Read on Twitter
For me, one of the clearest arguments for the legitimacy AND necessity of expanding the Court is that if the shoe were on the other foot, Republicans would do it without a second thought. There wouldn& #39;t even be a question. We& #39;d all assume they& #39;d do it, and we& #39;d be right.
If a floundering Dem president cemented a 6-3 liberal majority as his last act in office, and Republicans took the White House and a slim Senate majority, McConnell& #39;s Court-packing bill would be ready on Day 1, and he& #39;d have locked down the votes to abolish the filibuster, too.
Again, *this has happened already*: When the Court would have gone from conservative to liberal after Scalia& #39;s death, Republicans used their power to reduce its size to eight. They didn& #39;t even have to go through the legislative process, either—McConnell just did it himself.
Now that the Court is going from conservative to deranged right-winger after RBG& #39;s death, if Democrats earn the power in the 2020 elections, they get to use it, too. The Republican politicians claiming otherwise are drawing a line based on nothing other than where they want it.
Thanks @JohnFPfaff for the reminder: When everyone thought Hillary Clinton was going to win in ‘16, Ted Cruz and noted norm-respecting institutionalist John McCain were ready to...permanently blockade Clinton appointees as long as the GOP kept the Senate. https://www.latimes.com/nation/ct-cruz-supreme-court-seat-vacancy-20161026-story.html">https://www.latimes.com/nation/ct...
So, not only did McConnell unilaterally reduce the Court’s size to 8 for more than a year—it’s also an accident of Trump’s victory that prevented the Republican’s promised contraction of the Court from lasting much longer. https://www.npr.org/2016/11/03/500560120/senate-republicans-could-block-potential-clinton-supreme-court-nominees">https://www.npr.org/2016/11/0...
No. There isn’t a morally correct number of Supreme Court justices. It’s a federal statute that can be amended at any time, by lawmakers of either party, through the normal process we all learned about from Schoolhouse Rock. Don’t think of this as more complicated than it is. https://twitter.com/itaisher/status/1314942701998084097">https://twitter.com/itaisher/...
I wrote about all this last month, if you want something longer than a tweet thread: A 6-3 Republican Court is a hostage situation, not a “check” or “balance.” Expanding it is a reasonable, proportionate response to fix a broken, untenable status quo. https://theappeal.org/expand-the-supreme-court/">https://theappeal.org/expand-th...
Setting aside the hilariously ahistorical take that “the left” has come anywhere close to “controlling” the Court other than, at best, during the Warren era, GOP *already did* pack the Court. That’s the point. Are you not listening, what is going on here https://twitter.com/deramiderreist/status/1314965709454278662">https://twitter.com/deramider...
No, my controversial take is a SCOTUS controlled by people whose party Americans have repeatedly rejected is a hostage situation, and a SCOTUS controlled by people whose party Americans have consistently supported is democracy https://twitter.com/k_smith_mi/status/1314974561268572160">https://twitter.com/k_smith_m...
Ahistorical retconning. This was not the GOP position at the time. McConnell said they wouldn’t consider ANY Obama nominee, because of the fake “no justices confirmed during election years” rule. They said so before Garland was nominated, and before Scalia was even in the ground. https://twitter.com/kengardner11/status/1314968200300429320">https://twitter.com/kengardne...
Maybe the GOP would have suddenly, magically changed its mind if Obama had nominated another reactionary conservative to replace Scalia. But that just proves the point: The Court is political, and its size and composition can be treated as such by whoever is in power. 
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🤷♂️" title="Achselzuckender Mann" aria-label="Emoji: Achselzuckender Mann">
