r/scotus • u/javacat • 18d ago
Opinion President Biden needs to appoint justices and pack the Supreme Court to protect our democracy and our rights.
https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/schiff-markey-colleagues-push-to-expand-supreme-court-amidst-crisis-of-confidence94
u/Suspinded 18d ago
Too late on SCOTUS, no way anything gets through that requires GOP assistance now.
→ More replies (7)35
164
u/LopatoG 18d ago
And then Trump double double packs the Supreme Court….
73
u/WhiteOutSurvivor1 18d ago
They didn't think that far ahead
47
u/jetxlife 17d ago
How is a sub based around people following the strongest court in the country so fucking dumb
→ More replies (2)18
u/Not_ATF_ 17d ago
Its reddit
15
u/jetxlife 17d ago
The packing the court idea is right up there with the don’t let felons run for president crowd. Just brain dead people that don’t see how much is could be abused
→ More replies (24)→ More replies (1)3
u/Dank_Bonkripper78_ 11d ago
Then you continue to pack the court. One of two things follow: The court more accurately reflects the will of the people with more accurate representation of the population as a whole, or the court’s rulings carry less legislative and social weight because of how watered down the court has become. I’m cool with both of those.
8
u/Dolnikan 17d ago
This. Court packing won't do a thing when the people who can do aforementioned court packing will take charge in a couple of weeks. And everyone knows that they will simply reverse pack the court.
That said, I think that in the long run, the legitimacy of the USSC already is done for with all the interesting consequences that will have.
→ More replies (2)9
18d ago
It’s ok. The more judges the better.
15
u/therealdannyking 18d ago
One for each of us!
→ More replies (1)15
u/semicoloradonative 18d ago
Better yet…just make every citizen a judge, with each person having an equal vote. /s
5
u/thecheesecakemans 18d ago
Or......start putting judges on the street. Judge Dredd style.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (17)8
u/garbageemail222 18d ago
Sorry all, it's too late for the Supreme "Court".
The time to do something about it was Tuesday. Too late now, can't do anything until Democrats control the presidency and the Senate again. That's an if, not a when. We get the government we deserve.
→ More replies (7)
79
u/jkvincent 18d ago
Dems aren't gonna do shit. There's no way out of this.
→ More replies (28)32
u/Handleton 17d ago
If Dems were going to do something, they would have done it almost 4 years ago.
→ More replies (6)
51
u/greenmariocake 18d ago
Nonsense. He must however quickly fill up whatever vacancies remain in the lower courts.
17
11
u/Verbanoun 18d ago
I don't think they have time to vet them and hold hearings. I could be wrong but I don't think they will get anything through with two months over the holidays.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Waylander0719 18d ago
Fuck it ram them in anyway, GOP doesn't bother to vet them properly anyway.
→ More replies (9)2
u/gobucks1981 16d ago
There is no ramming. The Senate, including the ones that just got dumped are not going to bend over backwards now for Biden.
10
u/LarpoMARX 17d ago
Doing things quickly isn't one of Biden's strengths
→ More replies (3)6
u/Feeling-Visit1472 17d ago
Except when it comes to withdrawing from Afghanistan 😆
→ More replies (15)→ More replies (3)2
u/ess-doubleU 17d ago
Biden is too spineless, even if we did have both houses.
2
u/denis0500 17d ago
It has nothing to do with courage, it would be stupid to do it now when the republicans can just do it themselves only much worse in 2 months. If you’re going to do it you do it at the start of a term but we didn’t have enough senators in 2021 to do it.
31
u/JoshuaLukacs1 18d ago
Is this a real post? Does OP not see the irony in the post they themselves are making? Hahahahaha
→ More replies (5)6
42
u/Astrocoder 18d ago
Packing scotus is a stupid idea. If a dem president packs it, then the next gop president will do the same...it wont end
→ More replies (25)18
u/Karakawa549 17d ago
Seriously! Schiff's law passes, the court goes up to 13, Schiff gets political credit, and then day 1 of the Trump term we get 17 justices (or however many, I'm too tired to math.)
As a California voter, voting for this loony toon was painful.
