Home | About | Donate

Journalists Pick Sides When They Call Adding Justices 'Court Packing'

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/10/28/journalists-pick-sides-when-they-call-adding-justices-court-packing

So, we are to undermine the legitimacy of the Court’s decisions as Lincoln sought to do. Or did he? It seems to me he fought a war to undo the intransigent court, a bit more than seeking to undermine it.

It is madness that 9 political appointees, even if they have black robes and are really awesome, should be final arbiter on what the law for the rest of us should be.

How does it make sense for example, that whether or not a woman in this country can have an abortion should depend on what these 9 guys think? That’s just crazy wrong, and it’s not democracy.

We need to get out of the box.

1 Like

(by 9 guys, we are talking about 6 men/3 women)

Technically the supreme court would not decide what the rules on abortion would be, they would however be able to decide what the constraints on what the state government says the rules would be. So if you live in a very religiously conservative state such as Alabama, the rules could change a lot, but if you live in California they won’t change at all.

Also, my understanding is that Congress could pass any number of laws on abortion rights that would supersede what the states could do, so in that sense, democracy is still active (to the degree you believe Congress represents the will of the people - not great if you ask me). But they haven’t yet for whatever reason.

Disclaimer: I have been clear on this site that I find the abortion question a huge distraction that sucks up the oxygen from a lot of other issues we need to solve that affect everyone. I would sign up for a federal legislation consensus solution which does involve some restrictions on abortion after around week 22-24 (which is the case in most of Scandinavia and most US states as well) while still allowing abortions at later times with valid medical reasons. I think talk of no restrictions which often permeates the left is not helping the situation.

1 Like

Dems will posture on cases involving reproductive or LGBTQ rights, but their donors are immensely pleased with the court’s direction on corporate rights, and thus you have the spectacle of Schumer and ilk rolling over for McConnell’s actual “packing” of the federal judiciary at every level.

1 Like

OK — no more talk of ”court packing” — How about “self-defeating gross error”?

Can’t win in a 6-3 split, let’s add 4 left-wing versions of ACB and win 7-6 — until the Republicans add 2 and win 8-7.

No problem, add . . .

1 Like

That’s right. The solution is to make the Supreme Court an elected position, not a selected one. You could still have the approval of a Senate vote. But the candidates for SCOTUS would be voted in by the citizens, not selected by a political party or future dictatorship.

1 Like

Let’s be Originalists-----The Supreme Court started at 6------so let’s do some corporate downsizing-----and the last two hired is the Witch and the rapist on the court. Did Barrett and Trump do some kind of sacrafice before they walked out together on the WH balcony-----They look so evil —Satan’s helper and the Witch.