> kinda the same technique Democrats want to use as well with their "pack the SCOTUS" campaigns. They want to shove a bunch more justices in there so they can get their way.
> I hate how weaponized each side is.
To be clear, one of these things has happened. The other has been hyped on Fox News.
It is really a stretch to "Both Sides" this issue.
> kinda the same technique Democrats want to use as well with their "pack the SCOTUS" campaigns. They want to shove a bunch more justices in there so they can get their way.
Did this take place? Or is it just a fear of a hypothetical?
Fear of packing the Supreme Court is a fear of something that the current parties have not done. There's an 1869 law that would have to be changed to pack it since that law sets the number of justices to nine. After that, they'd have to get their justices confirmed.
Well yes, but by republicans on Trumps behalf. Not allowing Obama to put a new judge forward in the last year of his term, and then allowing Trump to with even less time left in his term is just a chef's kiss of hypocrisy.
When people talk about packing the Supreme Court they're talking about adding justices so that one side (the one doing the nominating and appointing) gets a majority. It's not about filling vacancies (or blocking filling vacancies) to reach the current limit of nine justices.
There is nothing sacred about the number of Supreme Court justices, and historically there was one for each circuit, which is not the case now.
But the truth is, Democrats can win every single election this year and in 2028 and they would not be allowed to govern by this Supreme Court, which has chosen over and over again to overturn precedent and sow chaos.
Unfortunately, to arrest the slide into right-wing authoritarianism, you have to adopt their tactics sometimes.
But you don’t have anything to worry about. The democrats aren’t going to do any of this, and we’ll be in an even worse state in 2032.
That's not "kinda the same" at all. You can feel however you like about the strategy, but the constitution specifically doesn't elaborate on how many justices make up the supreme court. Article III simply states the following:
> The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
There is a huge gulf between ignoring standing law or a supreme court ruling and ignoring precedent. One involves choosing not to acknowledge i.e. disobeying, an authority, and the other involves choosing to act differently than has generally been expected in the past. Moreover, at least in recent history, it's primarily the Republicans who began the practice of ignoring precedent, long before our slow descent into where we are now: blatantly flaunting the law. See Merrick Garland's ignored nomination or the house's recent ludicrous delay of swearing in an elected representative for just two easy examples of this.
I mean none of this in any partisan fashion. It's simply a matter of fact. The idea that the GOP and the Democratic parties somehow engage in the same level or kind of antics and are thus deserving of the same level of nihilistic apathy as some kind of moderate position is charitably tragically misinformed.
Or... kinda like... not the same technique at all, since Congress can legally change the size of the Supreme Court but Trump can't legally ignore its rulings.
> kinda the same technique Democrats want to use as well with their "pack the SCOTUS" campaigns. They want to shove a bunch more justices in there so they can get their way.
> I hate how weaponized each side is.
To be clear, one of these things has happened. The other has been hyped on Fox News.
It is really a stretch to "Both Sides" this issue.
> kinda the same technique Democrats want to use as well with their "pack the SCOTUS" campaigns. They want to shove a bunch more justices in there so they can get their way.
Did this take place? Or is it just a fear of a hypothetical?
Fear of packing the Supreme Court is a fear of something that the current parties have not done. There's an 1869 law that would have to be changed to pack it since that law sets the number of justices to nine. After that, they'd have to get their justices confirmed.
Well yes, but by republicans on Trumps behalf. Not allowing Obama to put a new judge forward in the last year of his term, and then allowing Trump to with even less time left in his term is just a chef's kiss of hypocrisy.
When people talk about packing the Supreme Court they're talking about adding justices so that one side (the one doing the nominating and appointing) gets a majority. It's not about filling vacancies (or blocking filling vacancies) to reach the current limit of nine justices.
The difference is that the right is actually doing this, and some parts of the left have suggested it.
I don't give the actions of one group the same weight as the opinions of some people in the other group.
There is nothing sacred about the number of Supreme Court justices, and historically there was one for each circuit, which is not the case now.
But the truth is, Democrats can win every single election this year and in 2028 and they would not be allowed to govern by this Supreme Court, which has chosen over and over again to overturn precedent and sow chaos.
Unfortunately, to arrest the slide into right-wing authoritarianism, you have to adopt their tactics sometimes.
But you don’t have anything to worry about. The democrats aren’t going to do any of this, and we’ll be in an even worse state in 2032.
That's not "kinda the same" at all. You can feel however you like about the strategy, but the constitution specifically doesn't elaborate on how many justices make up the supreme court. Article III simply states the following:
> The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
There is a huge gulf between ignoring standing law or a supreme court ruling and ignoring precedent. One involves choosing not to acknowledge i.e. disobeying, an authority, and the other involves choosing to act differently than has generally been expected in the past. Moreover, at least in recent history, it's primarily the Republicans who began the practice of ignoring precedent, long before our slow descent into where we are now: blatantly flaunting the law. See Merrick Garland's ignored nomination or the house's recent ludicrous delay of swearing in an elected representative for just two easy examples of this.
I mean none of this in any partisan fashion. It's simply a matter of fact. The idea that the GOP and the Democratic parties somehow engage in the same level or kind of antics and are thus deserving of the same level of nihilistic apathy as some kind of moderate position is charitably tragically misinformed.
Or... kinda like... not the same technique at all, since Congress can legally change the size of the Supreme Court but Trump can't legally ignore its rulings.