House and Senate Democrats Plan Bill to Add Four Justices to Supreme Court
By: House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler (The Intercept)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Congressional Democrats plan to unveil legislation expanding the size of the Supreme Court on Thursday, according to three congressional sources familiar with the closely held measure.
The bill would add four seats to the high court, bringing the total to 13 from the current nine. The number of justices on the Court, which is set by Congress, has fluctuated throughout the course of the nation's history, before settling on nine in 1869.
The bill is led by House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, Subcommittee chair Hank Johnson, and freshman Rep. Mondaire Jones. In the Senate, the bill is being championed by Ed Markey of Massachusetts.
Republicans currently hold six seats, while Democrats hold just three. Republicans were able to solidify control of the Court under former President Donald Trump, after first refusing to advance Merrick Garland's nomination under former President Barack Obama, and then confirming Justice Neil Gorsuch after Trump's election. Then, after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg died in September 2020, Republicans threw out the procedures they had previously embraced and confirmed Justice Amy Coney Barrett in a matter of weeks.
After Trump's nomination of Coney Barrett, then-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer faced pressure to stop her confirmation by any means necessary. When those myriad options fell short, and Coney Barrett was pushed through, the conversation turned to expanding the court.
"Not only do these extremist judges threaten more than a century of progressive achievements," read a letter to Schumer by 20 New York elected officials, "they threaten to foreclose the possibility of any future progress under a Democratic administration."
NEW: More than 20 New York progressive elected officials are calling on Schumer to commit to expanding the Supreme Court.
Schumer is up for re-election in 2022, this looks like a shot across the bow pic.twitter.com/xRbErUxPry
— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) October 27, 2020
But, after Democrats lost races they hoped to win in Maine, North Carolina, and Iowa, some Democratic strategists argued that the talk of court packing and ending the filibuster had inspired more Republicans to vote, and discussion of the move was shelved.
This story is developing.
Tags
Who is online
105 visitors
It's official. The dems are going to try and pack the Court.
I am off topic.
Freaking idiots.
With a two member majority in the House and the VP majority in the Senate, they've pulled a lot of shit so far. How do they intend to do this?
Smoke and mirrors?
Parliamentary tricks?
There is a new Parliamentarian who disagrees with the old one and has granted the dems 4 shots at reconciliation. I don't know if that figures in here, but democrats sure seem confident on this. Biden who wouldn't tell us where he stood on the matter during the election submitted it to a study, where it could have collected dust. It seems the radical left is calling all the shots.
Sometimes Democrats remind me of a dumb kid who keeps sticking his fingers in the light socket.
Dumb.
I know what you mean the public always gets burned and then votes them out. The problem is all the damage done in the meantime.
yep!
and some Democrats will proclaim the GOP is dead, and then they'll be wondering wth happened.
Not until they fully replace the population.
They are trying to destroy the system of checks and balances to keep them in power
For decades they had liberal courts give them victory after victory. They can't accept the shoe being on the other foot.
So, be like the Republicans, cause it's ok when they do it, no?
oh, please enlighten us when in your lifetime that the GOP stacked SCOTUS.
THIS I HAVE TO READ!
Filling an empty seat is not packing the court. Adding seats, which is what the dems seem intent on trying, is.
yeah. but somebody probably told him that's what the GOP did, and he swallowed it!
from the article it is apparent as usual, that the gop and hypocrisy, are perfect ly acceptable for Repubs. "Republicans were able to solidify control of the Court under former President Donald Trump, after first refusing to advance Merrick Garland's nomination under former President Barack Obama, and then confirming Justice Neil Gorsuch after Trump's election. Then, after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg died in September 2020, Republicans threw out the procedures they had previously embraced and confirmed Justice Amy Coney Barrett in a matter of weeks."
So, these complete hypocrisies' are all ok with you guys ?
is that what happened Tex ?
Think we could ALL use a tad more context, no ?
you need a crying towel?
I asked, and you didn't bother to answer, how has the GOP stacked the Court?
probably makes the most sense.
Well, you responded to this,
“The dems are going to try and pack the Court.”
by saying this,
“So, be like the Republicans, cause it's ok when they do it, no?”
What would more context add? It’s very evident you think repubs have or tried to pack the court. Again, filling a vacant seat is NOT packing the court.
what is funny Tex, is how i doubt i've given more than a few seconds of thought on this issue, and your gang has fantasized about it for decades, and you guys and I, will begin on a level playing field where as your gang should be miles ahead of me, and although you often believe you are, i just have to sit back and laugh. Yep Tex, you have once again put me in my intellectually inferior oubliette, and as i keep floating around attempting to reach the bottom of your heights, does it ever occur to you that i might possibly not be as 'inferior' as you "think" ?
