Trump Seizes on Democratic Push to Expand Supreme Court, End Filibuster

Valletta said:

Trump seizes on Democratic push to expand Supreme Court, end filibuster

Trump urged the GOP to block a Democrat resolution to end the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court ahead of the midterms.

www.newsweek.com

EVERYONE should seize upon this attack against our Republic. It looks like the step from socialism to communism will take place quickly if more of the extremists get elected. As President Trump has pointed out, it's not just a matter of getting rid of the filibuster, it is taking the drastic and radical step to pack the Supreme Court so the radicals never lose another Supreme Court decision. That in effect throws out the checks and balances system upon which our United States Constitution was constructed.

Click to expand...

From the article:


Trump has never claimed consistency.

Valletta said:

Trump seizes on Democratic push to expand Supreme Court, end filibuster

Trump urged the GOP to block a Democrat resolution to end the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court ahead of the midterms.

www.newsweek.com

EVERYONE should seize upon this attack against our Republic. It looks like the step from socialism to communism will take place quickly if more of the extremists get elected. As President Trump has pointed out, it's not just a matter of getting rid of the filibuster, it is taking the drastic and radical step to pack the Supreme Court so the radicals never lose another Supreme Court decision. That in effect throws out the checks and balances system upon which our United States Constitution was constructed.

Click to expand...

Oh, now Trump is against eliminating the filibuster!?
I believe at one time, he was for its elimination.

For several elections, both parties have been warning that the other party would pack the supreme court if it comes into power. It's just part of the usual fearmongering bingo.

Valletta said:

It's been very much one-sided.

Click to expand...

Untrue. The democratic party also claimed that the republicans would pack the supreme court.

Nithavela said:

Untrue. The democratic party also claimed that the republicans would pack the supreme court.

Click to expand...

Well the GOP Senate (under Mitch McConnell) “decided” not to hold hearings for Obama’s 2016 pick (Merrick Garland)…which resulted in Neil Gorsuch’s Seat on the High Bench; the now gravely ill Senior Senator from Kentucky also expedited the elevation of Justice Barrett after the notorious RBG passed in mid-September 2021.
So the Democrats actually have some ammunition for their “they’re going to try and pack-the-court!” argument.

Pommer said:

Well the GOP Senate (under Mitch McConnell) “decided” not to hold hearings for Obama’s 2016 pick (Merrick Garland)…which resulted in Neil Gorsuch’s Seat on the High Bench; the now gravely ill Senior Senator from Kentucky also expedited the elevation of Justice Barrett after the notorious RBG passed in mid-September 2021.
So the Democrats actually have some ammunition for their “they’re going to try and pack-the-court!” argument.

Click to expand...

This could also be avoided if the liberal justices would be willing to retire while their party of choice controls the process that instates their replacement, instead of clinging to their seat until their literal death like Ginsburg.

Nithavela said:

This could also be avoided if the liberal justices would be willing to retire while their party of choice controls the process that instates their replacement, instead of clinging to their seat until their literal death like Ginsburg.

Click to expand...

The Washington scuttlebutt is that Alito is looking for the exit soon too.

Valletta said:

Trump seizes on Democratic push to expand Supreme Court, end filibuster

Trump urged the GOP to block a Democrat resolution to end the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court ahead of the midterms.

www.newsweek.com

EVERYONE should seize upon this attack against our Republic. It looks like the step from socialism to communism will take place quickly if more of the extremists get elected. As President Trump has pointed out, it's not just a matter of getting rid of the filibuster, it is taking the drastic and radical step to pack the Supreme Court so the radicals never lose another Supreme Court decision. That in effect throws out the checks and balances system upon which our United States Constitution was constructed.

Click to expand...

Neither the size of the supreme court, nor the Senate filibuster is mentioned in the Constitution.

Valletta said:

Trump seizes on Democratic push to expand Supreme Court, end filibuster

Trump urged the GOP to block a Democrat resolution to end the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court ahead of the midterms.

www.newsweek.com

EVERYONE should seize upon this attack against our Republic. It looks like the step from socialism to communism will take place quickly if more of the extremists get elected. As President Trump has pointed out, it's not just a matter of getting rid of the filibuster, it is taking the drastic and radical step to pack the Supreme Court so the radicals never lose another Supreme Court decision. That in effect throws out the checks and balances system upon which our United States Constitution was constructed.

