Yes and you do realise that under a (correctly structured) popular vote system they would not be able to "decide the election" given the threshold would be 50%? Lol?
As opposed to the current system in which Republican votes in California get ignored and the election gets decided by less than a hundred thousand people across four entirely unrelated states. Lul.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
The Senate would need to flip substantially. He could legally do it, but you think Republicans will just go for straight out of the gate? Espcially if we're only looking at a narrow majority in the Senate? The Right (both office holder and countryman) would lose its mind, and Biden isn't the kind of guy who goes around making sweeping changes. Congress would also go bright red in 2022 with the narrative being "Biden has abused his power".
Packing the groups is a feel good short term fix. Without term limits and changes in the way judges are appointed (actual rules and not tradition) all you really do is weaken the seats and open the door for a President being allowed to choose sizable chunck of justices - as if a king was appointed vassals. Unless we the judges to self-regulate their terms in such a ways thats partisan...thats just gross and would degrade the merits of the courts and federal government as a whole.
Resident Cosplay Progressive
(regardless of Schumer personally, it is a great quote all around - we can nail it to the top of the bill that expands SCOTUS)
I agree - she needs to take the helm. AND chair the Truth and Reconciliation Committee. The Biden Administration can give her a $1B to fund that endeavor.
(/knockswood)
I think you are underestimating how pissed off this country is at the GOP. Biden hasn't been that guy, but he could be.
Not packing - expanding. Expanding the courts is actually a very good and reasonable long term fix. It dilutes each and every SCOTUS vacancy and makes a judicial appointment a minor event instead of polarizing the nation.
If Expansion of the Courts is "marketed" right, it would be the start of sweeping change - changes you personally want.
Expanding, packing, whatever the term may be is side stepping the problem.
The problem is how the senate functions. Addressing that with rules changes that require a 3/4 majority would actually be a wiser long game to play here, but I’m betting they go short term power crazy and end up making a bigger mess in 2022.
I think some of that anger is masked by the GOP gladly getting rid of Trump after he has given...quite a bit. They can afford to cede 4 years of the WH to a centrist who is likely to only be a 1 term president. Better than keeping Trump around to screw them down the ballot, a gift Trump hasn't been able to deliver.
Packing and expanding are synonymous in various discussion groups due to people being lazy, discussions being derailed due to semantics. We both agree that it weakens seats. Is the act of diluting the seats in the highest court a good or a bad thing?
Something I forgot to say, the court hasn't changed in over 100 years. The lower courts only expanded, with some consequence but not a whole lot, because the country got bigger. Even then SCOTUS remained the same (partly because SCOTUS is more autonomous and tell people to fuck off). Expansion isn't going to be a strong favorable approach unless the Trump judges just start nuking legislation left and right - in which you definitely have a strong argument for weakening the seats.
- - - Updated - - -
Uh, California actually has a metric ton of conservatives. California also has Los Angeles and the Bay Area to offset the conservatives.
Resident Cosplay Progressive
I agree that how the Senate functions is problematic; although I disagree that the term is irrelevant. Packaging legislation is almost important as what the legislation actually does.
I'm trying to remember if there is some rule against passing a law that requires a certain number of votes with less votes...if that makes sense. I'm other words, you can't pass a law with a majority that requires a super majority to reverse.
Does that ring a bell to anyone?
De-escalation is only valid if both sides can reach an agreement. The Republicans have demonstrated that they're completely unwilling to accept anything but complete victory for themselves. Merrick Garland was offered as a de-escalation attempt; he was a centrist who should have been acceptable to both parties, since he aligned with neither and could not be construed as having a partisan lean in either direction. That attempt was tossed back in Democrats' face, until the Republicans had the power to put in two far-right justices instead.
So it's not "both sides", here. One side needs to change. And until they're willing to come to the table and compromise, the only alternative is to play the same terrible game they're choosing to play.
The same way that, when a hostage-taker has a dozen hostages and is threatening to kill them, police might try and negotiate their release, but they are not gonna offer the hostage-taker a pardon or to let them get away. What the hostage-taker wants is already off the table, at the very beginning, and will not be offered. He's gonna have to figure out how little he can get, because by the time it got to de-escalation, he'd already lost the chance to get what he really wanted.
What you can do is expand the courts, set sensible non-partisan guidelines for justice selection, establish a guidance principle that the courts should never be more than 50%+1 in favor of either political branch of the USA, and so forth. A middle-road system, enshrined in law, which is not just tacitly but explicitly fair to all sides, thus that any attempt to overturn those rules is so nakedly partisan dickery that it won't be defensible on any supposed merit other than abuse of power. They'll still be able to, but it will make their venal motives apparent and obvious. Which may end up, in the end, more important to history writers than anything else.
Really, the problem is the American electorate. They're the ones who're okay with this kind of venal partisan chicanery. Not just okay with it, they want it. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Sometimes, all you can do is show them the consequences of what they want, when the shoe's on the other foot. Rub their nose in it and hope they start to realize it's a dick move.