Right-wingers don't view what Republicans did as anything abnormal or wrong. They had the power to deny Obama a SC pick(therefore it's justified), and they had the power to appoint Trump's pick in the midst of an election(therefore it's justified), completely contradicting their prior justifications for rejecting Garland. But when Democrats use their power it's supposed to be a catastrophe.

Either rules and norms matter or they don't. If you want to call Democrats expanding the court an escalation, I would agree, but the context matters. Republicans used their power without regard to norms, so if Democrats respond forcefully, why would any honest person be outraged?

Packing the Supreme Court is a blatant partisan power grab, a blatant violation of small-d democrartic norms. Interesting how that doesn't rub you the wrong way all of a sudden...


Why though? What does Biden gain, politically speaking, by sending a sacrificial lamb to Congress? Is this supposed to give swing seat Democratic congressmen and senators an opportunity to strike down an unpopular nominee from their own party to pad their bipartisan and independent credentials or something?


This.


McConnell did nothing but play his cards really well and exploit two major unforced errors by Democrats. First, Harry Reid eliminating the filibuster on almost all federal judicial appointments, then RBG not retiring while Democrats still held the WH and the Senate despite her age and extremely troubling health issues. Without RBG's massive hybris, the SCOTUS would still enjoy a 4-1-4 balance with Roberts as the swing vote; a guy who has shown time and time again that he's willing to strike down major conservative legislation if necessary to preserve his own reputation and that of the SCOTUS.

Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett are to the right of Kavanaugh...how is he not the median Justice? I suppose there are issues where Gorsuch would be to the left of Kavanaugh but overall, Gorsuch is to the right of him.

I agree that SCOTUS shouldn't be viewed as ideological extensions of the two major parties. However, the GOP made it that way which is why they campaign on it ALL THE TIME. Both sides campaign on the abortion issue, but conservatives have a dedicated lobbying group to ensure we don't get another Souter. They campaign on a wide set of issues ranging from religious liberties, the administrative state, gun rights, etc.

If I had it my way, you'd get near unanimous confirmation if you had a unanimous "well qualified" rating from the ABA. The most important thing for SCOTUS is being an intellectual giant.

We can enjoy the benefits of a highly conservative SCOTUS, but let's be honest about it.

Biden needs to appear like he is doing SOMETHING regarding gun control. He also needs to protect vulnerable Democrats who are up for reelection over the next 4 years. Politics is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

The notion that Roberts is a "moderate" is crazy to me. He's done more for religious liberties than any Justice in my life time. Yes, Roberts has started to pivot towards the center but he's still a conservative Justice. He got a bad reputation due to his awful Obamacare ruling, but he's ensured that conservative views remain supreme. The talking heads are getting extremely greedy...we should be grateful that Roberts has been able to thread the needle like he has.

Give me a break regarding McConnell. Are we going to say that "Biden played his cards right" if he manages to get a liberal majority on SCOTUS?

The bolded part is just a symptom of the dysfunction and perpetual gridlock in Congress. If political and ideological battles can no longer be resolved via elections and the legislative process, the pent up pressure is discharged in the form of 1. governing via EOs and 2. court activism. Making the courts less powerful or less partisan would not solve the underlying issue in American politics.

I pretty much agree with all of this.



First off, I want a conservative Supreme Court, so this has nothing to do with my desired outcome.

I view packing the Supreme Court as bad, and if McConnell hadn't denied Obama his pick and granted Trump his in the midst of an election, based on contradictory justifications, I would be outraged at the idea of doing it. But those things happened, so even though I don't think Biden expanding the court would be good for the health of our politics, I view it as an escalation that can be justified based on the behavior of Republicans.

Roberts has issued far more than just one bad ruling (Obamacare). If Trump had been reelected, it wouldnt have surprised me to see him go full Souter.



Philosophically and morally, I see a big difference between exploiting the blunders of your opponents and naked power plays. Like I said: without RBG's hybris, the SCOTUS would still have a 5-4 or 4-1-4 balance. Packing the court would undeniably be a big escalation in partisan warfare; and it would undeniably trigger a vicious cycle, with Republicans counter-packing the court as soon as they get back control, and so on and forth. By 2040, the SCOTUS would have 200 members if we go down this path.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 9 2021 12:27pm

i doubt if it were anyone else in place of Roberts that we wouldn’t have our religious liberties. he ruled that it is Constitutional to tax everyone for anything they don’t want, need, or use. a disaster of a precedent because making the tax = zero is a bandaid on increasingly unchecked government power

I agree with this. The legislative branch is a bunch of giant fucking pussies who are incapable of governing. We should make both the executive and judiciary less powerful.



That unchecked power has existed for a long time though and it's mainly due to the commerce clause. Thankfully, Roberts skillfully navigated that portion when he made his ruling because compelling people to engage in commerce is pretty egregious. The penalty effectively IS a tax but the egregious part was the logic of: "Congress didn't intend for it to be a tax so it can't be challenged based on this 18th century law but it really was a tax so it can stay."

If it were someone like Kennedy instead of Roberts, I think we'd have less religious liberty. Kennedy voted to allow fags to marry whereas Roberts didn't. That's just one of many examples that highlight Roberts' conservative credentials.



Which rulings upset you outside of Obamacare? For every bad ruling, there's like 3-4 good rulings..

Not if you value the balance of powers as they were designed to be.

This is the heart of the problem: Any legislation that is passed that positively impacts some states while harming others is inherently harmful to a large portion of the population. Thus, it's up to the legislative branch to only pass laws that are for the good of ALL. Hence why the branch was set up with two house in a way that would keep them perpetually divided and stonewalled. The idea was to insure greater liberty, without preventing necessary and valuable changes to the way the government operates.

I think a lot of the "incapable of governing" rhetoric is simply ignorance of what "governing" means. To govern is not to write laws, it is to execute the laws. Executive branches govern based on the writs of the legislative. We don't really want the legislature willy nilly throwing away civil rights and freedoms, or mandating horrific and unjustifiable requirements on the citizenry. Hence, divided houses, and the ability of the executive to veto, and the judiciary to overrule based on the Constitution.

If anything, we need to reduce executive power, as the ability to basically "write law" via EO that violates statutory and Constitutional law, and enact it right up until it's invalidated by the court allows the executive (at Federal, State, AND City levels) to cause a lot of damage completely free of consequence.