{"id":138343,"date":"2019-03-19T08:12:53","date_gmt":"2019-03-19T14:12:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/?p=138343"},"modified":"2019-03-19T08:12:53","modified_gmt":"2019-03-19T14:12:53","slug":"packing-the-supreme-court-again","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2019\/03\/19\/packing-the-supreme-court-again.html","title":{"rendered":"Packing the Supreme Court (again)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In 1937, Franklin Roosevelt, coming off of a massive electoral victory and irked that the Supreme Court had stood in the way of his New Deal on various occasions during his first term, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.history.com\/news\/franklin-roosevelt-tried-packing-supreme-court\">had legislation introduced<\/a> that would <a href=\"https:\/\/www.politico.com\/story\/2019\/02\/05\/fdr-court-packing-1937-1144296\">expand the number of seats on the Court<\/a>, which he would then be able to presumably appoint sympathetic justices to.<\/p>\n<p>(The size of SCOTUS is not dictated by the Constitution, but has been <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Judiciary_Act_of_1869\">fixed in law<\/a> at nine since 1869.)<\/p>\n<p>However, he did so in a clumsy and impolitic fashion, annoying some key Democrats who had to support the bill. That, and some other bad luck, led to the initiative&#8217;s eventual defeat, though he was in office long enough to craft a SCOTUS that would support his key policies.<\/p>\n<p>The Democrats in 2019 are toying with a similar idea. The concept is that Trump has taken advantage of GOP Senate shenanigans to start filling the high court with appointees that will carry on his policies for a generation to come. Only by diluting or countering those appointees can the Dems level the playing field (if not tilt it to their side).<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_138344\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-138344\" style=\"width: 650px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><a href=\"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/gorsuch-and-kavanaugh.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-large wp-image-138344\" title=\"gorsuch and kavanaugh\" src=\"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/gorsuch-and-kavanaugh-650x433.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"650\" height=\"433\" srcset=\"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/gorsuch-and-kavanaugh-650x433.jpg 650w, https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/gorsuch-and-kavanaugh-150x100.jpg 150w, https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/gorsuch-and-kavanaugh-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/gorsuch-and-kavanaugh-768x512.jpg 768w, https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/gorsuch-and-kavanaugh.jpg 1160w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 709px) 85vw, (max-width: 909px) 67vw, (max-width: 984px) 61vw, (max-width: 1362px) 45vw, 600px\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-138344\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Justices Gorsuch and Kavanugh<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>These GOP shenanigans in particular are used as justification for playing such a hardball tactic:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The GOP&#8217;s 2017 elimination of the filibuster\/cloture rules for SCOTUS appointees, meaning the simple Senate majority the GOP had could seat anyone they wanted. (The Dems had previously eliminated the filibuster for other federal court nominations in 2013, against GOP intransigence in passing any of Obama&#8217;s nominees.)<\/li>\n<li>The 2015 move by Mitch McConnell to block President Obama&#8217;s nomination of Merrick Garland, over a year before the next election, by simply not taking up his nomination.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Boy.<\/p>\n<p>On the one hand, the McConnell \/ GOP moves were naked politics, as outrageous and unfair and damaging to the politics and process as the suggestion by some Dems that a court-packing scheme is the best counter to Trump&#8217;s appointment of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh (and whomever else he manages to get in there over the next 1-5 years). And it&#8217;s hard to argue with them on that argument.<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, carrying on that tradition seems only liable to make things worse &#8212; and simply provides further justification for the GOP to do something even more extreme (&#8220;Eleven justices? Bah! We&#8217;ll make it 15 for Don, Junior&#8217;s first term!&#8221;). That way madness lies.<\/p>\n<p>On the still-other hand, the GOP has shown they will do anything in this arena. Being unwilling to counter it is to surrender the field. If only one side is willing to protect an institution, it&#8217;s not really being protected.<\/p>\n<p>All this is contingent, of course, on the Dems taking back the White House\u00a0<em>and<\/em> the Senate in 2020. That seems certainly possible at this stage, though by no means a lock, so this may all be just idle speculation.<\/p>\n<p>But expect to hear this question come up during presidential debates. And the Dems are going to have to have good answers to keep themselves from not looking like the villains of the piece.<\/p>\n<p><em>Do you want to know more?