Democrats plan to add 4 Justices to Supreme Court

[SB Shock]

This is the another step in trying to becoming Venezuela.

Congressional Democrats plan to unveil legislation expanding the size of the Supreme Court on Thursday, according to three congressional sources familiar with the closely held measure.

The bill would add four seats to the high court, bringing the total to 13 from the current nine. The bill is led by House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, subcommittee Chair Hank Johnson, and first-term Rep. Mondaire Jones. In the Senate, the bill is being championed by Ed Markey of Massachusetts.

https://theintercept.com/2021/04/14/house-and-senate-democrats-plan-bill-to-add-four-justices-to-supreme-court/

[wufan]

I’m going to support succession if they put four new justices on the court before 2025.

[SubGod22]

This is how you provoke civil uprisings. Our shitty ideas are so bad that we can't force things through, but if we expand the court and stack them with ultra liberal judges, we can officially ruin the country and push unconstitutional agendas.

I'd rather support the leftist desire to end the police. That way, nobody would be around to enforce all of the new taxes and laws they want to implement.

[Kel Varnsen]

This is a working theory, but I'd almost rather live in a society controlled by the Italian mafia than one controlled by these lunatics.

The mob at least has a limit. They want money, and while they also want power, it's not near the type of power over your life that these folks want.

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

This is so stupid. My only hope is that they don't have support for such a hair brained idea. Also, I think they should be careful as doing stuff like this will likely alienate moderate swing voters with their eyes on the 2022 mid-terms. Could come back to bite them hard.

[RoyalShock]

I wouldn't be totally opposed to this, as long as it would take, at a minimum, four DIFFERENT administrations to get there (so 13 years, at a minimum if no reelections), so that one administration can't select them all.

But then, of course, they wouldn't care to do it at all and just drop it. So lets just stay at nine. Nine is plenty.

As long as they didn't buy Joe Manchin's vote with the appointment of his wife, this probably wouldn't get past the Senate.

[ShockerPrez]

I wouldn't be totally opposed to this, as long as it would take, at a minimum, four DIFFERENT administrations to get there (so 13 years, at a minimum if no reelections), so that one administration can't select them all.

But then, of course, they wouldn't care to do it at all and just drop it. So lets just stay at nine. Nine is plenty.

As long as they didn't buy Joe Manchin's vote with the appointment of his wife, this probably wouldn't get past the Senate.

Haha, I could see them agreeing to this, then Biden nominates and promptly resigns, then Kamala nominates, resigns, then the next and you'd have 4 admins before 2024.

[1979Shocker]

Democratic leaders throw cold water on proposal to expand Supreme Court (msn.com)

[ShockerPrez]

This needs to be something every conservative candidate must always reference. It doesn't have to be front and center just a "Let's not forget that the Dems tried to pack the courts and usurp a 3rd of the U.S. government." at some point during every public appearance would be sufficient.

They need to be hammered for it.

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

The dems continue to try and re-write the constitution to fit their agenda without regard for the fundamental structure of the US government as it was intended.

[WuDrWu]

This seems very contrived to me.

[SubGod22]

Apparently it's been shot down by Dem leaders. Biden has been absolutely against it for decades, not that he'd remember.

[Shockm]

It's all a show to intimidate the SCOTUS to make decisions that Democrats want on trans issues, etc. and if they don't the court knows what could happen. Chief Justice Roberts isn't difficult to intimidate, and views the history of the court as more important than right and wrong. The bad thing is that the new Court members look at the Constitution, and their consciences, instead of issues. They vote more with liberals than liberals ever vote the other way. Liberal justices only see their views of issues, and don't consult the Constitution at all. It's all pretty one sided, but the new justices have right and wrong on their side imo.

Another part of the strategy is that they move the public toward a compromise solution of term limits etc. When FDR threatened court packing, he didn't get his way, but the court changed for a generation, voting more for changes in society instead for whether the Constitution was being followed. Recent nominees to the court have changed these ways of thinking so the Democrats are threatening them again.

Kansas has an activist SC that for example sees. abortion in the writing of the Constitution (actually they have changed the document), even though it's never mentioned in the document.

[WuDrWu]

I disagree. I think it's a complete set up.

Biden says a group will study it. All that means is they are going to find out which pieces of bullshit the American people will buy at least 51-49.

Dems appease their radical base by initiating the move now, knowing damn good and well it's not going anywhere.

Now they'll spend the next few months convincing us they 1)didn't pander to the progressives 2)moderates control the party 3)they'll find the talking points that people will buy justifying expansion and then 4) justify ending the filibuster because the GOP are obstructionists. 5) Will of the people.

#Watchem All before November.

[Shockm]

I disagree. I think it's a complete set up.

Biden says a group will study it. All that means is they are going to find out which pieces of bullshit the American people will buy at least 51-49.

Dems appease their radical base by initiating the move now, knowing damn good and well it's not going anywhere.

Now they'll spend the next few months convincing us they 1)didn't pander to the progressives 2)moderates control the party 3)they'll find the talking points that people will buy justifying expansion and then 4) justify ending the filibuster because the GOP are obstructionists. 5) Will of the people.

#Watchem All before November.

Well if Manchin votes to end the filibuster, he will lose his next election. He is a protege of Conservative Democrat Robert Byrd, and he won’t last his next election if he bows down to the Democrats and ends the filibuster. West Virginia was overwhelmingly on board (over 20%) with Trump about the same as Kansas.

Manchin will vote with Dems on many things, but I don’t think ending the filibuster and changing the Constitution is one of them.