Dear Democrats, pack the court and nuke the filibuster. I dare you

https://spectator.us/dear-democrats-pack-court-nuke-filibuster-dare/

- Stephen L. Miller

I agree with him that leftists haven't thought through the long-term implications of nuking the legislative filibuster.

 

Oh the new and approved Midnight Judges Act will be popcorn worthy if the dems pack the Court.

 

Politics has nothing to do with long term thinking. I often wonder if it has anything to do with thinking at all.

 

I dunno. If I a Democrat, interested in getting and maintaining power for the foreseeable future, it sounds like a pretty good idea.

Consider: If the Democrats run the table this election and keep the House, and win the Senate and White House, why not pack the court? There is only a danger to that if there is a chance that the GOP will be back in power next election. But if the Democrats get their agenda through, with a Supreme Court that no longer bases it's decisions on the Constitution and instead bases it on Partisan interests, they get DC and or Puerto Rico as a state, and legalize millions of illegals, it's unlikely the Republicans will ever win a national election in our lifetimes.

That was going to happen anyway due to demographics, but all of these actions could speed it up to make it happen by 2024.

 

Consider it already done....

republicans stole the court, dems will steal it back

 

Republicans didn't "steal" anything. They've successfully nominated and confirmed several justices, following the procedure outlined in the Constitution.

 

and dems won't steal it either, they will follow the rules too, just like republicans did when they lowered the vote to 50 and denied Obama's pick a vote

can't get mad at either part for following the rules.... right

 

If they get the votes to do that, I won't have any way to stop them. Personally, I doubt they'll have the votes to do it, even if they win a Senate majority.

 

we will see, I bet they will though

 

Yep. Everyone following the rules.

 

Reid didn't kill the fillibuster rule for supreme court nominees Mitch the RICH BITCH did.

 

Yes, but Reid was the first to employ the "nuclear option", and I doubt Senator McConnell would have had the votes to do it, had Reid not done it first. You understand that, right?

 

First, the filibuster:
In its current form it needs to be eliminated and, for that, you can thank Republican abuse over the last 15 years of the current method.

I propose returning the filibuster to its original form and intent . Take the well and talk. Talk for as long as you want or can given no assistance and no breaks. All Senate business stops during the filibuster. The filibuster ends when the speaker yields the floor (via various methods) or when a cloture vote succeeds with a 2/3 majority of those present. The filibuster was never intended as a means to simply kill legislation. Rather, it provided a last second platform for the minority on a given motion to argue their case and possibly change some votes. In its current form the "good intent" was to allow the effect of a filibuster w/o incurring the stoppage and thus, supposedly, smoothe Senate operations.

We've seen ho Republicans killed that particular golden goose.

Another possible benefit to returning to the original form would be a lessening of "poison pill" amendments. In both houses people are writing bills and amendments they know won't get past the speaker or won't get past the filibuster. But what if the filibuster had a finite time limit? Then, there's a chance that poison pill could get passed and turn into an albatross. this is not a certainty but one can hope.

Retaliate away.

SCOTUS is next

 

yes, and repubs benefited from that too

same will be true of the repubs change to 50 votes for SC judges

and the dems change to raise seats will also benifit repubs

everyone just following the rules, that is all anyone cares about, if it's constitutional, they can do it

 

And Democrats will add new justices as outlined in the constitution, right after they implement the Wyoming rule and mandate gerrymandering laws to capture the house, add a few states to capture the senate — and the presidency falls in line with those actions.

It is all perfectly legal and that seems to be the new Republican mantra, norms ethics and integrity be damned.

 

How many votes in the senate are required to add a new justice... Looks to be only a simple majority

 

There is no packing the court, only enshrining a new convention that whenever Congress changes hands so does SCOTUS.

 

Well, currently, passing a law to change the size of the Supreme Court would require a cloture vote, with 60 supporters (a.k.a. "the filibuster"). There's talk of the dems using the nuclear option again to eliminate the filibuster. But, more fundamentally, I think you misunderstood my point: even if there are 52 or 53 dem senators come January, I don't think they'll all unanimously support nuking the filibuster nor packing the court. There will be moderates, like Manchin and Synema, and others who will balk at those ideas. For that matter, I'm not even certain a court-packing law would get through the d-controlled House.

 

If you look closely at what Biden has said, he will never add justices to the SC.

It makes sense, but he's too conservative..

On the plus side, he's not a sociopathic racist.

 

Stealing is against the Law, What Constitutional Law did the Republicans break.

 

And the Republicans will flame you back..

You happy now?

 

Is it relevant that when Trump won, Republicans held the Senate and House, and did not exercise that power to pack the court?

 

and dems will not be 'stealing' adding seats, both are constitutional

both parties just following the rules

 

who cares, we will just say dems are following the rules, same as when republicans did it

 

yep, they did, they changed the votes to 50 and denied Obama's pick a vote and give a vote to Trump's pick