The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[Applejack]

From your lips.

I don't think any of the truly stupid and scary things Trump has said scare me as much as the prospect of court packing. We can survive a donkey-brained executive for a term or two, within reason. I don't know if we can undo the structural damage to the Court if we start down the road packing will take us.

Really? Trump's damage to venerable governmental institutions (know anyone that works at the DOJ? How are they liking it?), his destruction of America's reputation abroad as being pro-democracy, his non-handling of Covid, his crazy tariffs, his restrictions on immigration that WILL harm the economy long term, etc, etc, etc scares you less than the "prospect of court packing?" That statement can't be correct. Can it? These things that Trump has done scare you less than things people are talking about on Twitter? Biden has said he was against it as recently as the Dem. debates. Even if he supported it, the Dems could only do it if they took control of the Senate and everyone or almost everyone in the senate voted for it. How many senators openly support court packing? 4 or 5? The democrats would have to waste all of their political capitol on the issue, and there would be nothing left to stop fracking!

I agree that court packing is a terrible idea that further politicizes the Supreme Court. Worst of all, there is no apparent end to the tit for tat in which Repubs would do the same thing when they are in power (like the Garland nomination, btw). That is why this is a non-starter politically: it would cost the hard earned (hypothetical) advantage the dems have achieved, and would just be undone (or worse) when the repubs take control.

But to say that the "prospect" of judge shopping is why you are going to vote for Trump? I call BS.

[Eddie]

What’s the difference between court packing and delaying/stopping judicial nominations?

Republicans held over 100 judicial seats plus a SC seat to avoid Obama nominations for 2 years.

Were you ‘frightened’ when this was happening?

I can't speak for Lebowski - but to me there is a difference.

I've mentioned many times that I thought Garland should've gotten and up/down vote, and I believe Obama's other nominees deserved the same. I'm not a fan of the GOP playing politics and sitting on those nominees as they did. I think it is a disservice to the American people and impacts their ability to have a speedy trial and to have courts decide things in a timely manner when those seats go vacant for a long time.

At the same time - I don't see it the same way that I see fundamentally changing the structure of the court. Empty positions can ultimately be filled. If they're empty it's a hassle and it's dumb not to fill them. But it isn't the same as changing structure. While you can fill empty positions - it's a lot harder to go back and remove SC justice positions once they've been created.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I can't speak for Lebowski - but to me there is a difference.

I've mentioned many times that I thought Garland should've gotten and up/down vote, and I believe Obama's other nominees deserved the same. I'm not a fan of the GOP playing politics and sitting on those nominees as they did. I think it is a disservice to the American people and impacts their ability to have a speedy trial and to have courts decide things in a timely manner when those seats go vacant for a long time.

At the same time - I don't see it the same way that I see fundamentally changing the structure of the court. Empty positions can ultimately be filled. If they're empty it's a hassle and it's dumb not to fill them. But it isn't the same as changing structure. While you can fill empty positions - it's a lot harder to go back and remove SC justice positions once they've been created.

Yeah, that is a slippery slope that you will never recover from. I can't believe people don't honestly acknowledge how radical and dangerous it would be.

[Jeff Lebowski]

FTR - no way in hell I vote for Trump over this. But it makes me angry.

[fusnik]

FTR - no way in hell I vote for Trump over this. But it makes me angry.

Honestly what’s the difference?

I see fundamentally no real distinction from ‘packing’ a court through more seats and ‘packing’ a court by way of only filling seats with specific justices.

Is the outcome not the same?

[PaloAltoCougar]

FTR - no way in hell I vote for Trump over this. But it makes me angry.

Ditto. One of the biggest reasons I want Trump gone is his disregard for long-standing norms and institutions. I'd feel better about Harris/Biden if they weren't doing the same thing by not disclaiming court-packing.

[Now who’s the dean?]

I’m not in favor of court packing, but it’s pretty disingenuous to not acknowledge that court shrinking is the same animal.

[All-American]

What’s the difference between court packing and delaying/stopping judicial nominations?

Republicans held over 100 judicial seats plus a SC seat to avoid Obama nominations for 2 years.

Were you ‘frightened’ when this was happening?

That's the difference between holding an open seat and creating new ones. The former is, admittedly, problematic if it becomes too common (though I don't think we have ever been close to that). The latter could altogether derail the ability of the judiciary to function and effectively check the other branches.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Honestly what’s the difference?

