Kamala Harris calls to expand Supreme Court, add states if Dems take Congress - What are your thoughts?

[u/One_Look_7008]

[u/Consistent_Stay_4405]

My thoughts are that she should shut up until after the elections. And I’m a Democrat.

[u/NativeMasshole → u/Consistent_Stay_4405]

I think she should shut up in general. I don't know why she's being treated like party leadership when she's never proven popular at the national level.

[u/snyderjw → u/NativeMasshole]

It seems obvious to me that both candidates who managed to lose to Donald Trump should have no voice in the party.

[u/spongebobisha → u/snyderjw]

It’s people like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries that should have no place in the party.

[u/mejok → u/spongebobisha]

God back after Trump won the last election, I listened to the episode of "The Weekly Show" where Jon Stewart spent an hour interviewing Jefferies. Afterward I was so distraught about the direction of the party. He had an hour to talk, to lay out his plans for opposition and winning elections, etc. In that hour he talked a lot and said absolutely nothing.

[u/Mechasteel → u/mejok]

In that hour he talked a lot and said absolutely nothing.

Lots of important people are like that.

[u/iksbob → u/Mechasteel]

It usually means one of two things: They don't know what the plans are, that's up to their handler. Or, they know the plan isn't in your best interests so they don't want to tell you.

[u/FUCKTHEPROLETARIAT → u/Mechasteel]

The dem candidate of the smalltown USA where I live is like this.

Their opponent is an openly racist guy who was featured on a tiktok yelling at someone with a fruit cart.

Such great choices...

[u/Rickreation → u/mejok]

And risk losing his sweet No Show job? He is doing what his owners want him to do.

[u/moving0target → u/spongebobisha]

You're both right!

[u/StupaTroopa → u/spongebobisha]

They are elected leaders of the party though.

[u/SgtSnapple → u/StupaTroopa]

Elected members, they choose their own leaders.

I cant vote in Schumer's primary.

[u/steph-was-here → u/SgtSnapple]

they are elected by the people you elect

[u/AustinAuranymph → u/steph-was-here]

So not me, but individuals who are supposed to act in the best interest of their constituents, but don't.

[u/Ire-Works → u/StupaTroopa]

That doesn't mean I respect them or their complete inability to do fucking any single thing about the current situation we're in.

We don't need this "holier than thou" decorum shit. We need some pit fighters to actually hold people accountable and not ask permission to do it first.

[u/AtraposJM → u/Ire-Works]

This. Republicans use their power to enact changes. Shitty changes that will ruin the government for generations to come. Dems use their power to let the Republicans stall out anything they do because they don't fight for anything.

[u/OutlyingPlasma → u/StupaTroopa]

Except they really aren't. I didn't vote for them, party leadership is selected more by seniority than elections.

[u/Crazed_Chemist → u/OutlyingPlasma]

You also may have really limited choice too. Incumbent held seats might draw a primary competitor of who knows what quality.

[u/Skabonious → u/snyderjw]

Hillary Clinton was basically right about everything lol. She is 100% vindicated at this point

[u/Hautamaki → u/Skabonious]

One thing I learned a while ago is that people find it way easier to forgive you for being wrong than for being right.

[u/Bill_Brasky01 → u/Skabonious]

Being correct doesn’t make you popular in America.

[u/Agitated-Country-972 → u/Bill_Brasky01]

Yes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't listen to her... Like people are treating "she's not popular" as "we shouldn't listen to her".

[u/3_Thumbs_Up → u/Skabonious]

Politics is not about being right. The democrats are not vindicated by pushing a losing candidate in front of more popular candidates against Trump.

[u/SRogueGman → u/snyderjw]

Hillary won the popular vote. I'd give her an exception.

[u/RickRussellTX → u/NativeMasshole]

She couldn’t win a primary in her own state.

[u/Hautamaki → u/RickRussellTX]

She'd be cruising to victory in the governor race, the fact that she didn't even run for that tells me her political instincts are just not up to the presidential level.

[u/AHCretin → u/Hautamaki]

It's still her turn! /s

[u/SeriousBusiness67 → u/NativeMasshole]

She never came close to winning a presidential primary.

[u/crazyhomie34 → u/NativeMasshole]

She didn't make it to Iowa during the 2020 primary. Then was just handed the nomination in 2024. Left a real sour taste in the mouths of independents.

[u/SanityIsOptional → u/crazyhomie34]

Left a real sour taste in the mouth of anyone on the left who wasn't a neo-liberal.

[u/crazyhomie34 → u/SanityIsOptional]

Yeah you might be right. I voted for her but I don't want her running again.

[u/taulover → u/NativeMasshole]

She just says whatever the polls say is popular at any given moment. That's why she has no clear beliefs or convictions.

[u/sftransitmaster → u/taulover]

Exactly. much of the democratic party has no principled values when it comes to meaningful policy discussions. But Harris is just so obvious about it(Newsom is the same way too BTW)

[u/PrisonerLeet → u/sftransitmaster]

Newsom is somehow worse. Frankly, if Newsom thought copying Trump 1 to 1 would get him elected President, he'd do it in a heartbeat. He's as much a wannabe fascist as all the milquetoast conservatives in other countries jumping on the culture war train because they want Trump's success.