Click to expand...

Ignoring, for a moment, that Trump has supported getting rid of the filibuster prior to this, how is Democrats passing a bill to expand the Supreme Court (should they win in November) an issue? Is Trump not President and the one that nominates Supreme Court justices? I can't see why Trump would oppose Democrats voting to expand the Supreme Court while he is still President?

SimplyMe said:

Ignoring, for a moment, that Trump has supported getting rid of the filibuster prior to this, how is Democrats passing a bill to expand the Supreme Court (should they win in November) an issue? Is Trump not President and the one that nominates Supreme Court justices? I can't see why Trump would oppose Democrats voting to expand the Supreme Court while he is still President?

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly.

Would President Trump allow four (or whatever) vacancies to “fill” new seats opened up by the rival party, so that he’ll have that wonderful 6-3 coalition in SCOTUS?
I don’t think his ego could allow him to not pick three (or whatever) people since he thinks that’s he’s good at it.
And by “it”, I mean getting people on the Court that will rule with him. (Read that again!)

Perpetual Student said:

Click to expand...

That's what you get when you don't update your country for 250 years.

A century or two more and you have some guy in a costume knocking on a door being televised to a live audience.

Pommer said:

Oh, now Trump is against eliminating the filibuster!?
I believe at one time, he was for its elimination.

Click to expand...

Yes, he's a politician.

A prerequisite for the job is a willingness to repeatedly flip flop between "preserve this thing, because it's a sacred part of our institution" and "oh, this will help me get the thing I want quicker, so let's change it"

Perpetual Student said:

Click to expand...

The video opens up with this very incorrect statement:

"In the United States, the Supreme Court is the highest court, given the final say on what laws really mean, and if they're cool with the Constitution. Well, this power was not given, but taken. Back in the day, the Supreme Court ruled it is the duty of the court to say what the Law is. And everyone went with it."

This is what the video starts out with, and it is a talking point people sometimes bring up. It's also inaccurate. Note how he claims this power "was not given, but taken" and that it only happened when the Supreme Court ruled it had that power.

The power of judicial review, the declaration if something is constitutional, is straight there in the Constitution:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority..."

Obviously, the question of whether a law or something else is in agreement with the Constitution is a case in law. So it's there in the Constitution. When the Supreme Court asserted it had that power in Marbury v. Madison, it was just a recognition of the fact, not a taking of it.

This interpretation was agreed upon even before there was any Supreme Court. Various people at the Constitutional Convention said courts would have the power of judicial review, and afterwards (during the ratification process) people publicly said it at things like ratifying conventions or in print. The Federalist Papers, which were written and distributed to try to convince people, particularly in New York, the Constitution was a good idea so they'd ratify it, explicitly declared "whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former."

For that matter, opponents of the Constitution said judges would have that power, perhaps most prominently Brutus, a pseudonymous writer who wrote a set of essays attacking the Constitution to try to convince people not to ratify it. He didn't say the Constitution didn't grant that power. He asserted it did, and argued it was a bad idea because it would make judges more powerful than the legislature ("If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void; and therefore in this respect their power is superior to that of the legislature.") Patrick Henry, who also opposed the Constitution--a fact a lot of people don't know about--affirmed this in a ratification debate, though his problem was ironically the opposite--he worried that if federal judges were the ones who made the decision, they'd just rubber stamp everything even if it was unconstitutional (see here: "Yes, sir, our judges opposed the acts of the legislature. We have this landmark to guide us. They had fortitude to declare that they were the judiciary, and would oppose unconstitutional acts. Are you sure that your federal judiciary will act thus? Is that judiciary as well constructed, and as independent of the other branches, as our state judiciary? Where are your landmarks in this government? I will be bold to say you cannot find any in it. I take it as the highest encomium on this country, that the acts of the legislature, if unconstitutional, are liable to be opposed by the judiciary.")

