To restate the obvious, Justice Breyer needs to step down soon - during the first two years of Biden’s presidency. If the Republicans retake the Senate in 2022, a distinct possibility, there is no reason to believe that McConnell will not repeat his twice successful steal of another Supreme Court appointment and just refuse to allow Biden to appoint a successor, whether Breyer or someone else. Do it now!
Justice Breyer: Lawmakers Should ‘Think Long And Hard’ Before Expanding SCOTUS | Talking Points Memo
17 Likes
Edit, please - 2022.
2 Likes
“…broad reforms like court expansion risk politicizing the high court.”
So, pray tell, what state is it in now?
13 Likes
Barn door/ horses
13 Likes
Justice Breyer. I heard being retired is relaxing and you can do anything you want. Please don’t pull a Ginsberg and not retire until dying. Take one for the team…
8 Likes
You must not know how this works. It’s already too close to the mid-terms, need to let the voters decide what the makeup of the Senate would be to confirm the next Supreme.
It was considered too close starting right about noon on January 20th.
12 Likes
Politicizing the court is far into our rear view mirror at this point, considering the treatment of Garland, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
10 Likes
Meh, that happened in Marbury v. Madison back in 1803, where they unilaterally decided that they were the most co-equal of the co-equal branches.
And we’ve suffered the fallout ever since.
5 Likes
Just peg the number of SC justices to the number of Federal Appellate Courts. Then expand the number of Federal Appellate Courts to 15.
It’s necessary anyway.
12 Likes
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer on Tuesday cautioned that broad reforms like court expansion risk politicizing the high court.
Justice Breyer, sir, I think we are way, waaay, WAAAAY! beyond risking politicization of the Supreme Court. The GOP has fully politicized it for decades. Their denial of even giving Merrick Garland a hearing (you might remember the Obama nomination) while subsequently stacking the court while a venal, corrupt, putrescence of a narcissistic man-baby fed extremists and boofers into the court has fully politicized it. Maybe it’s time that you looked to your left and your right and asked yourself “How the fuck did we get here?”
7 Likes
Breyer saying expanding the court risks politicizing it ranks right up there with Roberts declaring we live in a post-racist America.
Just STFU, gentlemen.
14 Likes
The idea of “expanding” the court is to attempt to rebalance from the last 4 years of republican theft of seats. For Breyer to come out against this idea, with the response he gave, ignores the fact that the court, because of conservative litmus tests, and failure to honor centuries old practices, has become what he fears.
The court is no longer revered or looked at as a-political. It’s the exact opposite. Republicans view it as a spoil of electoral victory and have shredded any sort of non-partisan reputation the Court may have had.
To defend the current court is to defend the republican actions that kept Garland off and put Barrett on.
9 Likes
Imagine sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States of America and being blissfully unaware of the activities of the Federalist Society over the past few decades.
17 Likes
Don’t “end” the filibuster. Reform it.
Don’t “pack” the SCOTUS. Reform it.
We were given the power to be flexible for a reason.
17 Likes
YES! It’s not unreasonable to consider expanding the court to the point where we have one justice for each federal circuit, which is what we had until the mid-19th century. Pre-McConnell, it may have made sense to add the 4 justices and give 2 nominations to each party. In the current environment, we should get all 4 to bring back some semblance of balance.
9 Likes
Sorry, the trust of the Supreme Court is already gone based on what the Republican Party did over the past 5 years with respect to filling appointments to the court. It does need to change. The question is to what extent? Increase the number of judges? Stagger term-limited appointment (15 years?) so the lifetime positions no longer exist? Do not allow what McConnell did for over a year to preclude a vote on a candidate? And the list goes on. No, there does need to be a change.
We treat and assume that the Republican Party is a viable partner in government, but that situation no longer exists. They outright lie, ignore facts, and simply make things up. They can no longer be trusted. And the recent additions to the court are based on such actions and a philosophy of deceit. No, the Robert’s Court is broken and needs to be substantially changed.
6 Likes
" Don’t “end” the filibuster. Reform it. Don’t “pack” the SCOTUS. Reform it."
@LeeHarveyGriswold It really is all about the framing of the issue, isn’t it (per George Lakin.) The repugs know this so well. Poets, priests, and politicians have words to thank for their positions. Da doo doo doo. Da dah day dah. That’s all I’ve got to say to you.
4 Likes
They deliver something like 80 rulings a year.
Which are written by staffers.
Overworked is not something I would ever accuse the Supremes of being.
7 Likes
One way to reduce the politicization of the court would be for Justice Breyer to retire right now so that the American people could have confidence that their votes matter and that justices will be chosen by the people who win elections. One extreme accelerator of politicization is the way that the Democratic majorities and presidents of the last few decades have been thwarted in appointing new judges. Nothing was more damaging to the political neutrality of the court than the fact that Justice Ginsburg died in office, an event that was utterly foreseeable given her health and age.
6 Likes
And Manchin/Sinema wishing to preserve the Senate by keeping the fillibuster
6 Likes