[u/taulover → u/PrisonerLeet]

Every time he hops on a right wing podcast he backtracks and reneges on another promise he made to the left

[u/blacksideblue → u/PrisonerLeet]

if Newsom thought copying Trump 1 to 1 would get him elected President, he'd do it in a heartbeat.

He kinda has been. Same tactics but different agendas. Newsom is a lot more sane and professional about it but he's clearly been playing into the culture war tactics.

[u/PrisonerLeet → u/blacksideblue]

Yeah, he's definitely been aping Trump on social media and such; what I mean to say is that it's not just the strategems that he'd copy, the only policy he cares about is what gets him elected. That and he seems pretty attached to the strongman look, which is never a good sign.

[u/LonelyMachines → u/taulover]

The thing about words is, they say things. I like saying things. And I like money. So I like words, which are like money but you can't spend them on things so money is also important if you want to be unburdened by things.

[u/lmaorezme → u/NativeMasshole]

Beat me to it. She needs to shut the hell up, she has already done enough damage. Her running again is disrespectful of all of us.

[u/MrDLTE3 → u/NativeMasshole]

Yep. She was quite literally the 'Its Trump or me' and she lost. Like what the fuck are we even talking about here.

[u/TheGloomyWoodpecker → u/NativeMasshole]

She’s never been popular at any level.

[u/juliuspepperwoodchi → u/NativeMasshole]

She's the new Hillary in that they're going to keep trying to shove her down the voters' throats despite no one wanting that.

[u/User1539 → u/Consistent_Stay_4405]

Yeah, the Democrats need to talk about how they're going to make shit affordable again. Period.

If you're not talking about putting food on people's plates, you need to close your fucking mouth and figure out how to put food on people's plates.

[u/Cool_Ranch_Dodrio → u/User1539]

Yeah, the Democrats need to talk about how they're going to make shit affordable again. Period.

I'd prefer they only talk about things they intend to do.

[u/User1539 → u/Cool_Ranch_Dodrio]

Well, and they need to both figure out how, then intend to do it.

[u/Mnm0602 → u/Consistent_Stay_4405]

Every time I see “Kamala Harris…” I’m just ready for my blood pressure to increase. 

When I see it mixed with anything about 2028, doubly so.

[u/Kyrxx77 → u/Consistent_Stay_4405]

Yeah she needs to not be the one for the dems. I can guarantee you if she tried again we'll end up with Trump for another 4 years somehow. She is a BAD candidate & spokesperson for the dems.

[u/MimeGod → u/Kyrxx77]

She dropped out of the 2020 Democratic primary 2 months before the first primary vote in Iowa, because she had basically no support.

She was always a bad choice.

[u/pjt37 → u/MimeGod]

Retrospect is of course retrospect so we can't blame Biden for not being clairvoyant, but during the 2024 election I saw an essay about Harris that I think historically will end up being correct. She was an awful choice for the times we are facing and the circumstances that lead to her being selected for VP were irrelevant barely 2 months after the decision to name her the running mate. Harris will be remembered historically as possibly the worst VP choice made in modern American history. I mean I'd absolutely take her status quo bullshit over the nonsense we have now but liberals have to get out of politics. Be progressive or be nothing.

[u/GoldwaterLiberal → u/pjt37]

It went wrong as soon as he announced he’d pick a woman as his running mate. It signaled that he wasn’t going to pick the best candidate, but instead was going to pick based on intersectionality.

[u/theborch909 → u/Consistent_Stay_4405]

She should shut up until she proves she can win a primary and has her own thoughts

[u/AmazingMoose4048 → u/Consistent_Stay_4405]

wtf

If we have a candidate that needs to stop saying what they want until after we are stuck with them, we should want a different candidate.

[u/SixSpeedDriver → u/AmazingMoose4048]

She's not on the ballot, she's stumping for others.

[u/DOGE_ME_DADDY]

We should be pushing for term limits. 

How about that?

[u/Sebekiz → u/DOGE_ME_DADDY]

But to go with this, it should be mandatory that a judge vacant position must be filled, at all levels. Trump refused to suggest judges when he didn't have control of Congress, allowing the positions to remain vacant. No one should be allowed this "option" so they can only appoint judges when they are able to game the system by having complete control over who was being appointed. Congress would also refuse to accept any appointee when Biden was in office but the republicans controlled Congress.

Neither party should have the ability to prevent ANY judges from being appointed until they can control things 100%.

Edit: Also, judges should have a minimum requirement of legal knowledge before they can be considered. Simply picking out someone with absolutely no legal training or background and saying "You can be a judge in return for ruling in my favor regardless of what the laws that you do not have any understanding of say is legal." should not be possible.

[u/LargeLanguageModelo → u/Sebekiz]

Also, judges should have a minimum requirement of legal knowledge before they can be considered.

Minimum time on bench, high ratings from ABA or similar independent industry org(s).

We also need a bit more in the impeachment dept. We have sitting members on the SC that said stare decesis in the hearings for their confirmation, and Maury opens envelope that was a lie.