I simply asked you to clarify something.
and now we both know you can't or won't. time to move on from GOP-court-packing fantasy of yours.
do you know what fudge is ?
do you know what stacking the court is?
I know it’s not a threat.
yea, my father was the Milkman
define threat
did he try to stack the court. too?
oh, no!
he stacked quarts, ha;f quarts, and even gallons....
Google thingy broke?
no, just fingers
JUST fingers?
You think an article in The Intercept makes it official ? Thats hilarious.
We will know in the morning, won't we?
Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Reps. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., Hank Johnson, D-Ga., and Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y., will hold a press conference on Thursday to introduce the proposal on the steps of the Supreme Court.
ooh, don't think the source will be appreciated!
Now we have two sources. Let's see if the msm media joins in.
Oh here it is, NBC is on board:
Yup, now they'll believe it. It's not "hilarious" now is it?
Don't tell me he ran away!
Maybe CNN or MSNBC will mention it so the Doubting Thomas's will believe it?
It's everywhere now. The Intercept got it first. Well done for them.
I can rest easy now.
Goodnight my friend.
And goodnight to the democrats in Minneapolis & Brooklyn Center
good night.
hoping for a peaceful, non-violent night.
Not sure about cnn. According to charlie chester, climate change will be their next propaganda mission.
"You think an article in The Intercept makes it official ? Thats hilarious."
It Really Is!
I hope it's true though.
do you realize how silly it is to attack the source, especially when it is accurate?
It is not silly to attack a source. I think the attack on the source should be reasonable, but the Intercept is not a mainstream source and is known for it's hostility toward the Democratic Party.
and, despite your feelings, it was correct in its article!
As Pravda used to say "as is well known."
Let me know when Pelosi, Schumer or Biden announce support for this bill at this time.
The Democrats want to make Republican additions to the court over the past few years, namely in the Merrick Garland instance and Amy Barrett being confirmed days before the presidential election , an issue in the '22 election. Talking about a bill that might address that at some point is a good political strategy.
I won't speak for Tex, I'm sure he'll let you off easy with that.
I do want to thank you for helping to promote the credibility of The Intercept. They got it first and they got it right!
strategy?
lol
sounds like Democrats got all pissy and upset over a couple of nominations and want to change things to suit themselves.
that's how it is going to look to many people
is it now considered hostile to tell the truth about what Democrats are doing?
Be back in a bit.
Keep that flower nurtured...
She cried so when I left her it was like it broke her heart
And if I ever find her we never more will part
She's the sweetest little rose bud that Texas ever knew
Her eyes are bright as diamonds they sparkle like the dew
r you two an item...?
are you jealous?
if this stupidity comes to fruition, expect bad results in the midterms for Democrats.
At least that's a good thing.
They are dead already. They are trying to change the nation in 2 years.
Disgusting...Trying to destroy the Judiciary.
Biden’s handlers want a banana republic, where there are no checks on the imperial president.
They are nearsighted idiots.
They are so sure that they will keep their slim majority that they think they will get away with this, consequence-free.
Dumbasses.
Roosevelt tried and failed to pack the Supreme Court
The history of the SCOTUS indicates that as the population of the USA grew, so grew the number of justices on the SCOTUS until 1869, but from then until now the population has grown TENFOLD, and I'm sure there has been at least ten times the litigation heading to the SCOTUS than there was in 1869, but the SCOTUS remained static in number. The Supreme Court of Canada, a country of ONE TENTH the population of the USA has a NINE-MEMBER Supreme Court. In my opinion, it would be LOGICAL for the SCOTUS to be increased by at least two members, creating an 11 member court, not only for the practical reason of being more efficiently capable of dealing with appeals, but also taking into consideration the VAST political divisivness in the USA it would at least allow for a more apolitical complexion to be achieved by the court's decisions.
Having been personally involved with matters of law for four decades, I believe my opinion should be taken seriously WITHOUT POLITICAL BIAS, thank you.
The number of Representatives in the House has been the same and the population has increased
A different level of responsibilities.
USSC is not based on population , just like the upper house of the legislature the senate is not based on population , the only branch of the government and legislature is the house of reps ., and they dictate their own membership numbers.
actual numbers of members have fluctuated over the years but have pretty much stayed at 9 since the mid 1800s , 9 being an odd number insures there is no tie even if the chief justice votes .
I think i have also read that some GOP members of congress are attempting to get an amendment to the USC limiting the number of justices to 9.
Doesn't answer my observation that it would certainly do something about the adage "Justice delayed is justice denied" The SCOTUS does not always sit "in banco". My opinion was not based on political biased favouritism but you're a conservative so naturally you favour the status quo. Had it been 6 - 3 the other way around I'm sure your comment would have been different.
i have actually been told im more moderate than i come off , it just depends on the subject , which is how i approach most discussions about anything
and yes if there was a 6-3 liberal or progressive slant to the top court , i may change my stance , but again it would depend on what is in front of them to decide.
