I like Paul Waldman's take in yesterday's Plum Line (WaPo) -- D's messaging about why we are making these changes is because the R's left us no choice. "They made us do it" is what the R's say all the time about why they are changing the game. We have to do the same. Republicans worked for decades to make democracy less fair. When D's win, we can say: "We have to do this (increase # of Supremes, term limits for Supremes, add DC and PR as states, etc) because the R's put their fingers on the scales so they could win all the time, and they were mean to us too!"
Here's my problem with the "balance" argument: Had Obama seated Garland, the court would have become a 5-4 liberal majority. Then, had Hilary won the election, she would have nominated two additional justices - to replace Kennedy and RBG. That would have resulted in a 7-2 liberal court. Had that happened, would liberals/progressives have been concerned about balance?
Exactly. However, the Republican bastardization of the appointment process did politicize the Supreme Court like never before. I would love to see a poll asking "Do you think the Supreme Court has been politicized and is no longer fair". I suspect a majority would feel it has been corrupted by politics. When Democrats take control and "pack" the court they should, in parallel, initiate a constitutional amendment to change how justices are selected, taking the power away from the president & senate. Maybe something along the lines of Buttigieg's plan. This way the changes (packing the court) could be framed as a short term attempt to de-politicize the court.
Great insights into the importance of the approach and the messaging. Thank you.
I like Paul Waldman's take in yesterday's Plum Line (WaPo) -- D's messaging about why we are making these changes is because the R's left us no choice. "They made us do it" is what the R's say all the time about why they are changing the game. We have to do the same. Republicans worked for decades to make democracy less fair. When D's win, we can say: "We have to do this (increase # of Supremes, term limits for Supremes, add DC and PR as states, etc) because the R's put their fingers on the scales so they could win all the time, and they were mean to us too!"
I came across this post today, and I'm curious about your thoughts. Sorry to link to FB but I don't want to copy/paste something I didn't write.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10104472056584607&id=5616939
There are a few interesting ideas there, I think?
Here's my problem with the "balance" argument: Had Obama seated Garland, the court would have become a 5-4 liberal majority. Then, had Hilary won the election, she would have nominated two additional justices - to replace Kennedy and RBG. That would have resulted in a 7-2 liberal court. Had that happened, would liberals/progressives have been concerned about balance?
Exactly. However, the Republican bastardization of the appointment process did politicize the Supreme Court like never before. I would love to see a poll asking "Do you think the Supreme Court has been politicized and is no longer fair". I suspect a majority would feel it has been corrupted by politics. When Democrats take control and "pack" the court they should, in parallel, initiate a constitutional amendment to change how justices are selected, taking the power away from the president & senate. Maybe something along the lines of Buttigieg's plan. This way the changes (packing the court) could be framed as a short term attempt to de-politicize the court.