General Discussion

kentuck

(114,447 posts) Thu Jul 10, 2025, 12:12 PM Jul 10

Balancing the Supreme Court with a new Chief Justice. [View all]

IF the Democrats ever regain power, and that is the only hope that some of us still retain, then out of necessity, it is required to reform the Supreme Court.

The people will have to decide who they want to control our House and Senate. If they choose the Democrats, then the Democrats have no choice but to act.

Their first act will have to be to get rid of the filibuster rule with a simple majority. It has done nothing but promote Republican policies for decades. It is time to "86" the filibuster rule.

Then they can expand the Court and change the Chief Justice. Ideally, it would be a 6-6 balanced Court, but they would not be able to change the unconstitutional rulings by this Court. They would need a 13th Justice to correct the course.

Simply because the people of this country cannot live under the rulings and the laws created by this Court. It is necessary to change it.

115 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Balancing the Supreme Court with a new Chief Justice. [View all] kentuck Jul 10 OP

I kinda feel like a deal was made Calista241 Jul 10 #1

They can get whatever they want without the filibuster. kentuck Jul 10 #3

Get rid of it but also know that the Senate favors Republicans newdeal2 Jul 10 #6

I'm willing to take that chance. I want them to live and die by all the policies they claim to like In It to Win It Jul 10 #18

No, they can't SickOfTheOnePct Jul 10 #9

And with the filibuster, Democrats can do nothing about it.. kentuck Jul 10 #17

We'll agree to disagree n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jul 10 #23

Wait, what? moose65 Jul 10 #27

I'm saying that has there been no filibuster available SickOfTheOnePct Jul 10 #38

False Fiendish Thingy Jul 10 #31

It was only a reconciliation bill SickOfTheOnePct Jul 10 #40

We can agree to agree Fiendish Thingy Jul 10 #49

Do it with a populist gusto. kentuck Jul 10 #50

Precisely Fiendish Thingy Jul 10 #61

Oddly . . . Scubamatt Jul 10 #62

You noticed? kentuck Jul 10 #74

They did remove it for the tax cuts dsc Jul 10 #8

No, that was still reconciliation. Calista241 Jul 10 #12

It was but it violated the clear rules of reconcilliation dsc Jul 10 #14

Right! kentuck Jul 10 #19

The Senate has to vote to change the rules, and no such vote was taken. Calista241 Jul 10 #20

Do you a cite for that? dsc Jul 10 #72

The American Rescue Plan added 2.2 trillion to the deficit EdmondDantes_ Jul 11 #104

That isn't chasing the baseline dsc Jul 11 #106

We cannot use fear of what republicans might do to justify inaction Fiendish Thingy Jul 10 #32

Yeah something happened Bev54 Jul 10 #41

And exactly when could they have "balanced out the court" even if they got rid of the filibuster? Wiz Imp Jul 10 #51

With the majority, you can do away with the filibuster with a simple rule passed by Rules Committee. kentuck Jul 10 #52

Um, the President doesn't just appoint justices. They have to be confirmed by the Senate. Wiz Imp Jul 10 #56

True. kentuck Jul 10 #75

They had 50 senators it was the lack of will by Bev54 Jul 10 #83

It wasn't the lack of will. Wiz Imp Jul 10 #87

I understand all of that but what I failed to see was the will of the Bev54 Jul 10 #91

How do you know they didn't try to change minds? Wiz Imp Jul 10 #94

The first 2 years the Dems had the house and the senate Bev54 Jul 10 #82

There's a HUGE difference between lacking the will to do something Wiz Imp Jul 10 #88

It wasn't a mistake by the Democratic Party. Wiz Imp Jul 10 #66

I don't disagree but perhaps if they pushed harder to bring those Bev54 Jul 10 #85

Even if I ignore all the current Senators and agree they could possibly be convinced to support court expansion Wiz Imp Jul 10 #93

Justice Kagan would be a great Chief Justice musette_sf Jul 10 #2

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm not mistaken... GiqueCee Jul 10 #55

It is not who they side with, it is following the law. Bev54 Jul 10 #86

and Sotomayor andJackson don't... GiqueCee Jul 10 #89

Of course they do but they are not all monolithic thinkers. Bev54 Jul 10 #90

I am in total agreement... GiqueCee Jul 10 #98

You can't change the Chief Justice, that's fantasy Polybius Jul 10 #4

But he can be impeached. kentuck Jul 10 #7

He won't be for that Polybius Jul 10 #10

Yeah, the Citizens United was a real winner, also. kentuck Jul 10 #13

By "slippery slope" I just meant if impeach a Justice for a ruling we don't agree with it would be unprecedented Polybius Jul 10 #24

