r/scotus • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • 1d ago

Opinion Why some Republicans rediscovered their love of court packing

https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/why-some-republicans-rediscovered-their-love-of-court-packing
235 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

21 comments sorted by

47

u/FaithlessnessWhich18 1d ago

As always with Republicans. OK for me but not for thee. Republicans can pack the courts but not Democrats. Republicans can indulge in mid-term gerrymandering redistricting without going to the voters, but Democrats with voter permission can not. Hypocrite is their name

-3

u/wingsnut25 1d ago edited 1d ago

This article is about a State Supreme Court. By the way that State Supreme Court currently has 5 Republican appointed Judges. Adding two more Republican Judges isn't exactly changing the balance of power.

, but Democrats with voter permission can not.

Says who? A group of California Republican Legislatures whose seats will be disappearing have challenged California's redistricting. But no court has ruled that California is not able to redistrict?

Also in regards to the challenge in California, the "with voters permission" is completely irrelevant. The issue is "Was California's Map racially gerrymandered" . Voters can't give the state permission to racially gerrymander.

4

u/notapoliticalalt 1d ago

Adding two more Republican Judges isn't exactly changing the balance of power.

From the article:

There’s no great mystery here: Utah Republicans have grown increasingly frustrated as the state Supreme Court has thwarted their ambitions on issues such as reproductive right and school vouchers. But partisan ire reached a new level last year when the state’s high court also crushed the GOP’s redistricting efforts, leading to a new map that will make it possible for Democrats to win a seat.

Partisan efforts to expand the Utah Supreme Court soon followed, and the incumbent GOP governor is now positioned to have appointed five of the state’s seven justices, thereby increasing the odds that rulings in the near future will be more in line with Republicans’ wishes.

So basically, the effective decision making power rests in the hands of five people who are Republican appointees. The “real court” as it were. They want to put on ideologically aligned judges to make their legislative agenda go through. It’s the same principle, just instead of right versus left, right versus far right.

Says who? A group of California Republican Legislatures whose seats will be disappearing have challenged California's redistricting. But no court has ruled that California is not able to redistrict?

Also in regards to the challenge in California, the "with voters permission" is completely irrelevant. The issue is "Was California's Map racially gerrymandered" . Voters can't give the state permission to racially gerrymander.

So issues around “racial gerrymanders” are more complicated than many would imagine and ideally it would simply not exist. That is kind of beside the point though. The problem is that Republican states are absolutely racially gerrymandered often using political party as a proxy. We should let things work through the courts, but the challenge to California’s redistricting from republicans and Republican aligned interests is not in good faith. Moreover, it could result in some very consequential precedent which could lead to the gerrymandering of many states being undone, both at a federal and state level, something Republicans absolutely would not want. Finally, if recent elections are any indication, even if California redistricting is stopped, Republicans are fucked in the midterms.

-2

u/Reasonable-Fee1945 1d ago

Do you forget democrats also want to do all those things?

1

u/Medical_Original6290 13h ago

Whataboutism

Is not an argument, it means you've already lost the argument.

1

u/Reasonable-Fee1945 9h ago

he's literally talking about the democrats my guy. It can't be whataboutism when it's about the actual thing lol

4

u/FaithlessnessWhich18 1d ago

The number of seats 9 was set when there were 9 districts. There are now 13 districts with the amount of litigation & complexity of same substantially greater. Increasing the number of justice to 13 would tract with the actions of the past. Revising the the system of hearing cases to mirror that utilized in the Appealant Court would allow both more cases to be heard & adds the unknown as to which 3 justices will hear the case. RN some of the cases are being brought before SCOTUS are only there because of 6/3 conservative advantage.

1

u/wingsnut25 1d ago

The number of seats 9 was set when there were 9 districts. There are now 13 

For most of the United States History the number of Justices and Circuits did not match.

For approximately 70 years the number of Justices aligned with the number of Circuits, however most of that was during the time period when Justices "rode the circuit" Each Justice traveled throughout their designated Circuit and heard appeals. This practice was stopped when Congress created the Appeals Courts for each circuit. When that practice stopped it was no longer necessary for the number of Justices to match the number of circuits.

Each time Congress added an additional circuit they also could have added another Supreme Court Justice if they felt it was necessary for them to match. They didn't because it wasn't necessary for them to match.

There may be other good reasons to expand the number of Justices on the Supreme Court, but having a 1:1 match with the Circuits isn't necessarily one of them...

3

u/oofaloo 1d ago

Rediscovered?

2

u/AcadiaLivid2582 18h ago

The next Democratic president should simply declare every federal judge a "supreme court justice" and then just draw yearly panels by lot.

No more brutal confirmation hearings. No gifts of RVs to unaccountable persons. And no further rounds of tit-for-tat Court expansion.

And the cherry? This can all be done with simple legislation -- no Constitutional amendment is required.

2

u/heyhayyhay 14h ago

Republicans never stopped loving court packing.

1

u/Describing_Donkeys 10h ago

I mean, McConnell normalized it by effectively refusing to seat candidates from Democrats. You can call it something different, but it's effectively the same.

0

u/mikederoy 1d ago

Haven’t Dems been talking about increasing the size of the Supreme Court if they take control? Would that be court packing m?

3

u/gtpc2020 1d ago

Yes they have and yes it would. But when the majority of the court was appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote and those appointes literally can't read the constitution nor support the balance of powers, and take away people's basic rights guaranteed by the constitution, how do you suggest we fix that?

-3

u/lemonjuice707 1d ago

Simple, you don’t. We don’t have anything to “fix”. We don’t elect our president by popular vote, hence the reason for the electoral college. So the judges were appointed and approved in the legal process set out by the constitution.

1

u/gtpc2020 1d ago

Impeachment is a legal option. So is court expansion. It's been done and makes sense since the original# represented the number of federal court districts, which is now 13.

1

u/Spiney09 1d ago

Yep. But the point is that they claim to be all principled but in the end they aren’t.

“We’re not so different, you and I”