Court Expansion / Adding PR and DC as States

[Orale 1087]

Thought this deserved its own thread as this will soon be the defining political issue of our time. Assuming Barrett is a fait accompli, the question will be how Democrats respond should they take the Senate and WH. Do they dispense with the filibuster and add two, four, or more SC seats? I heard a podcast yesterday where doubling or even tripling the number of SC justices was entertained based on the view that the court would be less politicized and ideological if a nomination was unlikely to significantly sway the court's ideological composition. Likewise, how realistic is adding PR and/or DC as states and what are the pros and cons?

A 6-3 court could potentially overturn any major Democratic legislation for decades if Democrats do not add justices. What's the point of holding the trifecta if your major legislation is repeatedly shot down by the SC. I don't see the advantage of adding two seats versus four as two only gets you to a 6-5 minority. Republicans are going to scream and howl regardless of the number, so might as well go for the 6-7 majority IMO. Same for adding DC and PR as states. Again, Republicans would scream bloody murder, but fuck em and their insincere protestations. 

The fear of course is that the traditionalists/moderates in the Democratic party will sabotage these efforts for fear of upsetting "bi-partisanship" and the way things have always been done. In my view, any Democratic member of the Senate/House that doesn't go along should be primaried. I'm tired of scared milquetoast Democrats too afraid to fight fire with fire.

Some fear that Republicans will respond in kind should they ever win the trifecta again. However, there are no conservative states they could add, so adding DC and PR is a no-lose proposition. Likewise, it wouldn't be a bad thing, IMO, if Republicans add additional SC seats in the future because that would further dilute the power of individual SC seats. The more justices on the court, the better. 

[Mo Horn 8807]

I'll go on record and say yes on statehood for both, or at least give them voting representation in Congress. If you pay any taxes that benefit the U.S., you deserve representation. No on expanding the court. 

[Born to Run 6567]

These types of discussions will allow Trump to win. Take office and then start unfucking the worst fuckery first. When you've done that, you can start correcting further. Without power it's pointless.

My boy Beto can say "Hell yeah I'm gonna take your guns". He's chillin in El Paso and isn't doing shit. But he rallied the gun nuts.

There are plenty of issues to run on that a huge majority of the country are motivated to vote for in This cycle without pushing and creating more wedge issues.

[CooterBrown 17907]

Puerto Rico and the USVI should be combined as a Caribbean state and the Pacific Territories as a 52nd state. The idea that some Americans don’t have full rights should be abhorrent to any other American.

[Orale 1087]

19 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

These types of discussions will allow Trump to win. Take office and then start unfucking the worst fuckery first. When you've done that, you can start correcting further. Without power it's pointless.

My boy Beto can say "Hell yeah I'm gonna take your guns". He's chillin in El Paso and isn't doing shit. But he rallied the gun nuts.

There are plenty of issues to run on that a huge majority of the country are motivated to vote for in This cycle without pushing and creating more wedge issues.

I agree with regards to Biden and elected Democrats. I think it's pretty safe to discuss it on an obscure football forum political board without tilting the election for Trump. 

[washparkhorn 9935]

13 Federal Circuit Courts = 13 Supreme Court Justices.

The number of Justices has changed over time. 9 is not a magic number.  

Not a big deal. 

[Orale 1087]

6 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

13 Federal Circuit Courts = 13 Supreme Court Justices.

The number of Justices has changed over time. 9 is not a magic number.  

Not a big deal. 

I would add that Republicans effectively reduced the number of justices from 9 to 8 for the bulk of Obama's last year in office. 

[Celery Man 20886]

can't break a system that's already broke. pack it on up

[Zonahorn 8079]

Y'all know we still have Pacific Island territories right?

[StassneyHorn 6538]

And they’re all military right?

[TKthunder2 4980]

19 hours ago, CooterBrown said:

Puerto Rico and the USVI should be combined as a Caribbean state and the Pacific Territories as a 52nd state. The idea that some Americans don’t have full rights should be abhorrent to any other American.

Caribbean/PR/USVI as 51st - Yes they would be about as populated as Utah and come in around #30.  While they don’t have a ton of land (would be our 4th smallest state) they have lots of people and drastically different needs that no other state could reasonably assist with.

Pacific Territories - No, they’d be our smallest state in population and 3rd smallest in size; if they want representation then they should be rolled into the state of Hawaii, even all together they’d be only 41st in population, and 42nd in size.  And while they have some different needs, generally the same problems they face have and can be resolved by working with Hawaii.