[u/sailphish]

I think Kamala should just go away. I voted for her. She would have been an infinitely better president than Trump. But nobody really wanted her. She was just the best option at the time. Politically she’s a loser for the Dems, and I think she knows that too, but she’s trying to keep her political career going for selfish reasons. If she really cared, she should step away. Shes a corporate centrist and isn’t what we need right now.

If the Dems take over, instead of playing games by expanding the courts and trying to add more states, they need to address the actual problems, put every treasonous and fraudulent politician and judge on trial, and enact actual reform.

[u/Yglorba → u/sailphish]

If the Dems take over, instead of playing games by expanding the courts and trying to add more states, they need to address the actual problems, put every treasonous and fraudulent politician and judge on trial, and enact actual reform.

The problem is that putting a judge on trial would require impeaching them, and that requires a supermajority, which is implausible to obtain in the Senate under the current political landscape. And putting anyone else in jail would require dealing with the Supreme Court, too, because they'll just protect them otherwise (as they have with Trump.) Additionally, Trump can literally pardon everyone, and, again, overcoming this would require a constitutional amendment, which requires a supermajority of states or other implausible-to-reach thresholds.

The reason why court expansion is popular as a solution is because it can be done with a bare majority of the house and senate (assuming non-talking filibusters are eliminated, which can also be done with a bare majority of the senate.) That makes it actually achievable.

The other things you listed might sound cooler or less radical to you, but they're simply not possible under the current political system (and obviously "screw it, overthrow the entire government and just throw people in jail without regards for the law" is gonna be more radical and would be less popular.)

Expanding the court is something they can unequivocally do just by voting once they have control of both chambers (and the presidency, because it would obviously be pointless to do it without the presidency.)

and enact actual reform.

You're missing the point. Any reform has to pass constitutional review. As long as Republicans control the Supreme Court they can just declare anything the Democrats do unconstitutional. We literally saw this with the Voting Rights Act. Expanding the court is the only realistic way to get past this. Other things can be done later, but pursuing anything else first is a waste of time (except maybe as a way to build support for expanding the court by forcing it to take unpopular positions.)

[u/absolutedesignz → u/Yglorba]

These people don't see the forest for the trees.

[u/eepos96 → u/sailphish]

Can congress impeach judges?

[u/randotd152 → u/eepos96]

Yes but it requires 2/3 senate, which is a non-starter for anything short of a bipartisan reason. (Which is the point)

[u/burninatah → u/sailphish]

I agree. She's not a personality that is going to expand the tent at this time. What we need is a full court press from her, the Obamas, Shapiro, Ossof, Mayor Pete, Abdul, etc. They need to deliver a damning indictment of trumps incompetence and corruption. Keep the focus there. These people are enriching themselves on your dime while you struggle, they cannot keep you safe, they cannot protect your children, they do not care about your future. We need to hear that EVERYWHERE, not just the occasional interview on a news channel. Buy some fucking ad time on the major networks. Remember Navalny's long form essay on Putin's corruption? How are we not getting something like that in prime time produced by Hollywood elites? Put these goons on blast so that we can put them in prison 

[u/centaurquestions → u/sailphish]

Expanding the courts is how you address actual problems. Every law and reform they pass will immediately be stayed and overruled by the insanely corrupt Supreme Court. "Enacting actual reform" is impossible otherwise.

[u/shakeyshake1 → u/sailphish]

I’m a moderate independent and I agree she should go away. 

Charisma is probably the biggest factor a president needs to win. She doesn’t have any. She presents as smug. No one wants to vote for someone who is smug.

To the extent charisma can be learned, and I’m not sure it even can be, it’s already too late once you’ve already been a public figure without any.

I’m sick of the “it’s this person’s turn” approach. So what if she didn’t get a full chance to campaign? She lost. That should be the end of it.

I was just talking to someone about this in real life the other day. When Hilary ran, she had a history of something like 20+ years of jokes at her expense. I was inclined not to like her and I wasn’t sure why, but then it occurred to me that people had been making fun of her since I was a kid.

[u/cearrach → u/shakeyshake1]

No one wants to vote for someone who is smug

Except for Trump, who is smugness personified

[u/SenseiCAY → u/sailphish]

I mean…I agree but also, if the Supreme Court is gonna strike down anything they don’t like for partisan reasons, then there’s no solving anything.

[u/Expensive-Sundae-831]

I'm all for true originalism. Let's also have a shit ton of representatives in Congress. The Constitution stated that a rep was to hold a seat in the House for, what, 30K citizens?

Get this damn republic back to a representative democracy and mitigate the horrible control of the corporations and 1% interests.

[u/_Handsome_Jim_ → u/Expensive-Sundae-831]

The Constitution stated that a rep was to hold a seat in the House for, what, 30K citizens?

That is a common misunderstanding.

What the Constitution actually says is: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative".

That's not putting a cap on how many people a representative can represent. It's putting a cap on how many representatives there are. The total number of representatives any state is constitutionally allowed to have is it's population divided by 30,000 rounded to the nearest whole number. With the exception being that each state is guaranteed at least one.