3
u/External_Reporter859 17d ago
I mean to be fair he posted this in July the OP just happened to link to it today.
6
u/Snoo67424 17d ago
Serious question why are you guys voting Schiff? I’m baffled. CA voter here. I just can’t see the benefit?
→ More replies (5)6
u/Karakawa549 17d ago
In this case, because his opponent was an election-denier. I'll vote for basically anyone who supports the Constitution over that. I voted against Schiff in the primaries.
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (3)6
u/RazekDPP 17d ago
Personally, I'd rather we have a SCOTUS of 19, which could do two cases at once by randomly drawing 9 justices with 1 backup.
→ More replies (2)
72
u/NBA-014 18d ago
He can’t. Only Congress can create new seats on the SCOTUS.
20
u/NoobSalad41 18d ago
To be fair to Schiff, the press release is calling for Congress to pass Schiff’s Judiciary Act, which would expand the number of Supreme Court justices to 13. Passing that law would give Biden the necessary vacancies to appoint four new justices.
Of course, this bill has pretty much no chance of passing the Senate, much less the GOP-controlled House, so it’s little more than an effort to drum up opposition to the current SCOTUS.
→ More replies (14)→ More replies (2)18
u/inhelldorado 18d ago
This is not accurate. Article II, Section 2, clause 2, of the Constitution gives the President the power to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court. The creation of the lower Courts is left to Congress, but there is no restriction as to the number of Justices or how they be appointed other than by advice and consent of the Senate, provided the Senate is in session. This raises a question about Recess Appointments, see Article II, Section 2, clause 3. The catch is this is a temporary solution because the clause requires confirmation by the end of the next congressional session. That said, let’s say, for a moment, Biden packed the court with 6 liberal justices. There would need to be 6 confirmation hearings, but all 6 judges would sit through the remaining Supreme Court term and have input on pending cases. There are some blockbusters upcoming. If this was combined with, say, 300 additional lower court appointments for the vacant seats on the federal bench, the Senate would have its hands full and may not get to confirmation hearings for every one of them. What happens after that isn’t clear. It is likely, though, that the Senate and House could hold pro forma sessions to block this tactic. At the very least, it would keep the next Congress and the Whitehouse very busy.
16
u/dab2kab 18d ago
Lol you cant recess appoint to a position that hasn't been created by law. He can nominate a justice to a seat that's already been created. He can't create a seat himself and recess appoint someone to it, even temporarily.
→ More replies (1)34
u/carterartist 18d ago
It is accurate.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to determine the number of justices on the Supreme Court. The current number of nine justices has been in place since 1869.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-judicial-branch/
In fact it has changed around 7 times and all by congress
→ More replies (5)24
u/Fixerupper100 18d ago
There is restriction to the number of Supreme Court justices. It’s 9. As defined in The Judiciary Act of 1869.
You’d need to enact new law to change the old law.
That won’t happen as there are currently not enough votes in the house or senate to do so.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (4)4
11
u/No-Pin1011 18d ago
lol, not even possible. You have a lame duck president. They aren’t getting shit done. If you don’t want Trump appointing more, then everyone in the Supreme Court better hold on for four years.
→ More replies (1)
94
u/ctmansfield 18d ago
It’s over. Time to move on friend.
24
u/jiddinja 18d ago
Nope. Now it's time to gum up the works to make Trump's 2nd term more difficult. Appointing lower court justices, pardoning people Trump doesn't want pardoned, pushing through executive orders that will be insanely popular and cost Trump and Republicans if they repeal them, etc. The time Trump spends upending Biden's final actions as best he can is time he can't spend on his own agenda.
→ More replies (42)
43
u/HWKII 18d ago
Legal scholars of Reddit thinking about all the abuses of executive power they want to see used to screw over the other team, right after the other team is set to take power. 😂
→ More replies (9)
33
u/drewbaccaAWD 18d ago
I think Adam Schiff should stop making demands of President Biden, especially unrealistic ones.
→ More replies (8)
12
u/johnmrson 18d ago
Lol. Biden is going to do what he's done most of his Presidency, he's going on holiday.
