge of honor.

This is great news. If he pulls this off we can overturn Citizen's United which will go a long way to fixing the shit show all that dirty corporate money has turned this country into since 2010. I frankly didn't think he had it in him but between this and the possible gun control executive orders, he has demonstrated he has some brass balls and I'm thrilled.

[quote]I don't know... I like having a bit of balance between the branches. Plus, I'd like to see affirmative action in education overturned.

As opposed to the countless wealthy, stupid, white kids diluting the Ivy League with their presence based solely on "legacy" or a check made out to the school.

And this is for any idiot who thinks there is "balance":

"5 of 6 conservative Supreme Court justices were appointed by GOP presidents who initially lost popular vote & confirmed by senators representing minority of Americans"

The SC doesn't represent balance if you actually believe in reality. How dumb must you be to think that they do?

Correct r19

I hate, hate, hate the current makeup of SCOTUS. But doing this is so shortsighted. What happens when the situation is reversed?

I'd much rather find a way to push Clarence, Alito, and the new bitch down the back steps.

Maybe Elena can buy Brett a 12 pack, get him riled up somehow, sic him on the conservative idiots and see where things go...

Doesn’t this open the door for Republicans to do it too?

Let them. So what. Cross that bridge later. Do not live on your knees. Oh what. This is DL. Never mind.

Not going to happen in a million years. Prime Minister Manchin would never get on board with this

Bad idea. It's been fixed at 9 for a very long time and should remain so.

FDR tried it in 1937.

The SC should not be expanded for political ends.

Mitch McConnell held a seat open for an entire year. He jammed thru a nominee 2 weeks before an election. SCOTUS manipulation is fair game.

The maximum on the Supreme Court is 15. Biden has more balls than Obama. Biden is using the power of the presidency to its full capacity.

Then the other alternative to an increase is for Alito, Thomas, and (pick your own 3rd conservative), to croak. Fuck that. I’m not waiting. Go Joe, Joe!

TL;DR but I’m posting this Reddit comment chain anyway:

I.

[quote]There were more seats on the supreme court (10 in 1863).

[quote]They reduced the seats (down to 7) to prevent Andrew Johnson from being able to pick any judges.

[quote]Increasing the judges is really a non-starter- it is too partisan to happen (unlike in West Wing, Republicans would make it impossible). An easier solution would be to limit the years of service (so each president is always picking 1 new judges no matter what every 4 years) and put in a mandatory retirement age (or elevation to senior status).

II.

[quote]That’s not easier. They service lifetime appointments through the constitution. It would require an amendment. And getting enough of the legislative branch, let alone 75% of the states, to agree to a new amendment is more difficult than just bypassing the filibuster.

III.

[quote]The idea is that individuals would receive a lifetime appointment to the federal bench and then be assigned to the Supreme Court for a number of years before rotating back to their permanent seat on the lower court. So no constitutional amendment would be necessary.

IV.

[quote]No way the Supreme Court finds this constitutional, and they would be the ones to rule on its constitutionality.

[quote]Also, Article III is clear that the '"Supreme Court" is not the same as "inferior courts," nor are the "judges" of those courts:

[quote][italic]The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.[/italic]

[quote]Thus, there is no way the Supreme Court finds that Article III doesn't guarantee a "Supreme Court" justice the right to hold "their office" for life.

V

[quote]So, I've already laid out this argument, but I'm less certain that it's CLEARLY unconstitutional.

[quote]The best argument that "office" is being a judge, but not necessarily a judge on a specific court, is the historical practice of "circuit riding." It used to be that individual SC Justices would hear cases as part of lower courts as well. Yes, they maintained their spot on the SC, but it shows that the idea of "office" has more flexibility historically than it does today.

VI.

[quote]If that were so, the Senate could vote on approval for a judge of an “inferior court,” then that person could in theory somehow get moved up to the “Supreme Court” without a vote. No way that jives with our historical precedent of having Senate votes specifically for Supreme Court justices even when the nominee is already an Article III judge on an “inferior court.”

[quote]For a recent example, Judge Kavanaugh was already an appellate judge on the D.C. Circuit when he was nominated to SCOTUS. Yet we still went through a full Senate confirmation that was hotly contested. Why, if they are the same position?

Biden is seeking sweet revenge on the Republicans for how they treated the Obama administration. Especially from McConnell.

YES! YES! YES!

Do you see how the Supremes side lined themselves now? They were at Dump's beck and call every single time the Repubs wanted something unconstitutional done. Fucking Roberts would take up the case, even from the lower courts, and ram it through. It felt like every single month we were handed down some perverse decision. And i couldn't stand Roberts stupid silly grin as he allowed the Senate to not take up any impeachment hearings. If im not mistaken he implied that gerrymandering was a state's rights issue. What a asshat!

