Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Should Biden pack SCOTUS

Discussion in 'GatorNana's Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Trickster, Oct 15, 2020.

  1. Trickster

    Trickster Premium Member

    7,659
    2,000
    1,058
    Sep 20, 2014
  2. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    6,542
    677
    948
    Apr 16, 2007
    McConnel has already explicitly done it.

    So if Biden gets the chance, yes, he should undo McConnels hypocrisy/corruption by expanding the court. Unless 1 or 2 want to tender their early resignations.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  3. cocodrilo

    cocodrilo GC Hall of Fame

    Apr 8, 2007
    I don't know if Biden should pack SCOTUS, but Trump should definitely pack his bags.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  4. pkaib01

    pkaib01 Premium Member

    1,834
    425
    363
    Apr 3, 2007
    It's a provocative discussion. I think he should. The closer we are to a deadlock in the court, the better for everyone. Particularly if the minority party (by popular vote) is recently overrepresented.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. defensewinschampionships

    defensewinschampionships Premium Member

    3,677
    2,249
    403
    Sep 16, 2018
    Yeah Trump and McConnel screwed the pooch here. And this from a guy (me) who tends toward conservative judges. 5-4 should be the biggest L/R gap on the court.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  6. oragator1

    oragator1 Premium Member

    16,290
    2,789
    1,733
    Apr 3, 2007
    No.
    All these things boomerang back and hurt everyone eventually. Obama didn’t like McConnell’s obstinacy so he increased EO’s, now look what Trump is doing with it.
    Harry Reid removed the 60 vote rule for federal appointments, and McConnell used that it justify doing the same for USSC nominees, look what we got.
    Now you have budget reconciliation as the latest tool to avoid 60 votes.

    So no, this tit for tat only degrades these institutions in the long term. Suck it up, find a way to work together and none of these things need to happen.
     
    • Agree x 3
    • Winner x 3
    • Like x 1
    • Disagree x 1
    • Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  7. Trickster

    Trickster Premium Member

    7,659
    2,000
    1,058
    Sep 20, 2014
    Very good point. That's why I said in another thread, that if the court is packed, it should be with 3 liberals and 1 moderate both parties can agree upon. I've always wanted balance on the court even though I tend toward liberal judges.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  8. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    9,923
    1,081
    1,713
    Apr 8, 2007
    Technically, McConnell didn't pack the court although he pursued practices going back close to a decade that had the same effect. As Senate minority leader he used the filibuster to block a number of Obama's judicial nominations and as majority leader he blocked almost every single one of Obama's nominations, the most egregious example being the nomination of Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy left by Antonin Scalia's passing. McConnell didn't even allow the Senate to consider the Garland nomination and the fact that the vacancy occurred during an election year was completely irrelevant especially considering that it occurred around 10 months prior to the election. McConnell than made it easier to ensure the confirmation of Trump's nominees by eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations (Reid eliminated it for lower court nominations in response to McConnell's use of it to obstruct the confirmation of Obama's lower court nominations, he didn't eliminate for SCOTUS nominations). Although I have mixed feelings about packing the court it's Mitch and the Republicans that damaged the system and violated norms resulting in lasting damage to the judicial nomination process. Although I do not think it can be accomplished through legislation, the best solution would be limiting Supreme Court justices to a single 18-year term with the President nominating replacements during the first and third year of his/her term.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2020
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  9. msa3

    msa3 Premium Member

    550
    193
    398
    Jan 4, 2013
    I think the Supreme Court should be expanded, just like I think the number of states should be expanded and the numbers of seats in the House should be expanded. The current population of the country is not well served by having numbers locked 50 years ago.

    California should be three states. Texas should be at least two, Florida probably at least two. New York City should be its own state (I actually don't think DC should be, but it should be split into the neighboring states). We should expand the house by at least 200 seats if not 400, so that it can get back to being the people's house. And along those lines, we need to get the court back to representing the number of districts in the judiciary. I also think the SCOTUS should be geographically representative of the country -- each federal district should have justice on the court who lives in that region. I'm not a fan of Barrett, but I'm at least glad she's not a northeaster-educated Harvard of Yale grad.

