Democrats ramp up pressure on Biden to pack the Supreme Court after latest rulings

[mystery-ak]

 July 5, 2023 8:19am EDT
Democrats ramp up pressure on Biden to pack the Supreme Court after latest rulings
President Biden himself called the Supreme Court 'not normal'
By Anders Hagstrom | Fox News

    Democrats are ramping up pressure on President Biden to pack the Supreme Court following a series of legal losses for the party last week.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus redoubled its efforts to impose term limits and confirm new justices to outweigh the current 6-3 conservative majority. Democrats have also pushed claims that the current court is illegitimate, an argument Biden himself contributed toward after the end of affirmative action last month.

"We must pass Reps. Jerry Nadler, Hank Johnson, and Mondaire Jones' Judiciary Act to add justices and expand the Supreme Court, and their Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act to institute a Supreme Court ethics and recusal standard and require disclosure of lobbying and dark money interests," Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said in a Wednesday statement.

"Recent partisan decisions by the Supreme Court that destroyed historic protections for reproductive rights, voting rights and more have undermined public trust in the court — even as inappropriate financial relationships between justices and conservative donors raised new questions about its integrity," Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., said.

more
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-ramp-pressure-biden-pack-supreme-court-scotus-latest-rulings

[Kamaji]

We all knew this was coming.  The GOP had damned well better hold firm on this nonsense.

[DefiantMassRINO]

The Bright Side ... when next GOP President gets elected, he can re-pack the court ... by 2032 there could be 837 Supreme Court Justices.

[Idiot]

The Bright Side ... when next GOP President gets elected, he can re-pack the court ... by 2032 there could be 837 Supreme Court Justices.

Like there will ever be another CONSERVATIVE GOP President.

[Kamaji]

The Bright Side ... when next GOP President gets elected, he can re-pack the court ... by 2032 there could be 837 Supreme Court Justices.

That is the threat that needs to be conveyed to the libs, along with reminders that after Schumer got rid of the filibuster for lower court federal judges, the GOP got rid of it for Supreme Court justices, and proceeded to get three new justices nominated and confirmed.  If they open this can of worms, they will ultimately regret it.

[GtHawk]

Well democraps can pressure Captain Dementia all they want, as I recall only Congress has the authority to add justices.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

They need manchin and sinema to do this right? Assuming one turncoat GOP senator?

[Kamaji]

They need manchin and sinema to do this right? Assuming one turncoat GOP senator?

No.  First they would have to amend 28 USC § 1, which sets the number of Supreme Court justices at nine, so they need a majority vote in both House and Senate.  If that were altered, then they would only need 50% plus 1 in the Senate to confirm any new justices.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

No.  First they would have to amend 28 USC § 1, which sets the number of Supreme Court justices at nine, so they need a majority vote in both House and Senate.  If that were altered, then they would only need 50% plus 1 in the Senate to confirm any new justices.

But the filibuster is still a thing right? Their idea last time was to kill the filibuster/cloture and then pack the court that way.

[Kamaji]

But the filibuster is still a thing right? Their idea last time was to kill the filibuster/cloture and then pack the court that way.

I don't believe so.  I believe the GOP got rid of the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees.

[mountaineer]

Carrie Severino
@JCNSeverino
In an escalation of their intimidation campaign, Senate Democrats are now trying to partially "defund" the Supreme Court to have their demands met. It's a brazen attempt to bully the justices into imposing ethical rules that the Left will use to subtract justices in key cases.

Philip Rucker
@PhilipRucker
Senate appropriators are set to discuss an amendment that would withhold $10 million for the Supreme Court until Chief Justice John Roberts informs Congress that the court “has put into effect a code of ethics”

Senate appropriators to debate Supreme Court ethics proposal, from WashPost.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I don't believe so.  I believe the GOP got rid of the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees.

You are correct, but the number of USSC is set by law, which requires the usual Congressional procedures and the President to veto/sign. I believe.

[libertybele]

You are correct, but the number of USSC is set by law, which requires the usual Congressional procedures and the President to veto/sign. I believe.

The Constitution does not specify how many judges can sit on the bench. The DEMS can pack the courts. Who is going to stop them??? They aren't playing by the rules anyways.

[libertybele]

Carrie Severino
@JCNSeverino
In an escalation of their intimidation campaign, Senate Democrats are now trying to partially "defund" the Supreme Court to have their demands met. It's a brazen attempt to bully the justices into imposing ethical rules that the Left will use to subtract justices in key cases.

Philip Rucker
@PhilipRucker
Senate appropriators are set to discuss an amendment that would withhold $10 million for the Supreme Court until Chief Justice John Roberts informs Congress that the court “has put into effect a code of ethics”

Senate appropriators to debate Supreme Court ethics proposal, from WashPost.

?? Chuckles has the tie breaking vote, this would go nowhere.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The Constitution does not specify how many judges can sit on the bench. The DEMS can pack the courts. Who is going to stop them??? They aren't playing by the rules anyways.

You are correct, but the number of judges is set by statute I believe. Which will require another statute to be passed, which is still subject to filibuster.

[Kamaji]

You are correct, but the number of judges is set by statute I believe. Which will require another statute to be passed, which is still subject to filibuster.

It is.  28 USC §1.

[libertybele]

You are correct, but the number of judges is set by statute I believe. Which will require another statute to be passed, which is still subject to filibuster.

Yes, you are correct; Congress determines the number.