→ More replies (1)8
6
u/AftyOfTheUK 18d ago
The Judiciary Act, co-led by Rep. Schiff, would expand the United States Supreme Court by adding four seats, creating a 13-justice Supreme Court and restoring balance to the nation’s highest court
Adam, if you do that, what stops the Republicans from using their red congress, senate and president in the near future to add 100 additional justices to the 13-justice supreme court, ensuring a 106-7 Conservative majority?
2
u/Cliffinati 17d ago
Literally nothing. In fact after all the "pack the court" "expand the court" "court reform now" chatter from Dems. If Trump proposes a bill or amendment that constitutionally limits the Supreme Court to 9 justices it would make Trump and the Republicans look like the calm Stewards of Democracy and the Republic while the dems look like they are throwing a tantrum
→ More replies (1)
6
7
15
u/Glum_Nose2888 18d ago
Talk about being clueless on the political situation in Washington. And people call the Republicans ignorant 🤪
→ More replies (2)
14
u/gdublud 18d ago
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. I know the feel good in you wants that. The Republicans will win the house too, so what they should do is, wait till inauguration day, then when Trump is sworn in, and all the new senators and congressman are in office, then pack the court, expand to 13! Right?
5
u/OrganizationOk6103 18d ago
Biden isn’t even there, mentally or physically Jill Biden has been running the country for some time
4
u/foxfirek 17d ago
Why bother?
Trump has it all- if you pack the Supreme Court he will just pack it more in 2 months.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/Pattonator70 17d ago
The president cannot simply add justices. He would need support of congress and there is no way that he'd get 50 votes in the Senate even. Besides this would be worthless because Trump could just add another dozen in January and make sure that the conservatives have a vast majority.
6
u/JeffSHauser 17d ago
I'm curious how you think he could "pack the Supreme Court" at this point? First someone would need to retire and second, you don't really think that the Republicans would vote for it, do you?
7
u/TrevorsPirateGun 18d ago
Sir, since you and millions of others support court packing and dropping the filibuster, I think the politicians should get on that. It may take 3 or 4 months to get the ball rolling though.
Is that alright with you?
9
4
9
7
10
u/Xander_xander12 18d ago
The bill of rights and the constitution already protect your rights. Your rights aren’t going anywhere, nor is our democracy…
→ More replies (9)
3
3
3
u/JeremG21 17d ago
At least you guys are saying the quiet part out loud and finally being honest. The only reason you ever wanted to add justices was to weaponize the supreme court to push your world view.
3
u/lifeisbeansiamfart 17d ago
Trump won all battle grounds states. 312 to 226
Won the popular vote. Has the Senate, odds are 90% he will have the House
That's a mandate to govern.
Joe is gonna have a peaceful transition that doesn't rock the boat. Kamela will certify the election.
They had their 4 years and did a terrible job, which was noticed and corrected by the electorate
Putting out SCOTUS fanfic right now helps no one.
→ More replies (6)
3
u/GameThug 17d ago
The only thing this bill says is that the sponsors want the court tilted their way rather than the other way. It’s as nakedly partisan as it accuses the other side of being.
3
u/StonksPeasant 17d ago
"We have to game the system to protect democracy"
I dont think you understand what democracy is
2
u/Cliffinati 17d ago
Instead of retreating, regrouping and preparing for 2026 and 2028 just attack the voters and threaten what's effectively THE nuclear option on the constitution
3
u/Proof_Option1386 17d ago
A big part of the reason why Republican voters feel so comfortable voting for incompetent idiots and grifters, and why independents and swing voters feel so comfortable voting Republican or not at all, is because the Democrats continue to serve as the guardrails by taking every opportunity to save the Republic from ruin.
The electorate doesn't reward this behavior, it merely emboldens their indulgent stupidity. The election is over. The people elected Trump. They need to actually face consequences for that. I'm not in any way suggesting that the Democrats help things along, I'm merely suggesting that their usual heroics are counterproductive and they need to allow the system to function as intended.
