Two Party Opera by Brian Carroll for October 28, 2020

I enjoyed seeing Taft along with multiple uses of the word “expanding.” Well played, Brian!

Apropos of nothing here, maybe: Why do we need all those extra, separate states? Why not give all that extra land to the already existing thirteen? Expand their borders westward to the Pacific Ocean so the states look like very long strips. Simplify matters. The resulting map would look interesting. Just a few state governments to contend with. Those few state governors could handle things, right? Pick and choose what issues they need address. Just like the Supremes pick and choose, then pontificate upon what issues to address regarding the simple concerns of 300 million-plus citizens and non-citizens. No need to stretch the Constitution: One size fits all. Happy Halloween. (— (—

I think that ‘precedent’ died in 2016. The Republicans are making willy-nilly changes to grab and hold power and the Democrats need to counter. Why not pack the court and pass a bill making it the final expansion requiring a 2/3 majority to over-turn.

I question the legitimacy of Amy Barret’s appointment, since she was never properly voted out of committee. I wonder if she can be recalled on that point. Obviously, there will be no discussion unless the Democrats can take back the Senate.

A minority is shaping the country for the next few decades, you can’t let that pass because of wanting to be the better party. I’m all for the “if they go low, we go high” thing, but there’s only so much you should tolerate. Finally with the squad and others we have some with cajones. These wimens scare the shite of of the impotent cucks of the gop… therefore rendering them brainless. They had poor beer brain Brett snivelling and blubbering, donnie diapers couldn’t last 40mins. with Leslie Stahl.

Add judges, end gerrymandering, add states if possible. Playing nice isn’t going to cut it no more. Amend the electoral college, over turn “Citizens United”, and have the IRS investigate the billions in tax dodges from the 1%.

Then in February:

Uncap the House seat limit

End Gerrymandering via Nonpartisan Districting Commissions

Nationwide Ranked Choice Voting

Ending Caucuses in primaries

Diverted Profits Tax

Campaign finance limits

-that will get us back on the road to a representative democracy.

As I posted elsewhere, I do hope the number of justices is expanded. I would go for a prime number, like 17.

The main reason to do so is that filling a vacant court position should not be this stressful.

The next question would be how many positions should be filled in one Presidential term. I would say no more than 3 (remember we are talking about 17 justices not 9). That however, would require a constitutional amendment since politicians cannot be trusted to behave honorably.

Vote out the republican fudge packers.

While FDR’s court packing gambit failed miserably, there were two, shall we say, unintended results. First, the court packing idea resulted from SCOTUS’s overturning of some extremely popular New Deal policies. The next terms saw a turn-around of SCOTUS judgments in favor of New Deal policies (the Justices weren’t blind to public opinion). Second, FDR served for 12 years and that was long enough for him to appoint 8 of the 9 by the time he died in 1945. “He who laughs last, laughs best.”

Is it wrong? Depends on your ideology and who happens to be in office at the moment.

No, you cannot impose time limits, age limits, rotate them to the lower courts or limit the number of Justices appointed by a POTUS. Not via legislation. Those changes must come through an Amendment to the Constitution.

You can change the number of Justices through legislation. Never mind the filibuster rule in the Senate. That is only a rule. Not a law, not a Constitutional provision.

I don’t think we can even look at this question as a right/wrong issue. More appropriate is whether or not it is a wise choice. Short term? Long term?

Do we want to see a cycle of dueling increases over the next 3-4 decades? Each time one party gains the ability it will pack the Court to nullify the actions of prior administration appointments. How many is too many?

And what if a future legislature decides to reduce the number? They can make the change but they cannot remove the sitting Justices. The Constitution makes no provision for removing or demoting a Justice aside for “good Behaviour”. The nation would have to wait as the Justices died or retired. It could be decades before the reduction was completely implemented.

Wrong? No. Foolish? I think so. Potentially harmful to the purpose and stability of the Judicial Branch? I would say yes.

FDR’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court did cause the switch in time that saved nine — Owen Roberts. Further, there are thirteen appellate districts, so there should be thirteen justices. Still, only Congress can change the number. In FDR’s case, he initiated it. Surely Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are just waiting for a Democratic Congress to pass it.

Term Limits are better than Age Limits in this case.

I would not complain if Supremes had to appear on the Ballot every 4 years with the Question:

Should Justice XXXX Continue to serve on the court or be Replaced?

Re the debate over revamping the Electoral College (via Constitutional Amendment — this notion would take more than one). Popular vote by congressional district gets an Elector pledged to the specific candidate, with two additional Electors, also so pledged, to the overall popular vote in the state. Also, treat the top two (by population) territories (Puerto Rico and (?)Virgin Islands/American Samoa(?) the same as DC, with three Electoral votes each.