DC - Hell No (keep the National Mall White House, Capital as DC but no one should be allowed to live there other than officials who can still vote in their home states, and roll the rest of the area into Maryland like they did with Arlington and Virginia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocession )
 

I wish they would just decide to combine states like the Dakotas, Idaho/Montana, Colorado/Wyoming or Rhode Island/Connecticut, Vermont/NH/Maine, Delaware/Maryland where they don’t have vastly different needs and are simply separate for few tangible reasons other than history.  But I know it will never happen due to politics on both sides.

[Biff Tannen 45494]

7 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

DC - Hell No (keep the National Mall White House, Capital as DC but no one should be allowed to live there other than officials who can still vote in their home states

You just gonna tell the residents to move or what?

[ztejas 43266]

Lol.

 

[TKthunder2 4980]

31 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

You just gonna tell the residents to move or what?

Did you stop reading half way through the sentence?

 

“and roll the rest of the area into Maryland like they did with Arlington and Virginia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocession )“

[tantric superman 4667]

Once we overruled Dred Scott I was okay with the court. 

Talking about changing the number of judges in the court is just a free political gift to Republicans with no long term upside.

[Biff Tannen 45494]

17 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Did you stop reading half way through the sentence?

 

“and roll the rest of the area into Maryland like they did with Arlington and Virginia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocession )“

Apparently 

[tantric superman 4667]

21 hours ago, Orale said:

A 6-3 court could potentially overturn any major Democratic legislation for decades if Democrats do not add justices. What's the point of holding the trifecta if your major legislation is repeatedly shot down by the SC.

The point is the separation of powers and its tendency to show that elections matter. 

[Orale 1087]

10 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

The point is the separation of powers and its tendency to show that elections matter. 

I'm for separation of powers. I just want to alter the make up of one of the powers, as allowed by the Constitution. 

[Biff Tannen 45494]

11 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

The point is the separation of powers and its tendency to show that elections matter. 

In a functioning democracy, sure. But republicans have shown that elections only matter when you have both parties operate in good faith. The way it is now, elections only matter when republicans “win”. 

[lemonlime 5503]

24 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

The point is the separation of powers and its tendency to show that elections matter. 

Sure. But elections don't matter now.  We have a so-called president who lost the popular vote.  A Senate controlled by the party who had less votes.  And a SCOTUS is which four (soon to be five) of the justices were appointed by a president who lost the popular vote. Right now the party with less votes controls two, arguably all three, branches of government.  We need to make elections actually matter again before worrying decorum.

[Biff Tannen 45494]

1 hour ago, lemonlime said:

Sure. But elections don't matter now.  We have a so-called president who lost the popular vote.  A Senate controlled by the party who had less votes.  And a SCOTUS is which four (soon to be five) of the justices were appointed by a president who lost the popular vote. Right now the party with less votes controls two, arguably all three, branches of government.  We need to make elections actually matter again before worrying decorum.

To further the point, they have gamed the system to where if the party with the most votes is in power, they still don't actually have power, if they are Democrats.  Republicans don't play by the established rules, so the rules are meaningless.  This is why Dems have to nut up and play the dirty game they have been forced into.

[Francisco 2.0 32334]

I think the bigger question here is if this were fall 2012 and Obama had truly been the most divisive President in our history, and was polling poorly compared to Romney, and had an impending 6-3 SC majority on his way out....What would the Republican Party do in order to unfuck everything Obama (and Team D) had done for 4 years?

The answer to this is anything and everything.  Hell, look at what they have done since they took the Senate back in 2014 alone.  Team R doesn't give a shit about optics, or law, or polling, or any of that.   Holding on to power, no matter what the cost.  And if they happen to lose something, well, sit back, reload, and triple down next time.  It just might work.

Democrats just don't have that in their DNA.  If they did, we might have had 52 states long ago, along with a number of other things.  But polling, being afraid of the media, whatnot have all stopped them just short of what they really needed to do.  

I can't believe this is even a debate.   Because assuming a Biden win, along with both houses of Congress...they have 2 years before Fox, OAN, Trump, whatever rallies enough up at the midterms to potentially take back the House.  No half measures, because at least 40% are against every single fucking thing they will do.

Strike while the iron is hot.

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

9 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Sure. But elections don't matter now.  We have a so-called president who lost the popular vote.  A Senate controlled by the party who had less votes.  And a SCOTUS is which four (soon to be five) of the justices were appointed by a president who lost the popular vote. Right now the party with less votes controls two, arguably all three, branches of government.  We need to make elections actually matter again before worrying decorum.

Well did you think the whites were just gonna roll over and give up their control of the country without any fight whatsoever? Basically this day of reckoning was inevitable. 

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2630]

Packing the courts is going to come back to haunt us. Might not be for another 25 years, but it will. 
 

yea to PR, assuming they vote “yes” to becoming a state. 
 

no on dc. As others have said, divide the populated areas between dc and Virginia. 
 

im torn on the pacific territories and usvi.   Have the locals been asked recently what they prefer?  

