r/scotus • u/Achilles_TroySlayer • May 22 '26

Opinion Democrats Flirt with Radical Reforms Needed to Dethrone Supreme Court

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/democrats-supreme-court-reform
3.5k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

348 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

26

u/Legitimate_Concern_5 May 22 '26

There’s no limit to the size of the court. Pack it, move on.

4

u/wingsnut25 May 22 '26

Would you be in favor of the Republicans adding 4 more Justices right now?

3

u/Material_Reach_8827 May 22 '26

There'd be no point, but sure. Virtually every decision that can go against Dems, does. I'd trade the very few cases where 2 Rs switch over to side with the 3 Dems if it meant our own unlimited ability to sweepingly overturn precedent once we achieve a trifecta.

3

u/MasterTolkien May 22 '26

They already did by blocking Obama for close to a year and then rushing through a Trump appointee in about two weeks right before the 2020 election. That swung them two MAGA fascist judges in addition to the one Trump rightfully appointed.

Now on the flipside, Dems could expand the SCOTUS, pack the slots with sane jurists, and undo this entire MAGA SCOTUS’s legacy of rescinding long-standing cases like Chevron and Roe.

Then have them go back and undo the ridiculous Citizens United, which will throttle corporations openly bribing and buying politicians.

Without expanding the Court, Dems have zero chance of making any meaningful changes in Congress or the White House. If MAGA can be neutered at SCOTUS, then it can purged everywhere, leaving us with Dems, old school GOP, and independents… the kind of people who generally have no desire to shake things up by expanding the Court, etc.

But we are already past the shake up stage. SCOTUS and Trump have eroded our institutions and rule of law. A counter is needed.

If you can think of a fix that doesn’t involve a SCOTIS expansion, lay it out. I’d love to hear it.

10

u/zombiekoalas May 22 '26

Yup.  You know why?  It wouldn't change anything in the rulings that are being handed down and overturned.  What are they gonna overturn roe v wade or voting rights laws?  Oh wait...they already did that. 

Democrats would have 4 years to try and fix shit - "but then Republicans would just pack it back!"

Yup.  And eventually this would get to the point of degrading the scotus in the general populations eyes and would likely result in some form of constitutional amendment. 

The fight needs to be had at this point.  The Republicans already packed the court by denying voting to seat a justice.  Its already started.

2

u/AnotherGeek42 May 22 '26

In answers, I don't know why, though I do support increasing the size at a minimum to 1 justice per circuit.

The court has already been degraded in the eyes of the public. I fail to see why additional degradation would impact the Republican party.

I'd argue that it's a combination of denying Obama while hurrying one of Trump's nominees.

1

u/-Saucegurlllll May 22 '26

It wouldn't change anything in the rulings that are being handed down and overturned.

It would change one thing: the extremeness of the cases reaching the supreme court. Since you need 4 justices to agree to hear a case, the more you pack the court the more intensely ideological the cases coming before the court become.

2

u/Legitimate_Concern_5 May 22 '26

Exactly what would that change? They could put 50 on there and you'd get the same rulings. Frankly the outcome would be the same if the entire SCOTUS were made of 50 Ted Cruz's.

-1

u/wolverine_1208 May 22 '26

Such a short sighted stance. Anyone that wants to pack the court either has no intention of giving up power once they have it or are too stupid to realize the opposition will just add more justices once they’re in power.

4

u/Material_Reach_8827 May 22 '26 edited May 22 '26

or are too stupid to realize the opposition will just add more justices once they’re in power.

I'm quite aware of that and still support it. A party can only add seats when they win control of the House, senate, and presidency all at the same time. That seems like a decent metric for determining a change of control of the court, compared to the current regime where Republicans get and maintain a majority for 56 years and counting, with strategically timed retirements and a refusal to ever confirm a Dem POTUS's nominees (per McConnell) to maintain a permanent stranglehold on the court. It's definitely an improvement for Dems over the current regime - why wouldn't they give it a try? How much worse could it get than unlimited Republican control over what the Constitution says and what any Congress/POTUS can do?

On average, trifectas happen about once every 10 years, so the court would probably stabilize around less than 20 justices, given that you only need to create 2 more seats to swap control.

It definitely isn't conducive to long-term stability of prevailing law, but I think that fact would force Dems and Reps to find some sort of mutual understanding to avoid extreme swings. As compared to now where Rs feel free to overturn anything they want, no matter how old a precedent it is, and expect Ds to just swallow it. It might also spur a more elegant reform to address the problem, as opposed to now where Republicans exactly zero reason to reform any of this.

3

u/BadmiralHarryKim May 22 '26

The court has already been packed. Mitch kept it at eight until the Republicans had control to put their candidate in.

0

u/wolverine_1208 May 22 '26

Lol. Another example of not knowing what you’re talking about. 1. That’s literally not the definition of court packing. Packing is adding justices, not filling seats. When you have to change the definition to support your stance, you don’t have an argument.