True enough, you're not one of the incorrigible overwhelmingly radical right wingers on this site.
How does this sound buzz?
Currently , there are 13 appellate court districts in the US that is the court just under the USSC.
how about allowing 1 justice ( to include the chief justice ) be appointed per appellate court district that they oversee so to speak., thats 13 justices total.
IF a vacancy on the USSC occurs , then the Justice to be replaced , would need to come from the appellate district court they oversaw.
this of course will cut into the Presidents power to nominate from anywhere , but the trade off there is that the 13 justices would eventually come from all over the nation and be more representative of the nation as a whole.
Another benefit i see happening is that it can possably make congress make sure judicial seats in the lower courts stay filled , and not hope for better election cycles that benefit their parties, instead of leaving judicial seats vacant for years on end. .
That sounds reasonable to me, but what really concerns me is the political division and the biased decisions caused by that, which is why I thought that balance would be best - I'm not familiar enough wtih the political loyalties that occur in the appellate court divisions and whether or not the judges there would have superior qualifications. In Canada experience and quality are required for appointment to the judiciary, and even the Canadian Bar Association has a say in who gets appointed, whereas to me the election of judges (which is done in the USA, but not Canada) is a joke, a popularity contest, like who gets elected to be high school student president - maybe the hero school football team QB who hardly has the ability to read and write.
I could be down with that system provided term limits are also introduced. I do feel that is necessary in part to depoliticized the SCOTUS but also because the world is changing fast and I don’t necessarily trust that someone in their 80s is up to the task of keeping up.
I always think back to when congress was trying to get Apple to write code allowing them to unlock (I think it was the Boston bomber’s) phone, and just not understanding at all exactly what they wanted Apple to do or the dangers of it. I worry about the court ruling on issues they truly do not understand or based on beliefs or opinions from 50 years ago that society has long since abandoned.
Another benefit is that, ideally, every SCOTUS nominee would have plenty of experience on the bench.
However, Mark, the appellate court district solution may be an interesting theory, but how are you going to get it started? Surely you're not thinking of firing the existing 9 judges - I doubt that you could. Then as an existing judge no longer serves, which appellate court justice will you choose? It would be quiite a few years before such a system would reach the full court made up of appellate court judges. I would prefer to see political balance as I had suggested. Personally, the biggest problem I see with the SCOTUS is the politics.
How would term limits depoliticize the Court? No one has ever explained how that would actually happen. The Court is "politicized" because it makes political rulings. Term limits won't change that.
In fact, the opposite would happen. More confirmation hearings, more justices trying to make a "mark" in their limited time on the Court.. etc.
because the world is changing fast and I don’t necessarily trust that someone in their 80s is up to the task of keeping up.
Yet President Biden......
worry about the court ruling on issues they truly do not understand or based on beliefs or opinions from 50 years ago that society has long since abandoned.\
That's what lawyers do. Explain the issues from the court. If justices are ruling on "belief or opinions" then the system is pointless anyway. They should rule on the law and the Constitution
Buzz as with anything the legislature does , there is always going to be a catch, anything passed legislatively can be reversed once the winds of change change the tilt of political power , one side can make these proposed changes with legislation , and the minute they lose political power , it can be changed by whomever wins that power, Adams did it to Jefferson , and the powers in power after reversed it .
And that is even true for my spitballing idea.
As has been pointed out any lasting and concrete changes to the court will have to come from a constitutional amendment , and for that they have to follow the processes outlined to amend the constitution , which currently there are 2 options , a constitutional convention of the states , or getting 2/3rds of congress to pass , and 3/4ths of the states to ratify any proposed legislation or amendment.
there has only ever been 1 constitutional convention , ever , and for a reason most dont think of .
as for the constituional legislative method , that has proven harder to change the constituion than one would imagine and that was by design .
Sean - sad but true 'bout the court making political rulings. Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison was the first case in which the Supreme Court struck down a federal law as unconstitutional and it is most significant for its role in establishing the Supreme Court's power of judicial review, or the power to invalidate laws as unconstitutional.
Purportedly, that is the role of SCOTUS - to ensure the Constitution is adhered to by the other two branches of the government and to keep politics out of their rulings.
Purportedly - doesn't always happen though.
This is all subject to conjecture and very open to debate .