<\/em>\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.politico.com\/story\/2019\/03\/18\/2020-democrats-supreme-court-1223625\">2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court &#8211; POLITICO<\/a><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Dems are considering expanding SCOTUS to counter GOP shenanigans<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":138344,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_seopress_robots_follow":"","_seopress_robots_imageindex":"","_seopress_robots_snippet":"","_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_robots_breadcrumbs":"","_seopress_robots_freeze_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_custom_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_canonical":"","_seopress_social_fb_title":"","_seopress_social_fb_desc":"","_seopress_social_fb_img":"","_seopress_social_fb_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_height":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_title":"","_seopress_social_twitter_desc":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_height":0,"_seopress_redirections_value":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled_regex":"","_seopress_redirections_logged_status":"","_seopress_redirections_param":"","_seopress_redirections_type":0,"_seopress_analysis_target_kw":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1142,9,358,1071],"tags":[851],"class_list":["post-138343","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-elections-2020","category-politics-law","category-poor-citizenship","category-trump","tag-scotus"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/gorsuch-and-kavanaugh.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":31933,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2012\/12\/27\/scotus-declines-to-block-the-contraception-mandate-for-the-moment.html","url_meta":{"origin":138343,"position":0},"title":"SCOTUS declines to block the contraception mandate (for the moment)","author":"***Dave","date":"Thu 27-Dec-12 11:37pm","format":false,"excerpt":"Criminy sakes, people. \u00a0I have deep moral objections to a number of things that my tax dollars get spent on. Does that mean I get to wave my hanky and get the religious vapors and decline to pay my income tax? No, folks, it does not. \u00a0It means I render\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;~PlusPosts&quot;","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":37810,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2013\/06\/14\/sanity-from-scotus-and-intellectual-property-law-inconceivable.html","url_meta":{"origin":138343,"position":1},"title":"Sanity from SCOTUS and Intellectual Property law? Inconceivable!","author":"***Dave","date":"Fri 14-Jun-13 8:21am","format":false,"excerpt":"But true!The Supreme Court ruled (unanimously!) that a company could not patent the concept of a test for a naturally occurring gene it had isolated and identified\u00a0because, basically, that's nature and basic science, not an invention.Bravo. Supreme Court: Patents Require 'An Act of Invention' UPDATE: Just hours after the Supreme\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;~PlusPosts&quot;","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":27112,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2012\/03\/15\/scotus-and-political-decisions.html","url_meta":{"origin":138343,"position":2},"title":"SCOTUS and &quot;Political&quot; Decisions","author":"***Dave","date":"Thu 15-Mar-12 2:32pm","format":false,"excerpt":"It's probably unreasonable to expect any Supreme Court Justice to rule with Vulcan-like precision merely on the legal merits of a given case -- if for no other reason than that they are (a) human, and (b) cases that get to (and are accepted by) SCOTUS are rarely so clear\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;~PlusPosts&quot;","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":27307,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2012\/04\/02\/why-were-predictions-about-the-scotus-hearing-of-the-ppaca-so-wrong.html","url_meta":{"origin":138343,"position":3},"title":"Why were predictions about the SCOTUS hearing of the PPACA so wrong?","author":"***Dave","date":"Mon 2-Apr-12 9:30pm","format":false,"excerpt":"With the proviso that we don't yet actually know how they will vote, Steve Benan notes:\"When analysts expected a 7-2 or 8-1 ruling in support of the administration, they weren't just picking numbers out of thin air; this was a reasonable estimate based on everything we know about the court,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;~PlusPosts&quot;","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":26171,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2012\/02\/08\/will-scotus-take-up-the-prop-8-case.html","url_meta":{"origin":138343,"position":4},"title":"Will SCOTUS take up the Prop 8 case?","author":"***Dave","date":"Wed 8-Feb-12 8:17am","format":false,"excerpt":"Interestingly enough, by the panel ruling in such a narrow way (and focused solely on the case of California), the Supreme Court might well decline to accept any appeal that's made. #ddtbReshared post from +Talking Points MemoWhy Prop 8 might not go to the Supreme Court: Embedded Link Proposition 8:\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;~PlusPosts&quot;","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":23929,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2011\/11\/21\/prop-8-and-the-eventual-scotus-ruling.html","url_meta":{"origin":138343,"position":5},"title":"Prop 8 and the eventual SCOTUS ruling","author":"***Dave","date":"Mon 21-Nov-11 11:11am","format":false,"excerpt":"Everyone pretty much figures that the Nine Circuit will uphold the strike-down of Prop 8 in California, even with the proposition's supports granted standing by the California Supreme Court; the Ninth Circuit might not go along with that standing (Federal rules are more strict), but either way, it go to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;~PlusPosts&quot;","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138343","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=138343"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138343\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":138345,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138343\/revisions\/138345"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/138344"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138343"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138343"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138343"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}