Once again I would agree with you to a pretty large extent. Trump was very much an avatar and voice of what you say.

I think where we differ is that I think this movement needs a voice and a loud one.

Most people are afraid to say most of that quiet stuff Trump says, out loud and have felt a need to bite their tongue in the past and they thought they were in a much smaller group and as such many felt some shame or embarrassment for their racism, xenophobia, etc.

Trump basically not only gave them permission but told them to own it and be proud and that was liberating for many of them.

And I am not sure anyone else (maybe Tucker) can pull off a 'Trump' and give that voice and thus why I think his group will glom back onto him as he gets more and more loud again towards the midterms and the next GE.

I am not sure Trump will run again but I would bet he will try to be King maker and to keep the Fund raising grip, he currently has on the party.

Trump has found himself in the middle of the worlds most profitable grift short of being a despot leader stealing Ukraine's Natural resource wealth (damn that bungling Giuliani, we almost had it too) and Trump is not going to let that go easily.

We differ even less than you think. I agree that the movement needs a loud voice. But I don't think Trump is singularly capable of being that loud voice.

And I obviously agree that Trump will not easily give up the opportunity to grift his supporters.

SCOTUS, in a 9-0 decision, says immigrants who have lawfully lived in the US under TPS (Temporarily Protected Status) cannot get permanent residency (which requires legal “admission” to country).

This reallllllly sucks for a lot of people, including refugees.

I believe that 9-0 opinions, reluctance to retire to insure that your successor will be picked by your preferred president, and being opposed to court packing even if it increases the chances your side will be the majority, are all related to the same syndrome. And it is NOT the "noble" idea that the Supreme Court should not be political. Rather it is related to an article I once wrote about dealing with cops who pull you over. Also something that was brought up in the movie Schindler's list.

People do not want to be considered reliable automatons. They do not want to be chosen or hired because they can reliably be predicted to behave in a certain way. Even if that way is usually the way they think is correct. They want their judgement in individual cases to be valued. Thus the cop needs to sometimes let someone off without a ticket. The nazi guard sometimes spares the life of a disobedient prisoner. And the Supreme Court justice through words or actions want to convey that he, she, or other future justices will come to decisions based on their thoughts on a particular case rather than a general ideology. Thoughts that are not easily predicted in advance.

In other words the idea that their decisions are easily predicted in advance makes them feel insignificant. And avoiding that is, for them (like almost everybody else) more important than helping the country.

There is a lot more 9-0 decisions (about 37%) than 5-4 (about 19%). Only about 30% of cases go down to 4-4, 5-4 or 6-3. Rest are decided with bigger majorities.

That doesn't negate my point. Which is that the justices want to be known mainly for their superior reasoning abilities. Thus when cases come before them that are either not political or don't provide very good opportunities to rationalize an ideological decision, it is unsurprising they wind up at least 7-2.

...

The phenomenon you describe certainly exists. And it probably has some impact on voting behavior. But it would be a gross oversimplification to view all or most 9-0 decisions through this lens. Decisions often are 9-0 simply because one side or the other has much the better of the argument.

Which is basically what I said in post 1187.

SCOTUS will not comply with “packing the court” legislation. Therefore it is a fools errand to pursue court packing currently.

Discuss

when push comes to shove scotus will do what it's told.

The number of justices is rooted in legislation decided by congress, the number of justices has been changed before by passing bills. It has been 6,5,7,9,10 and then 9 again. Proposed bills that seek to change the number of justices is not something new either. The US constitution makes no provisions for the composition of the court.

I'm certainly no expert, but this seems so well established, I don't exactly see what this hypothetical SCOTUS rejection should be based on.

That doesn't mean packing is a good idea, you want to the court to be stable and increasing it for political reasons makes it unstable also in the future. Then again, the fight for supreme court justices is currently a bitterly partisan affair where private organizations run large vetting processes and political dirty tricks are used to stop popular candidates and ensure minimum majority candidates get the bench. Actions and reactions.

What does it mean to "not comply"? If you are suggesting that the sitting justices would refuse to hear cases if the Court were expanded, you are mistaken. That would never happen.

If you are suggesting that the Court reflexively would strike down any legislation that expanded the Court, that is wrong as well. I am quite certain that every Justice on the Court vigorously opposes expansion. If you could poll the liberal lions of the Court from the 1970s like Brennan and Marshall, I am quite certain that they would oppose expansion as well. But Congress's authority in this area is pretty clear. If Congress expands the Court and there is a challenge, I would be shocked if the SCOTUS even agreed to hear the case.