[u/Awkward_Meat_7733]

The Supreme Court should serve the people, not either party, but would expanding it actually fix the problem or just make things more political? 🤔

[u/NessTheDestroyer → u/Awkward_Meat_7733]

I’ve heard proposals that would be something like “every 4 year presidential terms get a SCOTUS pick and each pick can only stay for a certain number of years”

This could solve the age issues, but would still make the picks very political

[u/Riggs1087 → u/NessTheDestroyer]

There’s no undoing the politicization of the court. That particular proposal would require a constitutional amendment though.

[u/vixous → u/Riggs1087]

It would not. Go read Article III, neither the size of the court nor the terms of justices are fixed in the Constitution, and Congress has changed the size of the court before.

[u/eastw00d86 → u/vixous]

The terms absolutely would need an amendment. Article III says they "shall serve" while in good standing. To bracket that via age would alter the continuing status. Even IF Congress tried it with a bill, a Fed judge could and would block that portion, and certainly the SC would overturn it.

[u/LumberBitch → u/Riggs1087]

Especially while the Federalist society exists and the Republicans have no intention for it to be apolitical

[u/ManyAreMyNames → u/NessTheDestroyer]

The best one I heard is every two years, in an odd year, so no election that year. Keep the court at nine, remove the longest-service justice each time. That would move it to a maximum 18-year term.

We also need term limits for the house and senate, and a mandatory retirement age of something like 72, or 75, but either way we can't have people stay in office for decades until they're like Mitch McConnell, who is no longer verbal or responsive and clearly has no idea what's going on around him.

[u/crazybutthole → u/ManyAreMyNames]

who is no longer verbal or responsive and clearly has no idea what's going on around him

There's several politicians that fit the same description. Mitch ain't the only one.

[u/BillyTenderness → u/ManyAreMyNames]

We also need term limits for the house and senate, and a mandatory retirement age of something like 72, or 75, but either way we can't have people stay in office for decades until they're like Mitch McConnell, who is no longer verbal or responsive and clearly has no idea what's going on around him.

I tend to think the best solution to this problem is not term or age limits, but to focus on making more elections more competitive. Nobody should have a "safe seat;" everyone should have to face voters in a serious way and not take their office for granted.

Only about 10% of seats in congress are even considered "competitive" and the rest are just completely taken for granted. This is awful for democracy for many reasons (90% of people essentially just don't matter in an electoral sense), but a subtler one is that this creates lots of opportunities for ineffective, out-of-touch, corrupt, senile, or otherwise bad representatives to continue to hold a seat indefinitely.

In the house this could be easily solved with proportional representation (which most other developed countries adopted a long time ago). The senate is much trickier, unfortunately. Maybe term limits do make more sense there.

[u/elconquistador1985 → u/NessTheDestroyer]

The term limit would require an amendment.

Every president getting a nomination would just require legislation. The size of the court is decided by an act of Congress.

[u/benk4 → u/NessTheDestroyer]

The consistency of picks up presidential terms is key to reform for me. The status quo of justices retiring strategically to get a like minded replacement is insane. Trump appointed as many justices in 4 years as Obama and Biden did in 12. There's a disconnect.

[u/JetKeel → u/NessTheDestroyer]

That would require an amendment which in my mind is basically impossible in the current political climate.

[u/Yknut → u/JetKeel]

The Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court. It allows Congress to determine the number of justices, which has changed multiple times throughout history

[u/DefiantLemur → u/NessTheDestroyer]

It's already very political at this point unfortunately

[u/azulun → u/DefiantLemur]

It’s always been political

[u/cygnus33065 → u/azulun]

One of the first landmark cases of the court Marbury v Madison was very political. John Marshall dislikes Jefferson and gave him a win while also seizing immense power for the court

[u/SteelDonut → u/DefiantLemur]

Like everything else in our lives today.

[u/hobbestigertx → u/Awkward_Meat_7733]

The Supreme Court should serve the Constitution and the law. it should not serve the people. It should never make policy or laws.

It is Congress' job to serve the people and the states that they represent.

[u/Nabobou → u/hobbestigertx]

This might be an unpopular opinion among Democrats, but that's essentially the judicial philosophy underlying Dobbs. The majority's argument was that the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion, that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided, and that abortion policy should therefore be left to elected lawmakers rather than dictated by the Supreme Court.

And there's a certain logic to that argument, particularly when you consider how many states had spent decades passing legislation either restricting abortion or expanding its protections. The majority's position was essentially that, absent a constitutional right, why should nine unelected justices prevent states from making those policy decisions through the democratic process?

Now, we can engage in all the whataboutism we want regarding other Supreme Court decisions, including those in which the Court has arguably done the exact opposite and effectively created law or policy from the bench. There are certainly legitimate arguments about the consistency of the Court's judicial philosophy, its constitutional analysis in Dobbs, and its decision to overturn nearly 50 years of precedent. But that's a separate discussion. The point you're making about the proper role of the Supreme Court is precisely the argument the majority relied upon in Dobbs.

[u/rg996150 → u/Nabobou]

The SC has historically stepped in when Federal laws and regulations weren’t being enforced at the state level. More recently, they have shifted to nullifying Federal laws and regulatory authority of Federal agencies in a nakedly political manner.

[u/Rilse → u/Nabobou]

It is confusing that through the ninth amendment, people are assumed to have rights that are not listed in the constitution and then the tenth amendment, passed the same year, says the power of the federal government is limited by the constitution and the rest is left to the states and individuals. In Roe v Wade it’s individual rights vs states rights and the constitution is anything but clear on how to distribute it. Is it really judicial activism to choose to the individual over the state?

