Destroying Norms: After Losing to Trump, Democrats Want to Pack the Courts and Change the Rules


One of Trump critics' most common indictments against the president is that he's taking a blowtorch to treasured political norms, and actively undermining faith in vital American institutions. Too often, they're right. The current occupant of the Oval Office regularly embraces a facts-second, ends-driven brand of politics that is corrosive and demagogic. There seems to be no person, entity, or values he's unwilling attack or deride in order to gain what he perceives as a personal or political advantage, no matter how fleeting. Many on the Left, and some on the Right, have therefore cast themselves as jealous guardians of longstanding norms and institutions in the age of Trump. There is honor and merit in this impulse. But in response to Trump's real and alleged perniciousness, large elements of his opposition have proven themselves, ironically and frighteningly, quite eager to embark upon their own project of shattering norms and destroying institutions. Having lost electorally, they want to change the rules.
Let's begin with the astonishing fact that multiple Democratic presidential candidates are now openly indulging various Supreme Court-packing schemes. None have outright endorsed any specific plan, though some have been more specific than others. The growing trend is to assure outraged and short-sighted progressives that they're committed to "having a conversation about" or "looking at" the banana republic-style power grab, as a means of compensating for ideological setbacks under the firmly established system. Even if these panderers don't truly believe such a radical move is prudent of feasible, they're normalizing it as an acceptable idea. It's dangerous. Astoundingly, they're doing this while a Republican president is in office (one that they all agree doesn't respect norms, at that), and while Republicans hold a six-seat Senate majority. The list of potential nominees unwilling to simply rule out this dreadful idea is growing :
2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court: Warren, Gillibrand, Harris all say it’s worth discussing, joining Buttigieg and Beto
Story with ? @marianne_levine ? https://t.co/AEgSfDnkDf — Burgess Everett (@burgessev) March 18, 2019 Regardless of the arguments for or against any of these ideas in isolation, or on the merits, the fundamental problem with all of them -- taken collectively -- is that they reek of reflexive sore loserdom. It's like Democrats decided that various institutions and norms that contributed to their unexpected 2016 loss are hopelessly tainted and must be dismantled, all while feigning deep convictions about preserving the institutions and norms that they don't (currently) see as inconveniences. These people can spare us any and all further lectures about their reverence for the beautifully-crafted system Trump is supposedly wrecking. It's pure, self-interested cynicism.
“Relatedly, it also feels as though some Democrats are positively allergic to learning any lessons from their own prior overreach , and the resulting unhappy consequences , on this front. Others seem incredulous that some of their fellow partisans are plotting yet another shocking power grab that could yet again blow up in their faces:
Meanwhile, the party that purported to be positively aghast when candidate Donald Trump outrageously refused to pledge to accept the 2016 election results is now celebrating and glorifying candidates who have...refused to accept their own election results. Democrats' failed gubernatorial nominee in Georgia was selected to give the party's State of the Union response. She has said that she'll never concede the race that she unequivocally lost, various complaints notwithstanding. Democrats' failed gubernatorial nominee in Florida is also peddling dark, baseless conspiracies , having likewise lost his race, fair and square:
Elsewhere, prominent Democrats are floating ideas like abolishing the electoral college , and dropping the voting age to 16 -- which isn't shaping up to be much of a winner either:
Regardless of the arguments for or against any of these ideas in isolation, or on the merits, the fundamental problem with all of them -- taken collectively -- is that they reek of reflexive sore loserdom.”
does the author mean like now? another demonstration of someone on the right projecting what they are currently guilty of doing in some obscure online birther tabloid.
classic case of attempted gas-lighting
Like the Dems didn't try to change the rules and load up the courts with progressive/leftist judges under Obama?
Pot meet kettle. No matter which party is in charge they try to fill the courts with judges closer to their political bent; and change the rules to benefit themselves. You can thank Harry Reid's short-sightedness for the nuclear option which is allowing Republicans to pack the courts now.
No, the author is using the term correctly.
People who claim Trump is engaged in court packing are either ignorant or gas lighting the forum.
In case you just don't know what you are talking about: If Trump nominates three Supreme Court justices tomorrow (the Democrats plan) , he'd be packing the Court.
That hasn’t happened since Kennedy nominated Byron Whizzer White to the court.
If trump and the republicans were as dishonest and intent on destroying our country as the democrats apparently are,, he would simply pack the courts now.
Court packing will destroy the court and our system of government.
He IS packing the courts big time. Just as with his cabinet of thieves, every one of Trump's judicial picks has been a far right wing ignorant fascist who side with environment raping multinational corporations over the welfare of We the People.
Explain to me how democrats are packing the courts. It doesn't work that way. Do the research. Trump has the power.