[Orale 1087]

43 minutes ago, Xian said:

Packing the courts is going to come back to haunt us. Might not be for another 25 years, but it will. 

Democracy is facing an existential threat right now. We can worry about it haunting us 25 years from now, 25 years from now. Though I'm curious of the basis for that assertion. 

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2630]

4 minutes ago, Orale said:

Democracy is facing an existential threat right now. We can worry about it haunting us 25 years from now, 25 years from now. Though I'm curious of the basis for that assertion. 

A repeat of first trumps first two years.  A racist authoritarian comes to power and their party controls Congress.   Giving them the ability to truly pack the courts is a scary thought. 
 

I would rather not open that possible Pandora’s box 

Edited September 27, 2020 by Xian

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2630]

52 minutes ago, Xian said:

no on dc. As others have said, divide the populated areas between dc and Virginia. 

That should read Maryland and Virginia... sorry. Was distracted by football and a small child. 

[Biff Tannen 45494]

1 hour ago, Xian said:

Giving them the ability to truly pack the courts is a scary thought. 

This ability exists now.

[tantric superman 4667]

3 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

In a functioning democracy, sure. But republicans have shown that elections only matter when you have both parties operate in good faith. The way it is now, elections only matter when republicans “win”. 

The winning the House didn't matter?  Did the Republicans still control the House committees?

The anti-Democratic costs of the Senate setup far outweigh its the utility that set up may have had when the nation was founded.  Similarly, there is no logic to the Electoral College that I can see and only room for mischief.  Those are great arguments and should be debated on their own terms. 

If Americans value "good faith" such as it is, they should consider that in voting.  A democracy SHOULD reward bad faith if that is what it's moronic citizens want. 

[Biff Tannen 45494]

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

A democracy SHOULD reward bad faith if that is what it's moronic citizens want. 

Sure, but the citizens have shown that they DON'T want that, as evidenced by the popular vote over and over.  And yet here we are.  We are kind of arguing the same point I think.

[tantric superman 4667]

1 hour ago, Orale said:

Democracy is facing an existential threat right now.

Actually, the earth is facing an existential threat.

The Dems are facing a pretty straightforward electoral threat because, at least here in Texas, the best candidates they tend to throw out in the most critical races in recent years are a 77 year old guy well past his prime, a young guy with charisma and an idiotic streak when it comes to the 2nd amendment, and a helicopter pilot who may get around to actually competing for her Senate seat sometime in October, maybe.

[tantric superman 4667]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

Sure, but the citizens have shown that they DON'T want that, as evidenced by the popular vote over and over.

How many presidential races in your lifetime have been decided way in your lifetime?  Less than 5, which is a function of one particular outdated rule regarding that particular race.

Every single other elected official has won in a popular vote. 

 

[DanRydell 799]

3 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

I think the bigger question here is if this were fall 2012 and Obama had truly been the most divisive President in our history, and was polling poorly compared to Romney, and had an impending 6-3 SC majority on his way out....What would the Republican Party do in order to unfuck everything Obama (and Team D) had done for 4 years?

The answer to this is anything and everything.  Hell, look at what they have done since they took the Senate back in 2014 alone.  Team R doesn't give a shit about optics, or law, or polling, or any of that.   Holding on to power, no matter what the cost.  And if they happen to lose something, well, sit back, reload, and triple down next time.  It just might work.

Democrats just don't have that in their DNA.  If they did, we might have had 52 states long ago, along with a number of other things.  But polling, being afraid of the media, whatnot have all stopped them just short of what they really needed to do.  

I can't believe this is even a debate.   Because assuming a Biden win, along with both houses of Congress...they have 2 years before Fox, OAN, Trump, whatever rallies enough up at the midterms to potentially take back the House.  No half measures, because at least 40% are against every single fucking thing they will do.

Strike while the iron is hot.

 

This is pretty much where I'm at. I'm someone who is predisposed to value institutions and norms and the rule of law but Republicans are willing to tear those down and I don't really see what the alternative is at this point but to fight fire with fire.

[Bama Chick 28596]

How many presidential races in your lifetime have been decided way in your lifetime?  Less than 5, which is a function of one particular outdated rule regarding that particular race.
Every single other elected official has won in a popular vote. 
 

Not quite accurate when you take into account gerrymandering and voter suppression but sure.

[Dnaguy 11775]

Nothing can go forward until the filibuster eliminated.

Once that happens, anything is fair game.

Adding PR and DC will help to rightfully shift the Senate / the leg to left of center ... which is where the majority of the population is right now.