Both supporters and critics of the Constitution agreed that the federal courts, and especially the Supreme Court, would have the power to declare laws unconstitutional. They disagreed on whether it was a good way to set up the government that way, but they agreed it's how the government would be setup.

So the video's claim is simply inaccurate. Maybe I'm focusing too much on something that only lasts a few seconds... but it's literally what the video starts with.

SimplyMe said:

Ignoring, for a moment, that Trump has supported getting rid of the filibuster prior to this, how is Democrats passing a bill to expand the Supreme Court (should they win in November) an issue? Is Trump not President and the one that nominates Supreme Court justices? I can't see why Trump would oppose Democrats voting to expand the Supreme Court while he is still President?

Click to expand...

There is the possible but very unlikely event that the Democrats win House and Senate, and then both Trump and Vance die or leave office without choosing a new Vice President. In that instance, the Democrat-controlled House would have a Democrat Speaker of the House, who would then become President, giving them the needed trifecta to kill the filibuster and pass legislation without having to worry about the presidential veto (technically they can kill the filibuster just with Senate control, but there's no purpose without the trifecta). Though I do think that, even with how extreme politics have gotten, they'd probably hesitste to do such a thing if the president and VP had just been assassinated.

More plausibly, this scenario could occur if Democrats win presidency, Senate, and House in 2028 or 2030 (if they win presidency in 2028 but miss out on at least one of the others, they'd be able to do it in 2030). But that's a way away and not the immediate election.

Either way, though, this election could matter in regards to this. The first option, unlikely as it is to happen, could happen if the Democrats win House and Senate. The second option becomes more likely if they win Senate seats. The House is up for re-election every two years so what happened in the prior election doesn't really have that much of an effect on the current one, outside of meaning if someone wins a seat, they have an incumbent advantage in the next election. But only 1/3 of the Senate changes every two years. That means to establish Senate control is usually more of a long-term project. It is unlikely that Democrats will win the Senate this election. But, every seat they take means it's one fewer seat they have to win in 2028. Republicans currently have 53 seats. If they lose 2, they keep their majority. But that means the Democrats in 2028 only have to flip two seats (one if they win the presidency) to gain control. Furthermore, if they do manage to win enough seats to have a majority, it means Republicans are the ones who have to win seats to get back control of the Senate. So in regards to the Senate, this election could end up being important for Senate control in 2028.

All that said, it's Trump. He probably didn't say it because he had actually thought through the stuff I just said. More likely he's just saying this because he thinks it's a way to rile up the base.

Valletta said:

Trump seizes on Democratic push to expand Supreme Court, end filibuster

Trump urged the GOP to block a Democrat resolution to end the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court ahead of the midterms.

www.newsweek.com

EVERYONE should seize upon this attack against our Republic. It looks like the step from socialism to communism will take place quickly if more of the extremists get elected. As President Trump has pointed out, it's not just a matter of getting rid of the filibuster, it is taking the drastic and radical step to pack the Supreme Court so the radicals never lose another Supreme Court decision. That in effect throws out the checks and balances system upon which our United States Constitution was constructed.

Click to expand...

How many times has all that not been done though?

Valletta said:

Trump seizes on Democratic push to expand Supreme Court, end filibuster

Trump urged the GOP to block a Democrat resolution to end the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court ahead of the midterms.

www.newsweek.com

EVERYONE should seize upon this attack against our Republic.

Click to expand...

How exactly is this an attack on our Republic? The resolution Trump has an issue with is simply stating some things that the House believes should happen, all of which are or probably are within the perview of Congress. Article 1 Section 5 Clause 2 gives each Chamber the ability to set it's rules, which includes cloture. As for the Court, the judiciary is subject to regulation by Congress. The size of the Court is clearly something they can change and in fact has been done multiple times. Term limits I agree is more iffy since judges hold their Office during good behavior, but an argument can be made that Office refers to being a judge, not a set on a particular court. Same thing with the ethic code. Judges hold office for good behavior, but it doesn't nessessarily hold that impeachment by Congress is the only way to enforce that.