I believe we had 60-vote majority when Joe Lieberman was a Senator? kentuck Jul 10 #33

Impeachment of justices is a fantasy that needs to be abandon. Calista241 Jul 10 #16

Impeachment and conviction are two different stories. kentuck Jul 10 #21

But you can change the rules on his authority Fiendish Thingy Jul 10 #34

Actually, you could Mountainguy Jul 10 #37

Isn't that what happened when Roberts was named Chief Justice? kentuck Jul 10 #39

The "Chief Justice" is not simply a member of the Court... appmanga Jul 10 #81

Which, again Mountainguy Jul 10 #97

Congress can actually do considerably more to rein in the Supreme Court unblock Jul 10 #5

You forgot the caveat Polybius Jul 10 #11

Congress can vote to change the law, right? kentuck Jul 10 #15

Sure Polybius Jul 10 #25

Nope Fiendish Thingy Jul 10 #30

See my last reply Polybius Jul 10 #59

Only if we elect a congress committed to doing so Fiendish Thingy Jul 10 #64

If not, we may have no other choice but to just wait, since Roberts, Alito, and especially Thomas are old Polybius Jul 10 #65

The first post on this particular sidebar ITAL Jul 10 #67

AFAIK the constitution is mute on the role of the chief Justice. Fiendish Thingy Jul 10 #69

Which would seemingly to lead us to Jackson's apocryphal challenge to Marshall. tritsofme Jul 10 #22

Well, if we're ignoring the constitution, all bets are off. unblock Jul 10 #26

The constitution can be interpreted Polybius Jul 10 #57

Congress can't make up powers for themselves, sure unblock Jul 10 #70

Nope Fiendish Thingy Jul 10 #29

We weren't talking about just expanding, I know that's fine Polybius Jul 10 #58

The powers the SCOTUS claims were only established via Marbury vs Madison Fiendish Thingy Jul 10 #63

Two questions that should be a litmus test for any Dem senate candidate: Fiendish Thingy Jul 10 #28

I agree that expanding the Court is the only way to undo the damage by Trump and Robert's Court. kentuck Jul 10 #35

Well, there are lots of other ideas Fiendish Thingy Jul 10 #45

Ketanji Brown Jackson for Chief!!!! elleng Jul 10 #36

Like their patron saint The Wizard Jul 10 #42

Republicans CAN NOT block a Democratic President from appointing a Supreme Court Justice as long as the Wiz Imp Jul 10 #54

13th Justice gfarber Jul 10 #43

Nice rhyme. kentuck Jul 10 #44

Best thing is to get rid of it Nasruddin Jul 10 #46

We need to get rid of the debt limit. markodochartaigh Jul 10 #47

Expand the court! We have to! LymphocyteLover Jul 10 #48

Perhaps it is unfortunate...? kentuck Jul 10 #53

I believe Chief Justice is an administrative role. LeftInTX Jul 10 #60

Now is not the time to be talking about expanding SCOTUS Shrek Jul 10 #68

Same thing for killing the filibuster FBaggins Jul 10 #71

It doesn't matter if they pass a new ruling by a 6-3 vote or a 9-3 vote. kentuck Jul 10 #77

Maybe not now Shrek Jul 10 #79

It seems like ForgedCrank Jul 10 #73

I think we've had time to "remember yesterday"... kentuck Jul 10 #78

If we change the rules to add SC justices, then nothing is stopping Republicans from doing the same. pcdb Jul 10 #92

what would the Repubs like to do that they haven't already done? kentuck Jul 10 #95

Suggest arrest of 6 of 9 Kid Berwyn Jul 10 #76

Arrest them for what? Shrek Jul 10 #80

Great! Maybe we can use our imagination? Kid Berwyn Jul 10 #84

Label them ForgedCrank Jul 10 #96

Trump is tossing citizens in prison without due process... Kid Berwyn Jul 11 #99

Those things ForgedCrank Jul 13 #115

OK, and then TnDem Jul 11 #100

I do not think that is a legitimate concern. kentuck Jul 11 #101

Yes it would TnDem Jul 11 #102

That would be true if there was no political price to pay. kentuck Jul 11 #103

Now on rocket fuel TnDem Jul 11 #105

We will have to disagree on this one. kentuck Jul 11 #107

History TnDem Jul 11 #108

We have that Court right now. kentuck Jul 11 #109

No we don't TnDem Jul 11 #110

No.It would not. kentuck Jul 11 #111

OK, what do the voters have to do with it TnDem Jul 11 #112

Unless the voters lose their right to vote... kentuck Jul 11 #113

Maybe so...but remember TnDem Jul 11 #114