[u/bibliophile785 → u/Rilse]

In Roe v Wade it’s individual rights vs states rights and the constitution is anything but clear on how to distribute it.

It's actually more confusing than this. Roe's implied individual right doesn't come from the 9th. It was a substantive due process argument stemming from the 14th. Effectively, the argument is that some rights are so deeply embedded in the American tradition of governance that it would be denying Equal Protection if they weren't protected. This is a really, really high bar, and no one since the Burger Court who wrote Roe seems to be able to figure out how abortion ever cleared it.

Justices have been signalling for literally decades that Roe doesn't make much sense. O'Connor said in the early 2000s that Congress should handle abortion through legislation if they wanted that right protected. Congress refused to do it before Dobbs and has refused to do it since. This is the result of trusting in bad precedent to enshrine protections that should be legislative in nature.

I'm genuinely confused that Democrats talk all the time about SCOTUS "legalizing abortion"... but they themselves are legislators. They are the ones who legalize things! It's honestly baffling to me that they have made literally zero effort to install federal protections for abortion.

[u/ZorbaTHut → u/bibliophile785]

The extra-weird part is that the logic used in Roe - "medical privacy is part of the 14th amendment, therefore we cannot possibly legislate what people do with their bodies" - has never been applied to any other medical procedure. We still allow both government and corporation to decide which treatments are valid, many states still have vaccine requirements for school, many states still don't allow your doctor to prescribe marijuana and most don't allow your doctor to prescribe psilocybin, during COVID the government straight-up tracked vaccination status.

Nobody really believed we had this "medical privacy" rule, it was used solely as justification for Roe and quietly abandoned in every other case.

I liked the conclusion but the method used to get there was absolute garbage and it was never going to hold up forever.

[u/KerryBoehm → u/Awkward_Meat_7733]

They should serve the constitution.

[u/ahnotme → u/Awkward_Meat_7733]

Other countries have bigger Supreme Courts, but in each case they judge only a subset of the entire panel sits on. They use various different systems to decide who gets to sit on a case. Some have a fixed roster, others use some sort of randomized selection system. But as a litigant you can’t know beforehand who is going to sit on your case, because even in a fixed roster system it all depends on when your case actually shows up on the docket. The result is usually far less politicking in the courts.
Moreover, some jurisdictions have separate chambers for e.g. civil cases, criminal cases, constitutional cases and also sometimes for cases where a citizen is suing the government or a matter of governance is the issue.

[u/archimedesrex → u/Awkward_Meat_7733]

More seats makes it harder for one administration or party to radically shift the composition of the court in one or two terms. I feel like other moderating mechanisms also need put in place to limit partisan influence. Lifetime appointments probably also need to go.

[u/TheCarrzilico → u/Awkward_Meat_7733]

I'm not sure how it could be more political than it already is. Politics kept one president from nominating a Justice during their term, and the save politics gave the President immunity from their crimes.

The politics are already at one hundred.

[u/purgance → u/Awkward_Meat_7733]

To be clear, "the problem" is not that people agree or disagree with the Supreme Court; it's that the Supreme Court justices are incredibly susceptible to external pressures (even though they pretend tha they're not).

In the 1980's a small group of billionaires began a project to "overthrow" the Supreme Court. They have invested literally billions of dollars in doing so - building up a criminal organization called FedSoc (The Federalist Society) which engages in bribery, racketeering, and corruption with Federal Judges, buying opinions and trading judicial appointments and cold hard cash as currency.

For example: Amy Coney Barrett was given a $12M book deal on the day of her appointment. That's the kind of money a Wall Street CEO gets as a signing bonus - but this is a public servant. Huge amounts of money are flowing into law schools, courthouses, and finally the Supreme Court itself.

The billionaires who are buying Supreme Court judges bought the building across the street from the Supreme Court Building, and routinely hold "court" there with Supreme Court justices, away from prying eyes of the public.

And the corruption is endemic. Let me give you another example: Samuel Alito was found to be receiving free seats on private jets of the billionaire donors he was flying with. I want you to imagine that one of these billionaires came forward and admitted that he "bought" an opinion from Samuel Alito. Alito obviously denies this, publicly.

Would you believe it? A man who received free private jet usage from a billionaire who had business before the court wasn't influenced by it?

Of course not, there clearly is a conflict of interest there.

And Alito knows this. Because of his acceptance of the bribes, his hands are tied. Even if he wanted to do the right thing, he couldn't - it's a classic mafia situation (this is what I mean by the racketeering). The Republican-appointed judges have had to be "made" in order to be accepted into FedSoc and the Republican judicial racket, and once made they can't get out - the consequences for doing so are complete destruction.

So what is Alito going to do if he gets instructions to rule a certain way? The answer is, "whatever he is told." Because no one would believe him if he tried to do the right thing. I don't imagine that he cares, but that's the moral hazard we've created in the Supreme Court.