I see fundamentally no real distinction from ‘packing’ a court through more seats and ‘packing’ a court by way of only filling seats with specific justices.

Is the outcome not the same?

No, they are fundamentally different.

[Eddie]

I’m not in favor of court packing, but it’s pretty disingenuous to not acknowledge that court shrinking is the same animal.

From my perspective - one is temporary in nature, the other is permanent. You can argue that there's a similar outcome temporarily, but you can't argue that they are the same. One is temporary. One is permanent.

[All-American]

Really? Trump's damage to venerable governmental institutions (know anyone that works at the DOJ? How are they liking it?), his destruction of America's reputation abroad as being pro-democracy, his non-handling of Covid, his crazy tariffs, his restrictions on immigration that WILL harm the economy long term, etc, etc, etc scares you less than the "prospect of court packing?" That statement can't be correct. Can it? These things that Trump has done scare you less than things people are talking about on Twitter? Biden has said he was against it as recently as the Dem. debates. Even if he supported it, the Dems could only do it if they took control of the Senate and everyone or almost everyone in the senate voted for it. How many senators openly support court packing? 4 or 5? The democrats would have to waste all of their political capitol on the issue, and there would be nothing left to stop fracking!

I agree that court packing is a terrible idea that further politicizes the Supreme Court. Worst of all, there is no apparent end to the tit for tat in which Repubs would do the same thing when they are in power (like the Garland nomination, btw). That is why this is a non-starter politically: it would cost the hard earned (hypothetical) advantage the dems have achieved, and would just be undone (or worse) when the repubs take control.

But to say that the "prospect" of judge shopping is why you are going to vote for Trump? I call BS.

Really.

I know several people that work at the DOJ. Some love Trump, some merely tolerate him.

But yes, really. Nothing Trump has done scare me as much as the prospect of court packing. (That should be taken less as leniency toward Trump, whom I truly find repugnant, than how utterly scary the idea of court packing is to me.)

I don't think I will vote for Trump, but if I don't see Biden unequivocally disavow court packing I will not vote for him. His having done so a year ago doesn't count now that he and Harris have repeatedly dodged the question since.

[fusnik]

That's the difference between holding an open seat and creating new ones. The former is, admittedly, problematic if it becomes too common (though I don't think we have ever been close to that). The latter could altogether derail the ability of the judiciary to function and effectively check the other branches.

Ok hang with me, I’m not a lawyer, not very smart...

So if 6 years from now President Tucker Carlson has 100 empty seats to fill and Senate Majority Leader Cory Booker decodes he’s taking a vacay from judicial nominations will that action be acceptable?

When does it become too common and thus problematic for you?

[fusnik]

No, they are fundamentally different.

5 years ago the SC stood 5-4 conservative/liberal.

Now because of withholding a seat the court will become 6-3 conservative/liberal.

Again is the outcome of what Republicans did not akin to adding 2-4 seats?

[All-American]

Ok hang with me, I’m not a lawyer, not very smart...

So if 6 years from now President Tucker Carlson has 100 empty seats to fill and Senate Majority Leader Cory Booker decodes he’s taking a vacay from judicial nominations will that action be acceptable?

When does it become too common and thus problematic for you?

Not a problem. I'm a lawyer and I'm still not very smart.

I have no idea where the line between too many empty seats and an acceptable number of empty seats should be drawn. There is certainly some threshold of empty seats not being that big a deal. (When Justice Gorsuch was elevated from the Tenth, there was some democratic opposition to filling his seat at all because the Tenth Circuit reportedly had a light workload. But they picked an excellent candidate to replace him.)

Obviously at some point too many open seats presents a real challenge to a properly functioning judiciary. You would hope the senate and executive could reach arrangements before we ever got close to that point.

But in any event you are focusing on appointments in lower courts. Without taking away from any of the concerns you raised, my focus has been on the Supreme Court, which dictates what the lower courts may do.

[All-American]

5 years ago the SC stood 5-4 conservative/liberal.

Now because of withholding a seat the court will become 6-3 conservative/liberal.

Again is the outcome of what Republicans did not akin to adding 2-4 seats?

No. Not akin to adding 2-4 seats.

If for no other reason, the "damage" one party can do by holding seats open is only possible when there is a vacancy, and the "damage" is limited to the impact of filling that one seat. The opportunities to dramatically shift the balance of the court will rarely present itself. Court packing can flip the Supreme Court every time one party holds the Senate and Presidency.