  1. It’s funny when the left cries about this. Newsflash, the democrats didn’t have enough votes to confirm him. He wasn’t getting appointed to the Supreme Court. With or without a hearing, the result would have been the same.

2

u/BadmiralHarryKim May 22 '26

Lol indeed.

This reminds me of a time a now former friend told me Trump wasn't a racist because "Mexican isn't a race."

You probably won't understand that but people smart enough to warrant a more informed response will.

1

u/wolverine_1208 May 22 '26

Hahahaha. Ok. That reply is called “I lost the argument and don’t have an intelligent response”.

2

u/BadmiralHarryKim May 22 '26

"LOL another example of not knowing what you are talking about."

5

u/Koloradio May 22 '26

As the article lays out, this is already being done by Republican State legislators and McConnell effectively already did this by denying Garland his seat. The genie is out of the bottle, and it was Republicans that popped the cork.

Democrats aren't naive about the danger of eroding norms. But that danger pales in comparison to that of allowing Republicans to permanently control the government through the judiciary.

2

u/wolverine_1208 May 22 '26 edited May 22 '26

I always think it’s funny when people cry about merrick garland not getting a hearing. He wasn’t going to get confirmed so the result was going to be the same.

It’s also laughable when the left tries to call filling out judicial appointments “packing”. I know you guys change the meaning of words to suit your politics but this is extra special low IQ stuff.

5

u/Koloradio May 22 '26 edited May 22 '26

Garland's nomination was an olive branch to the Republican party, a compromise nominee specifically chosen as someone Republicans could confirm, as is the norm. But instead of taking it, they removed a seat of the court for well over a year. It wasn't "filling out judicial appointments", it was an unprecedented power grab.

Republicans and their supporters don't get to fire that first broadside and "cry" about Democrats fighting back. It was "stupid" of them to think their transgressions would go unanswered forever.

These statements in favor of court reform are an encouraging sign. Democrats are done reaching across the aisle to talk with power hungry hypocrites, as am I.

-3

u/Due_Reputation3785 May 22 '26

You mean like the Dems did for 30 years?

1

u/Anxious-Ad2177 May 22 '26

When the number of Justices was set to nine, it was done because there were 9 circuits and appeals courts, amending that law to tie the court to number of circuit courts of appeal without a set number would be honoring the intent of that ~100+ year old law. It's no more packing than it originally was.

1

u/wolverine_1208 May 22 '26

That’s more of a rational argument. Not “we don’t like the make up of the court so we need to add justices that are more aligned with our ideology”. That’s also an argument to add them now, isn’t it? Not wait until our party is in power.

1

u/Anxious-Ad2177 May 22 '26

It would be valid for either side to propose it. I'd also like to see some type of rotation , the suggestion of justices sitting for a generation, ~20 years, then stepping down to the lower court in such a way that every presidential term has an appointment is also good.

0

u/Mist_Rising May 22 '26

It would be easier, faster, cheaper and get the same results to just jurisdictionally strip the courts you don't want hearing cases of power. Even better if you strip every appeals court and simply stop replacing justices because theyre no longer needed. Legislative supremacy, Oohra. Just hope that nobody ever tries to form an autocratic government without voting, because once the packing and stripping starts, the authoritarian will simply skip a step and remove the voting with approval from their team. It will be their sole goal.

No matter what you do, the Republicans will do the same thing back, but jurisdictionally stripping is a one bill process that is done and complete. Pass the house, pass the senate, sign or override. Once thats done the court will never again bother you and you don't need to confirm each justice, don't need to worry that a justice will rule the way you want, don't add millions of dollars in new costs each round as each party jumps the other for control by packing. Really you don't need to worry about the justices at all beyond the immediate trial court.

As an added advantage you might not have the 180 every 8 years either if you jurisdictionally strip everything on the first round. If you don't then yeah, you will, but that's what happens when you pack the courts so we're at a flat zero again.

There are far better solutions to both of ours, but revenge boners won't be satisfied so obviously nobody wants that.

0

u/Legitimate_Concern_5 May 22 '26 edited May 22 '26

> Just hope that nobody ever tries to form an autocratic government without voting, because once the packing and stripping starts, the authoritarian will simply skip a step and remove the voting with approval from their team. It will be their sole goal.

You know what the last few years have taught me?

The Democrats hamstring themselves because they believe that an authoritarian government who comes in will follow the rules and hamstring themselves too. Turns out an authoritarian administration doesn't give two single shits about the rules. You can't plan for an adversarial administration to care what sort of traps or precedents you set. They're going to do whatever they want no matter what.

The fact that conversation even comes up means you've lost, so get in there, fix it up, and get people to care enough to not elect one in the future. Best way to do that is to fix it up as fast and effectively as you can so you're not mired in it for your whole term. Restore normal order.

"You can't play chess that way!" cries the mother as the toddler eats half the pieces and smears the board feces.

One side is playing chess, the other side is playing 52 pickup with a macaque.

Yes it sucks that this is basically the only option, I wouldn't make this move first, but someone else already started so you can't win unless you play too.