What is the proper role of government, and why? What is the role of SCOTUS and the Constitution more broadly in maintaining such a government?
These are the questions that need to be answered before we make changes to institutions that have functioned for centuries. I would argue that if our mainstream political commentators actually knew the correct answers to these questions, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in today, and structural changes wouldn't even be necessary.
This tells us the problem isn't with the Supreme Court itself.
I'll use one of the article's own examples to illustrate. Let's say the Supreme Court *did* rule tomorrow that Catholicism is the established religion of the United States. And? What would be the mainstream, politically literate argument against it?
Since everyone in the mainstream, including those who call themselves "liberals," wants the government involved in every single aspect of our lives, there is no longer any principled opposition to be made against a ruling like that.
The emergency is indeed real, but it has nothing to do with the Court. It has everything to do with the rotten ideas being advocated by our mainstream political commentariat.
"Suppose the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that Catholicism is the established religion of the United States—a decree lawless on its face. The prescribed remedy, impeachment, requires 67 senators. Thirty-four senators of the justices’ party refuse to convict. Is the answer that the country must simply submit?"
Do you understand how the court works? They rule on the Constitutionality of laws, Congress would have to pass a law making Catholocism the established religion for the court to be hearing the case and ruling on anything about it, if anything Congress would be impeaching the justices for overturning the law they passed, not for upholding it - was this just a terrible hypothetical or do you fundamentally not get how that works?
You're being overly hysterical. The current court is not as bad as you're portraying it. They overturn Trump's tariffs and they have also blocked some of his more extreme immigration actions, such as halting deportation flights to CECOT and upholding rulings that forced them to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia. They also are very unlikely to uphold his EO on birthright citizenship. I feel confident they aren't going to support a slide in authoritarianism or an attempt to overturn an election.
The correct path is, as always, elect a different president so that that President can appoint new justices when the current ones retire.
Oh yes, all you commentors (save a couple), looking for a structural fix to the fact that you're losing the popular argument (which, apparently, you cannot conceive, so arrogant and presumptive are you). "Oh, this will fix it". "We'll just tinker with this over here, and nobody will notice that we had the monkey with the process because our arguments aren't resonating". It's all such a bunch of bullshit. If the shoe were on the other foot, you'd be screaming bloody murder. But you have such a high opinion of yourselves that it doesn't occur to you that what you're considering/advocating is justifiably interpreted by the majority of this country as just the authoritarianism you supposedly decry. You couldn't be any more transparent or corrupt, and dressing it as combating fascism or other such crap isn't fooling anyone. Crawl back in your fucking hole and try to come up with a winning strategy that doesn't rely on slight of hand to accomplish it.
I still like the Briley/Epps/Sitaraman lottery proposal better, because dispersing the power to make final appellate decisions among a large group of judges who don't know when they will be called on to exercise it is good in itself, and worth a certain amount of hysteresis. I don't think any set of only nine individuals should ever again be trusted with the power SCOTUS has.
That said, you have convinced me that this is a game theoretically viable alternative path that would be a drastic improvement over the status quo, so if this is what gets traction instead of the lottery route, it's well worth supporting.
Oh FFS! Only leftist children think this isn't authoritarian. But, like a true liberal, you come waltzing along, lose, then want to change the rules mid-stream. You're so pathetically transparent and myopic. But you assholes go ahead and put this on your agenda and see how the country reacts - outside of you demented leftists, of course. If not for nothing, you infants are consistent.
I like the proposed solution though I’m surprised Merrick Garland isn’t mentioned.
Restricting the Court’s composition for partisan gain had the same net effect as “packing,” i.e., an increased majority. It’s hard to have this discussion if we can’t acknowledge we’re already deep into the effects of a packing (by subtraction) scheme.
What about senate confirmation? This new concept rests on faith in the senate, a non-democratic body with built in Republican structural advantages, to operate in good faith and takes its job seriously again. The reason you're advocating for this new system is that this is not the case. And yet they'd still hold the keys.
If the Democratic Party supports court packing it will be its worst decision since nominating Kamala Harris. Find some candidates who realize how toxic the woke wing of the party is - and will say so publicly.
I like that a portion of this article was a Divided Argument back and forth.
That aside, I get angry with the retaliation argument. Rs would pack the Court if it didn't do what they wanted. How do I know? Well, there's the Rs, including law professors, trying to bring violence on ACB every time she doesn't vote the way Trump wants. But more importantly, there's the fact that they did it! They shrunk the Court to 8, then grew it back to 9 when they had the votes. If Ds packed the Court, it would be...retaliation. But that never counts, because only Ds ever have agency.
Confirm the entire DC circuit to the SCOTUS bench.
Then empanel every case randomly from that large pool of justices.
It defuses the retaliation MUCH better than staggered terms, and does NOT require an amendment. The law can even strip SCOTUS of the jurisdiction to strike it down.
Be fully confident that not one single human in even a single American RW closet case --
no Congressional R, no conFederalist, no domestic oligarch to say nothing of their foreign mates and influences, possibly not even one so-called "principled conservative --
bears the merest hint of a slightest whiff of passing angst over the RW packing of the SCOTUS.
For crying out loud, stop calling it “court packing.” Packing the court is what McConnell, the Federalist Society, and the Heritage Foundation have already done. Correcting that horrible injustice, increasing the size of the court to acknowledge the growth of the nation and the number of appellate circuits, and staggering term limits to ensure each POTUS a fair share of nominations, is not “packing.” It is the opposite.
Yes, I agree with this. Any discussion of the Court that doesn't frame it as already packed is a poor frame. The Court was packed when McConnell held a seat open in 2016.
To save democracy, we must abolish democracy!
What is the proper role of government, and why? What is the role of SCOTUS and the Constitution more broadly in maintaining such a government?