The scenario I just layed out? It has already happened. Alito took bribes from billionaires who had direct interests in cases before the court. It became public, and Alito denied it. And nobody believed him; but the same attitude that you're displaying here (no shade, respect for institutions isn't a weakness) is what muted the response to the corrupt criminal organizations that buy Supreme Court justices.

The answer isn't going to be any one thing, just like cleaning up organized crime wasn't any one thing. It was systemic purge of our system that resulted in the end of the influence of organized crime.

[u/tdgabnh → u/Awkward_Meat_7733]

Incorrect. Their job is to impartially interpret the law and apply and protect the constitution.

[u/Bluegrass6 → u/Awkward_Meat_7733]

Reddit would love it until the next Republican led congress further packed and then they'd be screaming about Jim Crow and Constitutional norms again

[u/Burnsidhe]

I think they should be moving to impeach justices and replace them instead.

[u/Dense-Ad-5780]

I think age and term limits would be better.

[u/ATXBeermaker → u/Dense-Ad-5780]

That would take a constitutional amendment. Changing the size of the court doesn’t.

[u/considertheoctopus]

I support these proposals but I would prefer that Dems would use their window of political capital to reverse Citizens United and/or pass a constitutional amendment to limit money in elections, shut down the dark money nonprofits and plug other loopholes that have allowed hundreds of millions of dollars to pour into every single election, increasingly, since 2010.

[u/NoConfusion9490 → u/considertheoctopus]

There is zero chance of amending the Constitution. You need two thirds of both houses of Congress to pass and three quarters of all the states to ratify. Democrats would need landslide victories in every election for the next decade to even get close.

[u/Skabonious → u/considertheoctopus]

and/or pass a constitutional amendment

Sigh.

Are teenagers the only people who browse reddit anymore?

[u/nerdyguytx → u/considertheoctopus]

Have you looked at the constitutional amendment process? You need 2/3 of the House, Senate, and state legislatures to amend the Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t state the size of the Supreme Court so adding seats just requires the President and a majority of Senators.

Once you add justices to the Supreme Court, the Court can overturn Citizens United.

[u/tomalator → u/nerdyguytx]

And 3/4 of all state legislatures

[u/Silverfrost_01 → u/considertheoctopus]

Ranked choice voting and expanding the House would make all other things way easier imo

[u/TheeAntelope → u/Silverfrost_01]

Expanding the house is high on my list of things that would help. Same with ranked choice voting. The two party system would be obliterated and we’d see 5-6 parties having 10-20% control in congress.

[u/NothaBanga → u/considertheoctopus]

How can they reverse it with a stacked Supreme Court?  Sure they might be able to squeeze out a weak sauce law but the SCoTUS could deem it unconstitutional.

[u/DS_Vet_on_Linux]

My thoughts are that Kamala is the only candidate guaranteed to lose in '28 if she runs. She had her opportunity, failed and needs to let the party move on.

[u/dgeiser13]

I voted for Kamala. I have zero interest in what Kamala says. Kamala is the old guard. I'm looking forward to the new guard.

[u/jamills21]

It’s my same concern with eliminating the filibuster. It’s great when your side is doing it, but if the other side does it then it would be a disaster. There is a reason even Trumps admin hasn’t gone that far.

[u/AcmeCartoonVillian → u/jamills21]

This. This right here.

We need more of this line of thinking ANY time we give the government more powers.

[u/BigL90 → u/AcmeCartoonVillian]

I would agree with your statement. Although it in no way applies to the comment you're replying to, since the government already has the power to do those things.

[u/SammieStones]

Could we just take the money out of politics and go back to what it’s supposed to be with 3 separate but equal branches and such

[u/SerialSection → u/SammieStones]

no one ever called them separate but equal.

[u/Meat-Dimension → u/SerialSection]

Yeah that poster conflated a couple things lol

[u/randotd152 → u/SammieStones]

That’s the real solution. Everything else is just further making a mess of things. Pull money totally out of politics and you’ll start getting politicians that actually work for the people.

[u/nerdyplayer]

Same argument every year. If Dems can expand supreme court so can GOP.

[u/thosewhocannetworkd]

It’s so freaking weird how political forces just control AskReddit now and amplify political questions to the front page now. Like I’m a big Democrat leftist too but it’s just kind of silly every time I see one of these political questions on AskReddit bumped up to the first page of Reddit it’s so artificial

[u/mundus108]

If Kamala Harris is thinking about running again, she can gtfo, we the dems do not want her. Shes going to cost us 8 more years.

[u/Effective-Point-3349]

Harris is such a useless disappointment. Why didn't she push for any of this when her and Joe had the white house?

At this point it's just cynical and shows that she just doesn't know when to let go.

[u/givin_u_the_high_hat]

Trump will beat them to it. Even the GOP senators that hate Trump would help him pack the court with conservatives. This is a dumb idea to push before the Dems have control of anything.

[u/Square_Ad6149]

I think expanding the Supreme Court and adding states are huge changes that shouldn't be pushed through just because 1 party has the votes. There are arguments for both reforms, but they need broad public support and careful thought about the long-term consequences, not just who benefits politically right now.

[u/ClvrNickname]

Funny how when progressives were saying this a few years ago while Kamala was in office the establishment dems relentlessly scolded them for it

[u/4elementsinaction]

I say just put in age restrictions like you’re done at 62 or 65 or even 70. That would eliminate a lot of the current justices.