Valletta said:

It looks like the step from socialism to communism will take place quickly if more of the extremists get elected.

Click to expand...

The US is a capitalist country and nobody is calling for true socialism, much less communism.

Valletta said:

As President Trump has pointed out, it's not just a matter of getting rid of the filibuster, it is taking the drastic and radical step to pack the Supreme Court so the radicals never lose another Supreme Court decision.

Click to expand...

More justices on the Supreme Court is a good thing, and the Court should have been expanded decades ago. And the same motion that is saying the Court should be expanded is also suggesting term limits, which would limit the impact of any one judge.

That in effect throws out the checks and balances system upon which our United States Constitution was constructed.

Click to expand...

It does not do so because the systems of checks and balances was never meant to be symmetrical. The "co-equal branches" line that people love sprouting off is not actually what the structure and text of the Constitution set up. Congress was always meant to be the superior branch, and by trying to reign in the power of the Courts, this would actually be closer to what the Founders constructed.

Arcangl86 said:

It does not do so because the systems of checks and balances was never meant to be symmetrical. The "co-equal branches" line that people love sprouting off is not actually what the structure and text of the Constitution set up. Congress was always meant to be the superior branch, and by trying to reign in the power of the Courts, this would actually be closer to what the Founders constructed.

Click to expand...

I don't agree. If anything the courts are probably right now the branch of government the Founders would most recognize as compatible with their vision. If they were to get upset about the government's structure, it'd be over the other branches, namely the imperial Presidency and the fact the legislature doesn't actually legislate anymore.

The problem isn't the courts getting more powerful. It's Congress being less powerful. Our legislature legislates less and less each year, it seems. If the Supreme Court says "this is our interpretation of the law" and Congress doesn't think that interpretation was right, they can just amend the law to fix it. In the past, it is my understanding, this was done reasonably often. Not anymore. Want to know the last time Congress amended a law to try to supersede a Supreme Court decision? As far as I am aware, that was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which was passed to supersede Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. That law was passed 17 years ago. Even if there is some case or cases between then and now I'm overlooking, one thing that's clear is that it's not really a thing that happens anymore.

This means that when it comes to interpretations of federal laws, Supreme Court decisions at this point can be considered more or less permanent, as seen by the fact we have gone 17 years without Congress passing any legislation to supersede a Supreme Court decision (not even in the case of Garland v. Cargill where despite ruling that bump stocks don't count as machine guns under current law, one of the justices in the majority actually wrote a separate opinion asking Congress to change the law so they would count as such). That's not a problem with the Supreme Court. That's a problem with Congress.

And sure, some Supreme Court decisions are about what things are or aren't constitutional, and those can't be overriden via a simple law, but require the much more difficult constitutional amendment process. But a lot of times even those can be at least affected by a law. For example, the recent decision (Trump v. Slaughter) saying that for organizations like the FTC, the President can't be prevented by Congress from firing its leader. As this was a constitutional decision, Congress can't exactly enact new restrictions on that, but it can take away power from those agencies so that the President's effective power is decreased. But, again, the legislature doesn't legislate.

Speaking of Presidents, Congress's weakness has also manifested in another way, in how powerful the Executive Branch has become. Since Congress doesn't legislate, the Executive Branch starts legislating on its own, more or less, via coming up with new interpretations of laws or taking advantage of times Congress perhaps delegated too much discretionary power to the President or others in the executive branch.

Most of the things people complain about in regards to the courts are actually the fault of Congress. I don't think things like court packing would actually solve the underlying problem of the legislature not legislating and could easily cause its own set of new problems. Though ironically, an abolishment of the filibuster might largely negate any need for changes to the court, because it would make it easier for Congress to actually pass laws that would supersede decisions it doesn't like. On the other hand, the filibuster isn't new. The 60-vote filibuster has been in place since 1975, and before that it was actually harder to beat a filibuster. Congress's paralysis problems are a more recent phenomenon.

I think the courts right now are taking a lot of heat for things that are really the fault of Congress's dysfunction. I'm not sure exactly what the right fix for Congress is, but I think that's really the big problem right now in the government.

Just my thoughts.