But the first thing that would have to happen is a constitutional amendment addressing the issue , so that it can not be changed by politics alone and thus by legislation at the whims of political party power. specifically Art 3 , sec 1.
after that gets passed depending on what that amendment says the rest is spitballing from here on out on my part.
lets say that the number of justices is expanded to 13 , just as there are 13 appellate districts ( there are actually something like 97 US district courts , imagine sitting 97 USSC justices ?).
this first go around i would say that it would be up to the court and the chief justice to decide which justice watches which appellate court district., they could use seniority , where the justice served on a lower court , even where they grew up. Reason i say watch is thats all they would be doing , better for 1 person to be watching whats going on in a single district of appeal than to have all of them watching all the districts trying to guess which cases might go before them.( remember the USSC gets to choose its cases ). frankly i would be surprised if they dont already do this ( watch the appellate courts) and just havent said anything about doing so.
From the initial start , after that , it becomes easy on retirement of death if a replacement is chosen from the appellate district , and the nominees are not restricted to just members of the lower courts .
My thinking on using districts , is that in that way there is no overload from any one place , the DC appellate is known to be a one of the fastest ways to be nominated . My thinking is that no one region can pack the court and that the court is more representative of the entire nation .
Another thing i would get rid of is a senators ability to Blue card nominees , that essentially means that any nominee is not going to be confirmed , just one more political manuever removed .
Not really in favor of term limits , RBG was sharp as a tack to the end. now a madatory retirement age , I can get behind , for the reasons thrawn stated . what that would be would depend on the amendment and not the court itself . and i often wonder if the justices themselves wouldnt like that , it would negate having to stay on because the make up of government is not to their own liking so they try and hold on because of whom they think might be nominated to replace them.
Well, it's not possible to divide the Supreme Court to handle increased case load. We can't have two Supreme Courts. The entire court of Justices must hear each case. So, the number of Justices is actually moot.
The increased case load resulting from increasing population size has been dealt with by establishing more District Courts.
"The entire court of Justices must hear each case."
"Do all of the Justices have to be present in order to hear a case?
A quorum of six Justices is required to decide a case. Justices may also participate in a case by listening to audio recordings of the oral arguments and reading the transcripts."
Oh, the humanity! The right so conveniently waves away their own theft history when fomenting rage over an act of retribution. Reminds me of a scene in Cheech and Chong’s Next Movie, where Cheech misplaces a battle axe he found on a Hollywood movie set ... “somebody ripped off the thing I ripped off!!”
you almost ---almost --had a point---IF Republicans had stacked the Court.
They did stack the court using their own special unethical method, then furthered the stacking using the most blatantly hypocritical process imaginable. You’re lying to yourself if you disagree. If it comes back to them in spades it’s because they practically begged for it to happen.
you should probably look up what stacking the court actually means.
the GOP didn't stack it.
So true! Every single word.
Some folks just can't Let.It.Go no matter how times they're proven wrong.
Call it what you want - fucked it over, jacked it up, tilted it in their favor - but don’t pretend it didn’t happen. I realize this doesn’t mean much to you, but that just makes you look ignorant.
well, I like to call things what they actually are.
maybe one day EVERYONE will know what stacking the court really is.
Maybe.
Your whole existence here is an exercise in semantics.
My dad could've told you, as most Milkmen in their day. They all Stacked. They stacked Waffles, Pancakes, Actors, Female Chests, Putin breasts, half quarts, Courts, and even Gallons . The difference betweeen stacking and packing is the gop stacked the front of their jeans, and packed the rear!
if only he could have told you what stacking the court meant.....
you know what semantics are, but don't know what stacking the court is?
I ain't buying it.
I am getting a kick out of ol Harry Reid warning about court stacking though.
We remember him from when he was the senate majority leader and invoked the "nuclear option" for seating lower courts nominees ? how did that actually work out after dems lost control? Answer is very few judicial seats got filled until the senate and the WH came under the same parties control , and that "option " was extended to include the USSC nominees .
Maybe old Harry actually learned something from that stupid, ignorant move.
Sweet, maybe we can get enough SCOTUS insanity going that our coward ass politicians will have to make some real, concrete reforms to the courts in the form of constitutional amendments (setting a set number of justices and term limits chief among them).
Seems the only way to get congress to take any sort of meaningful action is when something becomes an absolute crisis.
That would only be palpatable to some if it also applies to congress as well, like 2 terms in the senate or 3 in the house .
Jerry I just shit myself Nadler tried to sell what nobody will buy minutes ago.
They need to end the filibuster to get it through.
Could this just be a threat to the Court? Could it be they are holding a gun to the Court's head in order to get desired results?
Judging by what happened when FDR tried it, it does influence decisions!
I think that's the goal, at least short term. Threaten the Court now and the Democrats hope they will pick up Senate seats in the 2022 so they can destroy the Senate and the Court without worrying about moderates like Manchin.
And if that day ever comes they'll have a boat load of legislation to push through. HR 1 and the Court packing will be sitting there.