These are the questions that need to be answered before we make changes to institutions that have functioned for centuries. I would argue that if our mainstream political commentators actually knew the correct answers to these questions, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in today, and structural changes wouldn't even be necessary.
This tells us the problem isn't with the Supreme Court itself.
I'll use one of the article's own examples to illustrate. Let's say the Supreme Court *did* rule tomorrow that Catholicism is the established religion of the United States. And? What would be the mainstream, politically literate argument against it?
Since everyone in the mainstream, including those who call themselves "liberals," wants the government involved in every single aspect of our lives, there is no longer any principled opposition to be made against a ruling like that.
The emergency is indeed real, but it has nothing to do with the Court. It has everything to do with the rotten ideas being advocated by our mainstream political commentariat.
"Suppose the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that Catholicism is the established religion of the United States—a decree lawless on its face. The prescribed remedy, impeachment, requires 67 senators. Thirty-four senators of the justices’ party refuse to convict. Is the answer that the country must simply submit?"
Do you understand how the court works? They rule on the Constitutionality of laws, Congress would have to pass a law making Catholocism the established religion for the court to be hearing the case and ruling on anything about it, if anything Congress would be impeaching the justices for overturning the law they passed, not for upholding it - was this just a terrible hypothetical or do you fundamentally not get how that works?
You're being overly hysterical. The current court is not as bad as you're portraying it. They overturn Trump's tariffs and they have also blocked some of his more extreme immigration actions, such as halting deportation flights to CECOT and upholding rulings that forced them to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia. They also are very unlikely to uphold his EO on birthright citizenship. I feel confident they aren't going to support a slide in authoritarianism or an attempt to overturn an election.
The correct path is, as always, elect a different president so that that President can appoint new justices when the current ones retire.
dems can add term limits immediately and retire Thomas to go back to 5-4 without a crazy escalation of judges that could backfire
Oh yes, all you commentors (save a couple), looking for a structural fix to the fact that you're losing the popular argument (which, apparently, you cannot conceive, so arrogant and presumptive are you). "Oh, this will fix it". "We'll just tinker with this over here, and nobody will notice that we had the monkey with the process because our arguments aren't resonating". It's all such a bunch of bullshit. If the shoe were on the other foot, you'd be screaming bloody murder. But you have such a high opinion of yourselves that it doesn't occur to you that what you're considering/advocating is justifiably interpreted by the majority of this country as just the authoritarianism you supposedly decry. You couldn't be any more transparent or corrupt, and dressing it as combating fascism or other such crap isn't fooling anyone. Crawl back in your fucking hole and try to come up with a winning strategy that doesn't rely on slight of hand to accomplish it.
I still like the Briley/Epps/Sitaraman lottery proposal better, because dispersing the power to make final appellate decisions among a large group of judges who don't know when they will be called on to exercise it is good in itself, and worth a certain amount of hysteresis. I don't think any set of only nine individuals should ever again be trusted with the power SCOTUS has.
That said, you have convinced me that this is a game theoretically viable alternative path that would be a drastic improvement over the status quo, so if this is what gets traction instead of the lottery route, it's well worth supporting.
Oh FFS! Only leftist children think this isn't authoritarian. But, like a true liberal, you come waltzing along, lose, then want to change the rules mid-stream. You're so pathetically transparent and myopic. But you assholes go ahead and put this on your agenda and see how the country reacts - outside of you demented leftists, of course. If not for nothing, you infants are consistent.
I like the proposed solution though I’m surprised Merrick Garland isn’t mentioned.
Restricting the Court’s composition for partisan gain had the same net effect as “packing,” i.e., an increased majority. It’s hard to have this discussion if we can’t acknowledge we’re already deep into the effects of a packing (by subtraction) scheme.
What about senate confirmation? This new concept rests on faith in the senate, a non-democratic body with built in Republican structural advantages, to operate in good faith and takes its job seriously again. The reason you're advocating for this new system is that this is not the case. And yet they'd still hold the keys.
If the Democratic Party supports court packing it will be its worst decision since nominating Kamala Harris. Find some candidates who realize how toxic the woke wing of the party is - and will say so publicly.
what does woke mean?
Having a world view that frames everything in an oppressor/oppressed dichotomy.
and what does that have to do with this article?
I like that a portion of this article was a Divided Argument back and forth.
That aside, I get angry with the retaliation argument. Rs would pack the Court if it didn't do what they wanted. How do I know? Well, there's the Rs, including law professors, trying to bring violence on ACB every time she doesn't vote the way Trump wants. But more importantly, there's the fact that they did it! They shrunk the Court to 8, then grew it back to 9 when they had the votes. If Ds packed the Court, it would be...retaliation. But that never counts, because only Ds ever have agency.
You’re missing the obviously superior fix.
Confirm the entire DC circuit to the SCOTUS bench.
Then empanel every case randomly from that large pool of justices.
It defuses the retaliation MUCH better than staggered terms, and does NOT require an amendment. The law can even strip SCOTUS of the jurisdiction to strike it down.
Be fully confident that not one single human in even a single American RW closet case --
no Congressional R, no conFederalist, no domestic oligarch to say nothing of their foreign mates and influences, possibly not even one so-called "principled conservative --
bears the merest hint of a slightest whiff of passing angst over the RW packing of the SCOTUS.
For crying out loud, stop calling it “court packing.” Packing the court is what McConnell, the Federalist Society, and the Heritage Foundation have already done. Correcting that horrible injustice, increasing the size of the court to acknowledge the growth of the nation and the number of appellate circuits, and staggering term limits to ensure each POTUS a fair share of nominations, is not “packing.” It is the opposite.
Yes, I agree with this. Any discussion of the Court that doesn't frame it as already packed is a poor frame. The Court was packed when McConnell held a seat open in 2016.