Also, we need to act now! The Pigs pulled off their shenanigans at warp speed. Next, we need to grant statehood to D.C, Puerto Rico and Guam. Maybe Samoa even. Do this and those Pigs would have decades of work cheating to undo. DO IT!

Biden needs to keep pushing the DC Statehood....We Dems need every edge we can get...The GOP has literally stolen SCOTUS seats, in broad daylight, without an ounce of shame.

Biden’s only option may be to expand the court to stop Republican Jim Crow voter suppression.

Very true R21.

They are on a full on power grab and they will stop at nothing to get there. They know they can't win elections anymore without massively preventing democrats from voting. One can only hope the three arms of government move and stay in the hands of democrats for the next decades.

[quote] Mitch McConnell held a seat open for an entire year.

The congress does not have to do what the President wants. The President is not a king. President Obama’s nominee wasn’t acceptable to the Senate so the Senate did not confirm him.

Christ, STFU, R39. Merrick Garland could not have been more qualified and everyone knows it. Are you the same asshole trying to also rationalize the Klan voter laws in the GA thread? You sound like that fool.

"Wasn't acceptable" FUCK. YOU. I can't believe we have a psycho trying to pretend McConnell isn't partisan, power-hungry scum of the earth.

R39, I guess after five minutes, Amy was "qualified." Right? It was OK that McConnell rushed her through because she was obviously far more qualified than Garland.

Low life.

[quote] Let them. So what. Cross that bridge later.

People like you should have been aborted.

Can this be a play by Biden on Manchin? Vote to end the filibuster or I move to expand the SC?

Where did I say Amy was more qualified than Merrick? He wasn’t acceptable to the Republicans for partisan reasons. That’s a perfectly fine reason to deny a nominee. The Dems did it with Bork. Are we pretending partisanship doesn’t figure into SCOTUS nominations?

You want one set of rules for the side you support and another set of rules for the side you oppose.

Biden is responsible for Thomas being on the bench and he killed the filibuster. The problems we have in Washington are thanks to his stupidity 30 years ago.

Clarence Thomas should resign as a courtesy to Biden since it was Biden who got him onto the Supreme Court in the first place.

R28, limiting the work of SCOTUS to 9 people in a nation of 332 million people is beyond absurd. The court needs to be increased to 13 people at least. Christ.

And, yes, both DC and Puerto Rico need to be granted statehood, the latter if the population wants it. Killing equal rights to DC while maintaining a colonial territory next door is disgusting.

Or do you have your heart set on 50 states because you think the flat is purty, R28?

The trouble is when one (or more) of these octogenarians croaks and you end-up with 6 people deciding things for the entire country.

Some of you archaic gays need to explain why it is you grasp onto the forefathers or some archaic notion of the SC when it suits your bullshit, yet if someone said the forefathers never mentioned "gay marriage," you'd suddenly realize the forefathers existed over 200 years ago?

It is 2021, the country has gotten larger and we need to stop allowing a system where a minority of the country gets to continuously dictate the direction of the entire nation when they do not represent anywhere near the majority nor frankly, do many of these states even pay a fucking thing. They literally only take money and yet they get to dictate the purse strings and poison the entire country with their troglodyte beliefs.

The Dakota’s should be one state.

And have zero apostrophes.

R49 doesn’t understand the point of the Supreme Court.

Cue repig heads exploding on Facbook in 3, 2, 1....

As noted upthread, I think more people support the idea of ending lifetime appointments to SC rather than expanding the court. Alito & Thomas make no effort to pretend they are anything other than partisan hacks & it is past time for them to go.

R52, I perfectly understand how the SC works. You don't seem to understand that the GOP prefers justices who have wives who literally help fund/organize an insurrection. Had it been a Dem-nominated justice, they would already be gone.

I understand that the mentalities of the majority of the sitting justices do not reflect those of the majority of the country.

I understand that the constitution is a living, breathing thing and that the GOP wants to suffocate it via their minority rule justices.

I don't think Manchin would vote for SC expansion. So unless the Dems win some Senate seats in 2022, this isn't happening.

The SCOTUS needs an overhaul, as does the role of the Senate Majority Leader. They have too much power as it is; in fact, the Senate as a whole has slowly, over the decades, increased its power and unbalanced the three branches of government.

Do those two things plus expand voting rights and our system will be vastly improved.

Manchin's wife just got a prime job in the Biden cabinet. Manchin is going to have to return the favor, and soon.

What job?

She was nominated, sorry, doesn't have the job yet.

