I don't know enough about today's ruling to have much impact but I think Biden should add at least 7 and maybe as many as 9.

In adding 7 it should be 4 Dem leaning and 3 GOP. And for 9 it should be 5 Dem and 4 GOP.

it would be hard for anyone to cry this was just a partisan packing of the court and not just an attempt to rebalance the prior McConnell and Trump abuse.

The more the better because as the numbers of Justices go up the less and less any future packing matters whether in the current set up or a Panel one. The simple act of adding many more ensures more division lines even on key party line votes, which you could see even with the current court, is not based on any ideological 'lock'.

I kind of think they got the ruling right.

If the Dems change it to 9 than the GOP will go to 15 and than the Dems go to 21.

Now the Fillibuster should be gone Democracy is 50+1

There is a decent chance that if you replaced Barret and Gorsuch with 2x Ginsburgs, the rulings would have come out the same way.

That really makes little difference.

I can ask you lozen to pick 2 guys who will vote a single way on 10 key issues with little variance between them and you can do that.

Once I tell you to pick 10 and then 20 and 30, the amount of variance increases each and every time, not decreases.

We have already seen variance between the Dem and GOp candidates therefore more variance is always a positive.

8-1 decision to turn down Trump's request to block the release of White House documents surrounding Jan 6h. A lot of the ludicrous and almost incredible stories are about to get corroborated.

LOL SCOTUS is a coequal and they’re not going to let themselves be eviscerated by Congress.

But they are Trump judges how could they rule this way We must expand the court

Why is it the supreme court doesn't follow the US judges code of conduct? Insane.

Anyone here like Elie Mystal as much as I do?

Of course the supreme court is political when either the right or left appoint them

Joy Reid outraged at Thomas but not a word about a liberal judge that spouts off lies about Covid

It seems these judges get it right more often than wrong

Wow, that dude finally wrote a sentence or two when spamming his video links. Guess he wanted to keep up with Harkin!

That was a pretty stupid discussion based on a justice’s wife taking on political positions, they don’t agree with . No way her doing so gives her an “interest” in any case before the Supreme Court requiring his recusal. Just a hit piece but they get one thing right: Thomas is generally wrong about everything.

I don't want to quote the video because it's trash.

The bottom line is SCOTUS is a co-equal branch of government and part of its power is not being subject to rules Congress/White House may want to impose on it. One could easily envision a version of the conflicts rule so tight as to make it impossible for SCOTUS to review any case for example.

Question for the Expand the Court Crowd:

If after the 2024 election the GOP controls the White House, the House and the Senate, will you principled folks still support expanding the SC?

I'm sure the answer will be YES, since nobody around here would be so crass as to want to alter the size of the court merely to give an advantage to a particular political ideology.

I apologize in advance if anyone is offended by the fact that I posed the question in the first place.

Breyer retiring...

So will Garland resign as AG and finally get his seat that Mitch fked him over a few years ago?

Or some young kid who is like 40-45~ like Kavanaugh/Barrett few years ago.

I don’t think there’s a single person who advocates for expanding the court and doesn’t admit that is a power grab driven by political realism.

No way Garland makes the switch.

He was chosen specifically since he should not have been too objectional for the GOP. The next Dem pick can be more far left and someone the GOP would legit not want.


That said, I am not sure the Dem's get anyone thru before the MidTerms. I could Manchin and Sinema slowing it down, saying the Dems are playing too partisan games and ultimately I could see Sinema simply finding some reason to block it. She might say 'we need at least one GOP vote because bipartisanship is the highest principle'.

I am not joking about that either. Sinema will realize that the money that will flow in if she took that position would be multiples higher than what she has been getting playing Dem slayer so far. I think there is a real chance she has decided she will not seek re-election anyway and she might quietly look around for her exit job prospects, many of which will just be free gratitude money from the far right if she stops this nomination.

The more the Court is expanded the less power each and every individual has.

Currently you see each pick watched like it is a POTUS election and the games over that pick as if life and death. That was NEVER the intent and when Jurists acted less partisan it was not such a concern.

it is easier to find 2 Laggy's on the right who will vote consistently on my '10 Top Priorities' list. it is far harder to find 10 Laggy's who will be in line on all 10 items. The more people, the more dissent, the more people break away.