I think those same age restrictions should be put in place on all elected and appointed federal offices.

[u/madkins007 → u/4elementsinaction]

Absolutely. The government has age limits for most employees, just expand it to all federal employees.

[u/chocolatechipninja → u/4elementsinaction]

Yes. I think it's insane that we keep putting up candidates in their late 60s and 70s.

[u/bowhunterb119 → u/4elementsinaction]

Then each party would just pack it with 25 year olds. Do we really want that?

[u/Outside-Pie-7262 → u/bowhunterb119]

They already look for younger people. Barrett was 48 when she joined. Clarence thomas was 43 when he started serving and he's 78.

A 25 year old wouldn't get the votes through Congress. That would be someone with less than a year of law experience. Lawyers don't typically become judges until they're 50 and been practicing for decades

[u/zulako17 → u/bowhunterb119]

25 ? No. And no one would seriously add a 25 year old justice. But a 35 year old? Or a 40 year old? They might know enough to serve.

[u/expectingthexpected → u/zulako17]

Yeah, I can’t imagine anyone in the current government appointing a 25 year old or other deeply unqualified person to an office of national importance. That would be craaaaaaazy…..

[u/Conscious-Ball8373 → u/bowhunterb119]

35 is the minimum age to become president. Would the same work for the SC?

[u/PencilBoy99]

I must be an idiot. If this becomes a president then just every 4 years the other side expands and packs the court.  We should just have term limits and ethics rules 

[u/uncomfortable_fan92 → u/PencilBoy99]

Well you did use "president" so you may be onto something....

[u/ShopEducational6572]

Expanding the Court is a horrible idea. If the Democrats do it, then the next time the Republicans take power they will do it, and back and forth until we have like 25 justices. It's ridiculous.

[u/donktastic → u/ShopEducational6572]

Term limits is a better idea. As usual the Democrats messaging is miserable.

[u/Mageborn23 → u/donktastic]

You’d need a constitutional amendment for term limits

[u/HoppyPhantom → u/donktastic]

Term limits on SCOTUS justices has a lot more barriers to implementation than expanding the court. The Constitution specifies that they serve for life. It does not specify the size of the court.

[u/Rdhilde18 → u/donktastic]

No it isn’t. The entire reason against term limits is to prevent corruption because justices don’t have to worry about their next career.

[u/salme3105 → u/ShopEducational6572]

We are where we are because the Republicans sat on a moderate Obama Supreme Court nominee FOR A YEAR in the hopes they would win the Presidency and corruptly appoint another right-winger. And then four years later they pushed through a Trump nominee in six weeks, just a couple of weeks before an election. To say we shouldn't do anything to counter that because Repulicans might react is cowering in the corner like an abused spouse. Screw that, kick them in the teeth and don't stop until they know we will keep doing it as needed.

The number of Supreme Court justices used to be aligned with the number of federal Judicial districts. We now have 13 districts, so let's realign things with a Court of 13.

[u/actanonverba1]

my thoughts are that someone should tell her not to run

[u/Malodoror]

Should’ve said that on the campaign trail but that’s not the thing you didn’t say that cost you the election.

[u/Inkpaduta1]

The Supreme Court has proven itself to be a political body, so I don't have any problem with packing, and I'm a lawyer. Political bodies should be subject to political processes.

[u/No-Cantaloupe-6535]

That she holds no office and this means nothing

[u/Presently_Absent]

Kamala Harris needs to step aside. She had her chance.

[u/statslady23]

Where would that stop? Every time either party got a super majority, each would expand. 

[u/Aggravating-Corgi700]

If one side were to pack the court, next time the opposite side is in power they will likely do the same. We need to work on passing laws or constitutional amendments.

[u/Previous_Network3716]

The biggest concern for me is whether these changes would improve the system or just give whichever party is in power more control. Expanding the court and adding states are serious decisions that deserve proper debate, not just support based on which party benefits. And if one party does it today, what stops the other from doing the same thing tomorrow?

[u/f0gax]

My SCOTUS ideas:

1. Expand to 13, one for each circuit.
2. Either 8 or 12 year terms, with a set number that come up for replacement each term of Congress.
3. Max age of 70 (maybe 65).

[u/michaltee → u/f0gax]

Wow this is so simple and sensible.

Which means it’ll never happen.

[u/orthopod → u/f0gax]

Exchange to double that, then have random draw so that a fraction of them only get to rule on a hearing

[u/ClownfishSoup → u/f0gax]

My idea: if a new judge had been nominated, they must defeat a sitting judge in hand to hand combat to take their seat.

[u/Awkward_Trip_4765]

who?

[u/lostinspaz]

you shoulda given a follow up with details on the states

[u/brogflender → u/lostinspaz]

DC, PR, USVI, New Dakota, South Illinanda, Secret Moon, Other Nevada, Des Moines, and Joe Pesci all get to be states. 

[u/1877KlownsForKids → u/brogflender]

You can't have South Illinanda as a state. We already have West Virginia at home.

[u/EverySingleMinute]

Sounds like a terrible idea.

[u/MediumRareNation]

Changing the rules to help your side win sounds a little fascist. Or are we not doing that anymore?