[quote]President Biden is nominating Gayle Manchin, Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-W.Va.) wife, to be co-chair of a federal commission that works with states to strengthen the economy in the Appalachian region, the White House announced Friday.

[quote]If confirmed by the Senate, Gayle Manchin will co-chair the Appalachian Regional Commission, an economic development partnership agency established in 1965 through which the federal government works with 13 states and 420 counties across the Appalachian region to help invest in communities and spur job creation.

Wow, they look alike...^

R59, I hate Manchin, but you can't exactly get someone from Brooklyn to do that job. I don't think anyone is really clamoring for that job.

It's an important post, though, a sentimental fave of the Dems (proposed by JFK and signed into law by LBJ after the assassination) and today the Commission has bipartisan support. Obama expanded the Appalachian Regional Commission in scope and funding, and of course Trump tried to dismantle it completely, but even his enabler McConnell told him no: "We are not going to allow any cuts to the Appalachian Regional Commission."

R56 the Executive is by far the most overpowered branch, and it isn’t close. Each successive president since Wilson has increased its power, and it’s gotten more and more ridiculous especially since Bush43.

Congress is the weakest branch IMO. It doesn’t even write its own laws anymore, nor does it want to.

[quote]and of course Trump tried to dismantle it completely, but even his enabler McConnell told him no: "We are not going to allow any cuts to the Appalachian Regional Commission."

This is why a lot of low income white people need to wake the fuck and realize that having the same skin color as Trump (underneath his orange candy coating), does not mean he could ever relate to you. He can't and he couldn't care less about you beyond your vote or idol worship.

R60. "My wife/sister does look a little like me." - J.M.

Ooh

Did the two Joes have a private meeting? Manchin wanted something for killing the filibuster, I guess.

1 gay, 1 straightish, 1 man, 1 woman, 1 muslim, 1 christian, 1 jewish, 1 transman, 1 transwoman, 1 black, 1 red, 1 white, 1 brown, 1 yellow, 1 albino, 1 illegal, 1 legal, 1 lawyer, 1 non-lawyer, 1 aborted, 1 accident, 1 pedofile , 1 gramophile, and finally one who is a cat.

[quote]This tells me he isn’t serious about doing it, he just needs to show the base that he looked into it.

I think this is exactly what he promised to do during the election campaign.

I hate Manichins Republican ass.

Is it true that the limit is 15 justices? If so, he should expand it to 15. I didn't think there was a limit, though.

There is no limit, R71. The constitution requires the court. The number of justices has always been dictated by a statute that can be changed through the usual legislative process.

What about Clarence Thomas's whore wife organizing the repug terrorists to come to DC the day of the insurrection?

Is the bitch going to suffer?

And more to the point, why has he not resigned?

[quote]And more to the point, why has he not resigned?

You don't know the answer to that? Is the man's character not abundantly clear?

R56 is right and there does need to be reform of SCOTUS. We are the only Western nation in the world with such a small high court. Ideally, the choice of a SCOTUS justice would be bipartisan, but Republicans make that an impossible task. The outright stole two nominees and changed the number of votes required to get them. They'll do anything and are shameless.

It's guaranteed that if we pack the court, though, the Republicans will do the same if they get back in power. I'd probably wait until after the 2022 mid-terms to see what those results are. If Dems remain in power, then pack the court. Something certainly needs to be done. Roberts has shown he will side with the liberal wing, so if Thomas dies or retires, it might be a more even court. It would certainly be ideal if we could get rid of a couple conservative justices without having to pack the court.

Overall, we need to reform so many aspects of US government. It has devolved into a corrupt mess.

[quote]The SCOTUS needs an overhaul, as does the role of the Senate Majority Leader. They have too much power as it is; in fact, the Senate as a whole has slowly, over the decades, increased its power and unbalanced the three branches of government.

It is absolutely insane that these small, predominantly red states that would shrivel up and die without funding from blue states, have so much power to the point of controlling the purse strings of the purse from which they gorge.

Millions more people vote for Dems than Reps for the Senate and the imbalance of power is sickening. Someone representing a state with a pop. smaller than one, blue city having an exorbitant amount of power, needs to end. What a ridiculous system it is, particularly when that power goes to a senator who is just plain evil.

The problem we have is that the founding fathers created a national government that gave great power to the states, but very little to the people.

R39 McConnell blocked Garland for a variety of reasons, one of them being he didn't want to go on record as voting NO on Garland's confirmation (he and his GOP minions alike). So he gambled and kept the seat opened, and it ended with it paying off big time. A friend of mine told me that had Clinton won, she would have been able to fill the seat. I have my doubts and believe Moscow Mitch would have kept it open for as long as possible.