So absolutely yes, I think the Dems packing the court does a great service in lessening those problems and the GOP then re-packing helps even more.

I know people here, for some strange reason struggle to take learnings from extreme examples but a SC with 100 jurists 49% picked by the Dem's and 51% picked by the GOP is going to have more diversity and less party line votes than a SC with 3 GOP jurists and 2 Dem ones hand picked along ideological lines.

So I see your question, intended as a gotcha for Dem or those who would expand the court as just a naive and silly one.

Pack the Court., Then Pack it again. And pack it a 3rd and 4th time. Yes, yes, yes.

Biden said he would put a Black woman on the court.

I agree that the nominee will be further left than Garland.

I disagree with the bolded. If Breyer's seat was the difference between a liberal court and a conservative court, you might be right that Manchin and Sinema would hold out for a centrist as a way of furthering their personal brands. But that isn't the situation, and for that reason, I expect that they will vote to affirm any of the realistic nominees to the Court. And if one or the other does not, I can only assume that it means that person is switching parties.

Wasn't it a Black Trans Gender non binary person

Will see who Manchen Picks

Good point re it not be as crucial therefore the fight may not be as intense.

However neither Manchin nor Sinema could realistically switch parties. The GOP would love to entice them just to weaken a Dem Seat but then Trump would immediately do a call for Fealty, to flex on them and then drive a primary against them if they did not completely prostrate themselves in front of him. They would be completely isolated and alone in the GOP as former Dem defectors who are not real Trumpers or even real republicans.

If the spectre of Trump was not over hanging then, yes I could see that still being a more realistic consideration.

I don't always bet the chalk in these situations. But in this case, I am. I think it will be Ketanji Brown Jackson. She fulfills Biden's promise to nominate a black woman. She has the Harvard resume. She clerked for Breyer. She is currently a judge on the most high-profile Circuit Court in the country. She is young-ish for a nominee. And most importantly, she has already been thoroughly vetted, which reduces the risk that something embarrassing will bubble to the surface.

Given his current tenuous position, I doubt that Biden is looking for drama with this nomination. Most or all Republicans would reject her nomination, but the risk of internecine warfare within the party (i.e. with Manchin and Sinema) would be quite low.

I agree. The prospect of switching probably isn't that attractive to someone like Manchin or Sinema while Trump is on the scene.

I don't believe that I have ever mentioned this, but I had dinner with Kyrsten Sinema several years ago, back when she was in the House and much lower profile. (In case anyone is wondering, I was taking the place of a work colleague who had to cancel at the last second.) There were only four or five of us at dinner, so I ended up talking to her quite a bit. Based on those conversations, I would be very surprised if she refused to affirm a female nominee to the SCOTUS. Most of her complaints about being in Congress were about what a boys' club it was among both Republicans and Democrats. She implied that more women in Congress would make the institution better. I suspect that she feels the same about the Court, although we didn't discuss it.

Before anyone asks, I have never donated money to Sinema. And in fairness to her, she did not solicit donations. It wasn't a fundraiser.

i can understand you get that impression from Sinema but quiet frankly you would get that impression on almost all of her prior very progressive positions she espoused to get elected.

She was not just considered a Progressive but a radical progressive outsider. That is until she tasted power and easy money and the metamorphosis began.


I believe you believe she would not sell out her prior belief (re more women) but i honestly think for $5 and a coffee she would f*ck all women and condemn them as long as she got personal benefit. She is very much like Trump in that regard, imo.

From Radical Activist to Senate Obstructionist: The Metamorphosis of Kyrsten Sinema
Her rise is a political fairy tale—and nightmare.

By the time I met her, radical progressive outsider was not her brand. When she ran for reelection in 2014, she was one of five Democrats to be endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce, which is the largest lobbying group for business interests in the United States. If I am remembering correctly, I met her in 2015.

My comment didn't have much to do with her political views on issues that are especially important to women, although I think she has been reliable on abortion. It was more of a comment on her personality.

I don't think her political views have evolved much from the time I met her. She just has more power because she is a Senator and the Democratic margin in the Senate is small.