So SCOTUS today agree to hear the Trump administration’s argument that the census should only count citizens and not undocumented immigrants. Oral arguments are scheduled for November 30th.

Congress has a law on the books saying all persons must be counted, not just citizens, but something tells me the newly-minted conservative majority will develop amnesia where ‘judicial restraint’ and ‘deference to the legislature’ is concerned in regards to this (and potentially many other) issues.

 

So... catching up on my Supreme Court history, it appears that 'court packing' is screening any sort of actual hard look at the true history of the court - much like the Pledge of Allegiance, we're encouraged to believe, without evidence, that it existed from the beginning. Color me surprised to see the court actually fluctuating between five and ten justices over the course of the 19th century - including the pruning of Southern justices due to the Civil War, which means Barrett probably doesn't consider any Supreme Court decision from that time count.
So, yeah - adding or subtracting justices is perfectly fine and in tune with the damn Constitution (and apologies if this was already covered and I missed it)

 

Yeah, though again it hasn't really happened in the last 150 years. It was tried at the height of FDR's power and soundly rejected, but FDR dropped it once SCOTUS started giving him a couple of favorable rulings.

Frankly, if I were court packing, in addition to looking at SCOTUS, I'd "add" Circuit Appeals Courts to break up states more.

 

The arguments against it will probably be based upon 'originalism' - which is why I think it's important.

Also, conservatives already made their own arguments for it back when Scalia died - including Barrett, who was horrified by an ideological tilt in the Supreme Court.

But, yeah, I realize that the damage is at all levels of judges - which is why McConnell has done nothing but confirm judges for the past 4 years.

 

There hasn’t been an expansion of the Circuit Courts since Carter, so adding say, 250 new judgeships should Democrats win complete control wouldn’t necessarily be a purely political maneuver (although it would certainly be decried as one). Tampering with SCOTUS is harder, but if the conservative majority showed a penchant for selectively overturning clearly progressive legislation along ideological lines, support for it might exponentially grow.

 

I really hope expanding the number of seats for SCOTUS happens in my lifetime.

 

That expansion must be the reason Carter holds the record for the most judicial appointments in a single term, which gets overlooked because he didn’t appoint anyone to the Court.

 

Roosevelt even considered it but could not get the votes for it. It’s perfectly constitutional.

 

Ultimately he ended up not needed it as Justice Owen Roberts bowed to political pressure and began changing his votes.

Not sure the conservative bloc would do the same in 2020. Roberts has strategically sided with the liberals at times, but a deeper dive into his reasoning often reveals the presence of legal Trojan Horses that could be used in future cases to advance conservatives ideals (see abortion restriction case from the most recent term). So it’s really up-in-the-air in many ways.

 

perfect succinct summary of how bs the "but scotus" argument is, and how the democrats have consistently and willfully allowed republicans to control the already inherently undemocratic and capitalist court. we dont need to pack or expand or even rotate the court, we need it gone. Also nice summary of how the dems could have halted ACB but chose not to despite not passing stimulus either making it wholly pointless

 

Once Biden is in I hope Breyer leaves immediately unless he thinks the democrats are getting the senate in the midterms

 

Breyer isn’t going anywhere unless Democrats win at least one of the two Senate runoffs.

 

Yea your probably right. We gotta hope they take it so they can at least appoint someone

 

Justice Alito

Wow. He claims they need to defend freedom of speech(for bigots). Well, if you proclaim your bigotry out loud do you get arrested? No. Freedom of speech is therefor maintained. Do you get labeled a bigot and potentially shunned by some part of society? Yep, and that is everyone else's freedom of speech to do so.

 

Remember when RBG criticized Trump back in 2016 and conservatives practically disemboweled themselves over her supposed hypocrisy and bias and demanded that she step down?

Seems they’ve developed a bit of dementia.

 

They have always been hypocrites. That’s literally their MO.

 

No way they overturn gay marriage no matter how much Alito whines about it

 

I don’t know, I think it’s possible. That being said, the backlash will be severe. Most of corporate America has made it clear that treating the LGBTQ community like second place citizens is a complete nonstarter in their workplaces and commercial establishments. It would still be deeply harmful, but probably a bit less destructive than say, if it were 20 years ago.

 

It's hard for me to say that anything is impossible in today's climate. That includes overturning things like Obergefell & Roe. Once upon a time, you'd have said that was impossible. I won't say that now.

 

The practical implications alone of overturning Obergefell seem like a bureaucratic nightmare (annulling potentially hundreds of thousands or millions of marriages?) and I think if the Supreme Court do something like that, we'll see their legitimacy start to be seriously threatened. They've already spent the past three decades since Casey undermining Roe-- abortion is effectively unobtainable in like 10 states already-- so I would expect them to continue their relatively subtle project. But who knows? Maybe the smarter John "Shoveling Money Toward Our Capitalist Overlords is More Important than Culture War Issues" Roberts will be unable to convince 1 of the other 5 to see things his way.

 

If Biden's Justice Department was directed to recognize the ERA, would that bolster Obergefell?

 

Yes I would say so. At least in the eyes of people like Gorsuch. Although for all I know he isn’t on board with overturning gay marriage anyway

 

Yeah, there's a difference between corporate social responsibility and corporate activism. I had pre-existing condition coverage for 10+ years before the ACA because my large corporation understood their bargaining power with insurance agencies. Same with same-sex domestic partner coverage and beneficiaries before Obergefell (again, like a decade).

So, I'm sort of with Rogue -- I don't put anything past the Supreme Court.