[u/Ace_Warwick → u/MediumRareNation]

It's only fascist when it's not your side. Redditors ability to ignore their own hypocrisy is almost at a Republican level. I fully believe the majority of the people on this site will come up with every possible reason to excuse why this is ok when their side proposes it.

[u/Lets_Go_Brandon9 → u/MediumRareNation]

This is (D)ifferent.

[u/thelonewanderer333 → u/MediumRareNation]

Lmao. But But But the politicians Reddit likes are the good guys!! They can only do good things!!!1!1. The politicians Reddit doesn't like are inherently evil and can only do bad things!

[u/MediumRareNation → u/thelonewanderer333]

I remember Reddit glazing John Fetterman during his campaign. Crazy how time flies.

[u/GoldenTicketHolder → u/MediumRareNation]

Same way she got appointed democrat candidate for the election, rules don’t apply to her

[u/Smart-Tumbleweed-929]

Can she just go away

[u/JuiceGoose_a]

Not in the US but I don't see the point in expanding the Supreme Court - you'd just be arguing about the balance in 11/15/101 judges instead of 9. I do believe that Supreme Court judges should have term limits, perhaps a mandatory 15 year maximum.

[u/Cool_Ranch_Dodrio]

I think that if she wanted to do that, she should have said it back when she was running for president.

Instead, she said she wouldn't do anything differently from Biden.

[u/KYBikeGeek]

Used to be ardently against it, but this SCOTUS has abrogated their basic duties to protect even a limited Constitution. They are bad actors, and such, if they can’t be impeached, then load the damn Court.

[u/Go_Cart_Mozart]

Adding more lanes to a highway doesn't fix the traffic problem over a period of time.

[u/mpbh]

If it was the Republicans suggesting the same thing, I'd be against it. So I'm against it on principle.

[u/JesusShaves_]

No. We need term limits and more turnover. Adding states or judges just changes the size of the problem.

[u/howlinmoon42]

There needs to be a national referendum for citizens – the idea of checks and balances has become so poorly flawed It’s not even real.

Does anyone seriously doubt the people would not approve fighting climate change or taxing billionaires on day one How about approving universal healthcare? If the people can petition for an issue, then pass the issue say by a margin of 60% or more than there should be no entity within the government that can stop that mandate. How about telling the current Russian sympathizer sitting in the White House that his Russian diesel deal is off? The only reason he continues to enjoy that power is because we let him have it.

The only reason these things are not approved and get through is because everybody up and down the chain right now is bought and paid for-doesn’t matter what party you’re talking about

[u/Tomillionaire → u/howlinmoon42]

I mean logistically this becomes a nightmare, but something has to be done for politicians running on something and then doing the exact opposite in office.

[u/tayllerr]

If the Supreme Court was owned by the democrats they’d see no issue with it and call republicans sore losers for suggesting court expansion.

[u/btbam666]

Go away Kamala Harris.

[u/melligator]

Term limits first.

[u/2001_Arabian_Nights]

I am against all “territories”. All Americans should have equal rights. Either you live in a State with full congressional representation, or you live in a different country. Territories create tiered citizenship.

Every territory should hold a binding referendum and get their status resolved once and for all. If Puerto Rico wants to be an independent country? Fine. If they want to be a state? Also fine.

[u/existentialstix]

Term and age limits is what we need. If you are eligible and required to withdraw from your IRAs, then it’s time to go sip your martini or whatever on a beach or retirement home and not still hold on to your seat and keep us in backwards times

[u/DubiousTarantino]

I think it’s reasonable to expand the Supreme Court to match the amount of circuit courts which is 13. The SC and circuit used to match but the SC was capped in the 1800s while the government was still growing. The process of adding 4 justices should probably span 4 presidential terms so adding judges are more gradual.

[u/cromanishere]

Anyone supporting this genuinely wants America to end while serving their own interests. Just remember just because they are on "your side" doesn't mean you should support it blindly.

[u/Tasty_Particular4997]

My thoughts are that Harris should just go be rich somewhere and step outside of politics. 

[u/DilshadZhou]

She's absolutely right. We need big structural reform if we're going to have any hope of having a functional government moving forward. We are running by far the oldest "democracy software" in the world and are in urgent need of a v3.

The reforms needed are bigger than the two she suggests, but those would be an OK start.

[u/Glittering-Lynx6991]

Retire

[u/LBIdockrat]

Interesting thought. Suppose the demo do not take congress in Nov, homany more seats should be added to the court?

[u/1800Heathen]

My thoughts are there needs to be a term limit on supreme court justices. They dont need to stay until they die or retire.

[u/Comfortable-Idea-238]

It will be  Unburdened By What Has Been  🏆 

[u/MrSnarf26]

Hell it’s about time. Tyranny of a senate system that favors the few, Elon musk dropping hundreds of millions on every election, all the evil shit, people should be planning for this.

[u/davidwave4]

She supported this stuff in 2019. Then, as vice president and 2024 nominee she disavowed it. I don’t trust her on this, she’s saying whatever it takes to win the nomination.

[u/NEV68]

This kind of thing is never good. Once one side does something like this the other side will do it when they get back in power in retaliation. It will never end.