Its actually the most democratic (small d) thing that can be done and will benefit the country.

that being said, it won’t happen because it is democratic and good for the country.

[Herpa Derpa 6112]

[Texas Jeff 1932]

from the Constitution:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

So if the Dems take over the House and Senate and get rid of the filibuster, and the California legislature wants to break into 5 states to get 10 Senate seats, can't they do that? All five of the new states would still be in the top 20 states by population.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Texas Jeff

[tantric superman 4667]

38 minutes ago, Texas Jeff said:

So if the Dems take over the House and Senate and get rid of the filibuster, and the California legislature wants to break into 5 states to get 10 Senate seats, can't they do that? All five of the new states would still be in the top 20 states by population.

I'm pretty sure Stanford will veto this unless they still get to play UCLA and USC every year in football.

[DanRydell 799]

from the Constitution:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
So if the Dems take over the House and Senate and get rid of the filibuster, and the California legislature wants to break into 5 states to get 10 Senate seats, can't they do that? All five of the new states would still be in the top 20 states by population.

Yes, although I don’t think you could carve California into more than 2-3 without creating a couple of red states (at least not without slicing metro areas into different states).

[Queen Bitch 1692]

Don't run on it. Win the WH and Senate. Then nlaa.

[StruggleBus 3922]

Looking forward to our supreme court in 20 years with 12,987 justices.

[Bateshorn 9899]

I’ve been warming to the idea of judicial term limits for the SC. Make them ex officio after 18 years.  Thomas has been on the Court for 3 decades. He rotates off first in June of 2021.  The lower courts need a dramatic expansion just to handle caseload anyway. 

 

also: you bring DC in because we all know McConnell would have made it a state 5 minutes after Trump was sworn in if it voted 80% GOP.  

Edited September 28, 2020 by Bateshorn

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

18 hours ago, Xian said:

Packing the courts is going to come back to haunt us. Might not be for another 25 years, but it will. 
 

yea to PR, assuming they vote “yes” to becoming a state. 
 

no on dc. As others have said, divide the populated areas between dc and Virginia. 
 

im torn on the pacific territories and usvi.   Have the locals been asked recently what they prefer?  

This. 
I like the idea of PR and the other territories grouped together as a 51st state and the pacific islands rolled into Hawaii- should they wish this to be the case. DC doesn’t need to be a state, send the population into Maryland and VA and make the national monuments and levers of government into the equivalent of national parks like we do with other federal lands located in and amongst individual states. 
I have no desire to see 100’s first Supreme Court justices which is the only logical progression to what would happen if the court ever gets packed- doubling the court size will be the first agenda passed every time one party has control of the White House and Congress. It will happen again, as that’s the nature of life and I don’t see how that benefits anyone. 
California or texas or any other state breaking up is stupid- or can I interest your in North Wyoming, south Wyoming, easy Wyoming and Western Wyoming. There are a bunch of shitty plains states with very little population where every part of the state is GOP- you want to turn them all into states when the shoe is on the other foot?

This is near and dear to my heart as I’ve just made it to my 50th and final state while also having been to PR (got married there). If we split up into a bunch more states I will have new travels I have to make to insignificant and piss ant places. I don’t want to have to do that. 

[elfenix 34171]

maryland doesn't want it.

[wildcat09 29243]

20 hours ago, tantric superman said:

The point is the separation of powers and its tendency to show that elections matter. 

Elections in which Republicans get to systematically disenfranchise those who don't vote for them?

This isn't complicated. We have to restore our democracy. A GOP-controlled Court won't let that happen. 

[softlynow 1783]

You need to pack the court to ensure you can expand the union. The court as currently comprised may well invalidate anything that swings the balance of power towards the Dems. 

[wildcat09 29243]

7 minutes ago, softlynow said:

You need to pack the court to ensure you can expand the union. The court as currently comprised may well invalidate anything that swings the balance of power towards the Dems. 

The Court with a 6-3 GOP majority will strike down anything passed by Dems that does more than name a post office.

[gsoda3 3236]

other than the local population voting against it, why do we have territories that aren't states? 

[TwiceHorn 31274]

4 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

other than the local population voting against it, why do we have territories that aren't states? 

That's pretty much it:  local opposition.  We can't have "colonies" anymore, so we give them half-ass representation most of the protections of our laws.

We can't annex a state over its population's objection.

[wildcat09 29243]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's pretty much it:  local opposition.  We can't have "colonies" anymore, so we give them half-ass representation most of the protections of our laws.

We can't annex a state over its population's objection.

Well there's also been no desire from the rest of us to add any states. We liked having 50, what's left to add is full of non-white people, and the political system had reached a stable detente for some time. States have always been added for political reasons and there was no political pressure to add any more.