Judging by their obvious desire to make decisions for bribes (Janus and now Cedar Point) where they openly mock the entire judicial system, I'd say they would happily take the case and rule in their own favor.

We're not talking about ethical, decent people here. We're talking about on the take, garden variety, corrupt politicians. Like Trump but a little more well spoken.

In the unlikely event that legislation were passed through normal channels that expanded the Court, I would bet you almost any amount of money that it was not struck down. And I would give you great odds as well.

And what is the evidence that individual justices were bribed in connection with the Janus and Cedar Point decisions?

Well, I suppose they could be prostituting themselves for free.

But why would they willingly dilute their own power ?
It's not as if they believe in the laws or precedents they rule on.

You're going to argue that they don't think they could get away with a power grab ? After 4 years of Trump I'm quite certain they could (and would).

The Dems won't expand the court anyway. Their masters are happy with them.

So you were just inferring that justices had accepted bribes based on the substance of the decisions?

Supreme Court decisions often are wrong, but it is indisputable that the justices act within guardrails. If Congress passed a law that increased or decreased federal income tax, you can be sure that the SCOTUS would not overturn the law, regardless of how dumb a majority of justices might believe the law to be.

I agree. Progressive fantasies about expanding the Court have always been just that -- fantasies.

What does that mean?

Scalia's place of death helps my inference quite a bit. But the substance of their decisions (wrt the fact that in recent times they've set their own precedent) is really enough for me.

They act within guardrails that are ever widening. Which is why, although I'd likely lose the bet, I would have to seriously consider the odds you gave me.

Sure, it's a fantasy. Biden has a picture of FDR in the WH. It's all a fantasy. lol

If that's truly enough evidence for you to conclude that SCOTUS justices are accepting bribes, then I don't know what say other than "OK, Luckbox".

I thought you agreed that Democrats would never expand the Court? The fact that Joe Biden has a picture in the WH of the last Democratic president to try and expand the Court doesn't exactly convince me that efforts to expand the Court would be successful.

Court packing is a complete fantasy as long as Democrats are counting on the votes of people like Manchin and Sinema. In a lot of districts where a Democrat holds the seat, voting to expand the Court would be very unpopular. And I think we all know by now that members of Congress rarely, if ever, vote in a way that they believe will harm their chances for reelection.

As an aside, as much as I dislike Manchin, I suspect that he believes he would lose his seat to a Republican if he voted to end the filibuster. And he probably is correct. A Republican-controlled Senate with no filibuster would be quite a nightmare.

Nah, luckbox buys into conspiracy theories. I buy into the theory that human beings are predictable and the ones who work very hard to attain power will never mind giving themselves some more. And money is just about equal to power.

Also, at any level of government besides the top tier, what Scalia did would be an actionable offense. You just don't get to accept nice stuff from the people you do business with if you're a government worker. Here in NJ a bunch of guys lost their pensions a while back. They take that stuff seriously.

The fantasy I'm talking about is that there is a progressive plank anywhere in the Dem party.

There will be a GOP controlled senate without a fb as soon as the GOP gets enough power to make that happen. As long as you can change the precedent using only a majority vote it's not doing anything but allowing Dems to roll over anyway. That's the real reason they want it imo.

I disagree. There is definitely a progressive wing of the Democratic party. It just isn't as large as some would like to believe.

As I mentioned in another thread, the Democratic primary for mayor of NYC was this weekend. By the end of the race, there were only four real candidates. Of the four, only Maya Wiley was a bona fide progressive. Progressive groups and politicians all coalesced around her. I can't imagine that any significant number of self-identified progressives voted for anyone other than Wiley. And she got 20% of the first place votes, far less than Eric Adams, who made a big point of saying that he would not defund the police.

Well, defund the police is a radical perspective. Reform the police is a much better slogan.

Everyone knows that they may not like the police most times they encounter them but they serve a necessary function.

Wiley of course wasn't calling for a complete dismantling of the NYPD. She wanted to reduce funding by $1 billion.

99% of politicians would claim that they want to "reform" the police, just as 99% of politicians would claim that they want to "reform" the tax code and the health care system. You will never see the following exchange with a politician in a major city:

Questioner: Do we need to make any changes to the police department?
Politician: No. Policing in the city is pretty much perfect.

Advocating for reform is an easy, non-controversial thing to do as long as you avoid too many specifics.

There's nothing to argue with there.

But I think the slogan really hurts progressives.