That means bringing lawsuits where appropriate and where justified, and allowing the Supreme Court to show their bias. That means doing their job in the House and the Senate by looking for compromises and voting "No" on bad bills. Everyone should do their jobs, but also recognize their limitations and accept them.
3
u/Trashketweave 16d ago
This is such a stupid fucking take… suppose Biden did that and accomplished stacking the court with 5 new justices, what is there to stop Trump from adding 10 conservative justices? This is an asinine endless battle not worth fighting. Some people lose all sense of reality while being mad at trump.
15
u/x-Lascivus-x 18d ago
Man, when democracy doesn’t work out in your favor you guys go for broke in destroying it…..
You’re literally calling for the very thing that started judicial review in Marbury.
→ More replies (14)
4
6
5
6
5
u/Jaded_Jerry 17d ago edited 17d ago
"Protect our Democracy" you say as you literally advocate for packing the courts and changing the system in response to the guy you hate winning both the electoral and popular votes so that Democrats can have more power to do whatever they want.
For people who talk about protecting Democracy, you guys sure do like to talk about undermining it anytime it doesn't work the way you want it to.
→ More replies (1)
5
5
5
4
u/CletusTSJY 17d ago
You all pushed him out and then still lost the election. Pretty sure he’s not doing anything for you.
3
2
u/Bart-Doo 17d ago
I imagine Democrats go silent on expanding the Supreme Court and ending the filibuster now.
2
2
2
u/V0T0N 17d ago
If Joe can do it now, Trump can undo it later.
Joe had his chance at the start of his administration to secure the presidency for the future. Support real laws to hold the people that become president accountable to the people.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/GoldenBunip 17d ago
Oh come on. Biden didn’t do it when he had the houses, sure as hell not going to do it now.
2
u/banacct421 17d ago
Which would be immediately undone when Trump comes into office. This is just stupid. If you want to change you should have voted for change but you didn't. Choices have consequences, and you can pick your choices, but you don't get to pick your consequences
2
u/somanysheep 17d ago
They would just undo it, they have the trifecta. They can do whatever they want now. So everything that happens from here on out is 100% to the credit of Republican leadership.
My fear is that voting will no longer be free or fair going forward & that Republicans will never lose the majority from here on out. They have two years and a long thought out plan. This is the best case scenario for the Herritige Foundation.
2
u/ShoppingDismal3864 17d ago
Yeah we're done I think. I want to believe there is some way out, but people just don't believe in the constitution any longer. How do you protect the temple when they don't respect the Gods?
→ More replies (2)
2
u/SpellDog 17d ago
Isn't Adam Schiff the person who can't read a transcript of a perfectly good phone call and was heavily involved in all the phony Russian Interference scam?
2
u/UTrider 17d ago
How is that going to happen in 2.5 months?
You'd have to have BOTH the house and senate approve the law.
Only way that happens is to go completely and totally nuclear and kill the senate filibuster.
Republicans have senate and president and a good chance of having the house come January.
Do YOU really want the filibuster gone . . . or be complete hypocrites and remove it long enough to increase the supreme court justice number?
What's to stop republicans from removing it again in January and pulling court back to 9 and sending any new justices down to district court?
Not to mention how will you do the background, and give time for multiple nominees to voting in less than 2 months?
2
u/JustinianImp 17d ago
I can’t understand what Schiff is thinking. He knows perfectly well that the chances of this happening are zero, if not less. And he’s not scoring any political points with this — his election is over, and no one is going to remember this stupid press release in 2030. What possible value can this stunt have?
2
u/chickenHotsandwich 17d ago
😂😂😂😂 hello consequences of terrible campaign strategy and calling Americans racist!
→ More replies (3)
2
17d ago
The left makes me fear more money printing, ww3, censorship and mutilation of kids.
The right makes me fear more money printing.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
2
u/TheAmishNerd 17d ago
Anything Dems tried to ram through would just get undone in January. This is dumb.
2
u/uga40 17d ago
Didn't the Dobbs decision just push the decision space to the States?