Trump is acting within the structure of existing tradition and laws. He’s doing what all presidents do and making legal appointments to fill existing vacancies on the courts as they arise. It’s the democrats who speak of packing the courts by adding the number of justices on each court beyond present levels.
I don't think you know what the term means.
Yeah, I was just about to reply that it didn't appear that someone had read the article.
Court packing - increasing the number of seats on the Supreme Court to change its ideological makeup.
Trump has not increased the number of seats. Trump is doing what any President does...filling vacant seats. The Constitution gives the responsibility for nominating federal judges and justices to the President. Those nominees must be confirmed by the Senate. Those appointed serve for life.
The current Democrat Presidential hopefuls are talking about limiting terms and adding justices to the supreme court...ensuring rulings that echo their political views...specifically benefiting the current socialist views. Fortunately, that will take an Act of Congress. I doubt Congress would be able to pass an Act rendering the Supreme Court a partisan body for life, or even for a specified term.
You can't even get that right. Garland was passed over for Gorsuch. [deleted]
Obama gave it a shot, but the Senate didn't hold hearings.
Neil Gorsuch was nominated and confirmed - succeeding Antonin Scalia - in April 2017. Kavanaugh was nominated and confirmed - replacing retiring Anthony Kennedy - in October 2018. So, it would appear your 'should have been' is skewed.
Typical worthless comeback after fucking up again...
Your comment is still wrong.
[deleted]
You're correct. The Republican Senate used the 'Biden Rule'.
That sounds bi partisan enough for me, Republicans relying on a rule proposed and set by a top democrat.
One of fascism's Big Lie methods is to steal terminology and repurpose it. The idea is to destroy the meaning of the word, so that its correct application loses its credibility.
President Trump has destroyed democratic norms by the dozen, so his fascist fellow-traveler supporters, logically, must ascribe "destroying norms" to his adversaries.
Project much?
Thanks for giving another example, Sean.
[Removed]
Save that for the secret meetings...
[deleted]
[If you want to insinuate that members of the forum are Fascists or Nazis, take it to HD]
You are probably right. We should set up a team red meeting at Proud Conservatives!
The good news is, our republic, if it survives Trump, can be fixed democratically...
You're optimistic ...
Welcome to the great nation of Fox, ALEC, the Heartland/Heritage/Discovery propaganda mills, Citizens United and the resurgence of the KKK, brownshirts, skinheads and well-armed redneck militias that all hate "the other".
It will get lots worse before it gets better (if it ever does). Here's to hoping that at this point the pendulum can actually swing the other way. Maybe have 10 more years left in this old body and hope to see more sanity in government, business and my fellow man before I go.
and hope to see more sanity in government, business and my fellow man before I go.
OMG! did I just type that? Must be getting maudlin and senile!
So all of us mainstream conservatives and our organizations that we speak through or that speak for us are all nothing more redneck brown shirts bringing back the kkk and armed militias? Really? As to citizens united working back to the beginning of your post, they are great organizations that are us and well represent us and our beliefs.
the funny part is when they think all 50 states will just sit back and take it.
today's left must have a suicide pact. but if the left wants a civil war that bad, the can have it.
nothing will rid us of the socialist/communist bs any faster than that.
cheers
[Removed]
Lol 😝!
Packing the Supreme Court would set a bad precedent even if it could be pulled off. This kind of crap always backfires.
It's a shame that nothing can be done about McConnell's disgraceful decision not to even consider the Garland nomination, but this isn't the answer to that.
He was considered and then rejected. As the law allows.
The law also allows changes to the number of SCOTUS judges. It's a dumb idea, but it has happened before and can happen again.
The current law, in fact, does NOT allow that. Keep up.
Congress has the power to set the number of Justices. It's been a little as 7 and as many as 10. Were that not the case then Rubio wouldn't be talking about a Constitutional Amendment he won't get.
Classy as usual.
“ Destroying Norms: After Losing to Trump, Democrats Want to Pack the Courts and Change the Rules"
"That’s not the way our democracy works. We’ve been around 240 years. We’ve had free and fair elections and we’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election. President Obama said the other day that when you’re whining before the game is even finished it just shows you’re not even up to doing the job. “
And then Hillary Clinton said this about Trump too.
:
“And let’s be clear about what he’s saying and what he means. He’s denigrating—he’s talking down our democracy. I for one am appalled that somebody who is the nominee of one of our major two parties would take that kind of position.”
DEMOCRATS HATE LOSING....SO THEY'RE GONNA FIX IT !
Been done before. Ya know, History
Sure do !
"We’ve been around 240 years. We’ve had free and fair elections and we’ve accepted the outcomes."
But of course.....there are some that "Want" …. "Change"..... since Losing.....badly !
They are the change they have been waiting for.
The transformation we the people rejected.