    But I also don't think it should be a reflexive move by Biden or seen as retribution for Garland and Barrett. The number on the Court is a bigger issue than one election.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  10. archigator_96

    archigator_96 All American

    337
    123
    173
    Apr 8, 2020
    I guess I am not sure what "pack the court" means. As I understand it, packing the court would be to just add judges to your hearts content without any of the existing ones dying. Ignoring Merrick Garland for a second, the only thing Trump did was nominate new ones as the other ones died or retired so that doesn't seem like packing to me.

    Garland should have been allowed to go through the process and would be on the court now and this wouldn't be an issue.

    The other question I have is if the Senate is still republican controlled, can't they just ignore all the new judges Biden wants on the court and just not go through the process like with Garland?

    But Oragator is right, the more each side does crap to get around the rules, the more the other side will up the ante next time they are in power.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. gatorzfan

    gatorzfan VIP Member

    1,767
    427
    353
    Sep 1, 2017
    Pack the court .. right. Try reality, seats have filled as they have opened. Try again.
     
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. gatorsforevr

    gatorsforevr Junior

    153
    53
    238
    Apr 3, 2007
    There are so many theories to discuss when it comes to the Supreme Court but this article does not convince me that packing the court would be wrong in any way.

    I think the most important thing we can do with the Supreme Court is to change the way in which we appoint justices and enact term limits on them. Right now the system is set up in a retirement/death lottery way. Either you hope that a justice that you support survives to retirement or you hope that, in the unlikely circumstances, they die while your party has control of the presidency and the Senate. It's a pretty terrible way to do anything let alone appointing justices to the highest court in the land.

    The theory that I find the most persuasive is enacting 18 year term limits and then giving every president two Supreme Court appointments every 4 years. It would temporarily expand the Supreme Court because you would probably grandfather in the current justices to the old system of lifetime appointments but once they decide to retire or if they die they would not be replaced like they are now. After all of the current members leave the court then you would just have a rotating 9 justices with a much better representation than we have now.

    So you could start by giving Biden the two justices for his first term which would bring the court back to competitive but with a decidedly conservative lean of a 6/5 majority. The people would then vote in 2024 and whomever is elected would get their two nominations. If the people approve of Biden and the direction of the country/court then he gets reelected and liberals take control of the court, if they disapprove then conservatives and Don Jr get to expand the conservative majority again.

    You may very well have someone like Barrett outlasting some Biden justices that would fall under the new term limits but that's a battle we should be willing to lose to greatly improve the system.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  13. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    9,623
    1,240
    1,418
    Dec 9, 2010
    What is the practical difference between refusing to fill seats until you have the Presidency, leaving tons of them open, and then packing people into those same seats and adding seats?
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. WC53

    WC53 GC Hall of Fame

    1,447
    426
    313
    Oct 17, 2015
    Old City
    No.
    He should win and then work at bringing people together. It will still be 50/50 whoever wins
     
  15. gatorzfan

    gatorzfan VIP Member

    1,767
    427
    353
    Sep 1, 2017
    Whom has refused to fill seats? Since Trump’s presidency, 3 have opened , 2 have been filled and soon a third. No president has left tons open. ( your words not mine). As they have opened, they have been filled by Congress from nominations from the prez.
     
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 3
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  16. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    9,623
    1,240
    1,418
    Dec 9, 2010
    No, only 2 have opened since Trump's presidency. The other opened in early 2016, when he wasn't President. McConnell and the Republican Senators refused to allow it to be filled by the President at the time.

    And no President has left tons open. The Senate purposefully did. As they refused to fill tons of seats on federal courts for years.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Winner Winner x 3
  17. msa3

    msa3 Premium Member

    550
    193
    398
    Jan 4, 2013
    Two issues. The first is that McConnell refused to give Garland a hearing. That's refusing to fill seats.

    The second is McConnell refused to fill 105 judicial seats during the last two years of Obama's presidency, with the confirmation rate dropping to 28 percent.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. gatorzfan

    gatorzfan VIP Member

    1,767
    427
    353
    Sep 1, 2017
    You are correct on 2 openings.
     
  19. l_boy

    l_boy VIP Member

    949
    211
    333
    Jan 6, 2009
    I have mixed feelings on the issue. The problem for Democrats is they worry about about such things, whereas Republicans don't. Whatever it takes.

    I am leaning to putting 2 more in, which puts it back to where it was if Biden was president. But it would have consequences.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    9,623
    1,240
    1,418
    Dec 9, 2010
    So what is the functional difference between adding seats and simply refusing to fill seats for the other side?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1