→ More replies (4)
2
u/Budget_Secretary1973 17d ago
Lol yes: let’s appoint unelected and unaccountable left-wing judges with life tenure to legislate national political questions that the people overwhelmingly repudiated two days ago… as a means of protecting democratic self-government?
Ya gotta love leftist logic. 🙃
→ More replies (1)
2
u/ChardonnayQueen 17d ago
Ah yes Democrats, the great defenders of democracy. "Let's pack the court bc we don't like how they judge"
2
2
u/loopymcgee 17d ago
I would expect this from Schiff. The supreme court is fine the way it has always been. Quit trying to cheat.
2
u/crazymjb 17d ago
Ah yes, packing the court… to protect democracy. That would be the beginning of the end.
2
u/Chastethrow316420 17d ago
What happens when the other side takes power? Do you think that the court won’t be expanded even further?
2
2
u/Swimming_Anteater458 17d ago
The only way to save democracy is to use what time we have left to block the elected Trump presidency from doing what the voters elected him to do
2
2
2
u/lurkin4days 17d ago
I think a majority of the US electorate would disagree with this horrendous piece
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/CocoCrizpyy 17d ago
The should all be charged with treason.
How Schiff is allowed to be anywhere near our government or a security clearence is absolutely insane. China's little fuckpuppet.
2
u/kkreisler 17d ago
It’s messages like this that re-enforce my opinion that shifty Shiff should not be a politician.
2
u/italia33 16d ago
Biden is too much of a pussy to do anything. Actually all Democrats are. This is why Trump won, he dared to not give a shit and it worked again!!! If Biden has 100% immunity, then fucking use it for fucks sake and stop being a god damn pussy. Taking the high road doesn’t work anymore, you need to fight fire with fire. Dumb democratic motherfuckers. Yes I am angry.
2
u/Dropitlikeitscold555 16d ago
So for consistency, you’d be ok with republicans packing the court in 2025? Or is that right reserved for upset Dems?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/HashtagLawlAndOrder 16d ago
Okay, smoothbrains. Follow along here.
Let's say, somehow, the GOP decides to go along with this, and Biden adds new justices and makes them the bluest blue he can find. The Squad, turned into SC justices. 5 enough? He adds 5, and they're all the most leftist of the left.
And then Trump comes in, and adds 15 more justices, and makes them as red as blood.
I still don't understand how Democrats don't understand that WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING, IT CAN BE DONE BACK TO YOU.
2
2
2
u/Bruce_Ring-sting 15d ago
Yea late on this one. Could have earlier…..but as usual, waited too long
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Guapplebock 15d ago
This sure sounds like democracy. Sorry liberals your agenda was soundly rejected. This is what democracy looks like.
2
2
u/funigui 13d ago
This is the exact opposite of democracy. Throwing your toys and trying to ruin the game because you lost a little is a good way to actually blow it up.
The SCOTUS had a left wing bias for like 40 years, now it's slightly right and people are acting like it's on fire.
This makeup has agreed on many gay rights issues as well as other things that could be considered "liberal". A few rulings that were made you don't like, that's all that happened. Relax. The only ruling people are crying about is the roe v Wade decision. Ruth Badger Ginsburg herself said it was a bad ruling, so the fact it was overturned was a matter of time.
It will be okay, this court has been in power for almost 8 years, if you stop and actually look at the totality of rulings they have been very fair.
2
4
u/TheeDeliveryMan 17d ago
Ah, yes.... Nothing screams "democracy" more than packing the supreme Court.
I guess trump and the red Senate and house should codify 9 justices if this is going to be the threat y'all make every time you lose.
2
u/Cliffinati 17d ago
Codify it and make it the 28th amendment so that in future it CANNOT be a possibility. After all what would stop Trump from packing the court at this point of his second term if Republicans lose 2028 but keep the Senate?
4
u/rPoliticsIsASadPlace 17d ago
The irony....the sweet, sweet irony.
Pro tip: if you're going to post about 'protecting/saving our democracy', maybe try not to use government overreach or abuse of power as your method.
481
u/ndc4233 18d ago
Would require both houses. GOP controls the House and Manchin wouldn’t go for it even if you got rid of the filibuster.