And? Nobody likes this option but it has to be done, there is no other way to fight back against the shameful power grab. Replacing RBG with some wing nut who preaches like the Taliban is the last straw.
I don't disagree with your points, but I disagree with you your conclusion. The country leans more left than our representative government. This is partially structural. The senate is the most structurally favored to represent Republicans. This is evident as Trump won 29 states (58%) in 2016 and lost the popular vote by 2%. We are talking about a 9 point swing there. Blue states are overall more populated than red states, but it doesn't matter, each state gets 2 Senate seats. Democrats also need to win the popular voter by at least 3% to win the presidency right now, because of the electoral college. If Biden wins in 2020 then in 2022 NV, CO, AZ, and NH Senate seats will have a high probability of flipping (since midterms hurt the incumbent). If you think the Dems can keep control based on demographics, well it hasn't happened yet. Biden is likely a one term president and given Americans short attention spans (look at 2010 after the 2008 crisis/Iraq War) we will be likely to elect a GOP president again. Whoever wins the GOP nomination is likely to say that they agreed with Trump's policies in the primary, but denounce his tone in the General, and will run that he is a uniter, claiming that Kamala Harris (honestly a weak candidate and will likely be the nominee) is too far left for the country. Point is, if you don't think that the GOP can control the 3 branches of government again, I think you're wrong. If this all happens the GOP could put 9 more judges on the court if they wish. In my opinion, further dismantling the filibuster and increasing the number of judges is the wrong direction to go. I personally feel major changes to our laws should include broad consensus (60 votes). It shouldn't change based on whether the country becomes 51-49 one way or the other or reversals will be too common.
I don't think it'll fly. Too many lawyers in Congress, they realize the importance of it. They did after all pledge to uphold the Constitution, the balance of power is the most integral part of the whole shootin' match. If ya'll had won the Senate in 2018 we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we? Should have thought about Ruthie and Mitch way back then. You still have Samoa though. 2 more Senators there for team Chuck.
Yes, too many lawyers realize that legislating from the bench where entire legislative accomplishments which the majority of public approve are being stuck down by right wing ideologues appointed by impeached criminals is not a good thing. Thanks for Samoa, I am sure it can never be good as either of the Dakotas.
This is fine if not for the fact that a wingnut conservative SC will undo every progressive change for the next 30 years, that cannot be allowed.
Incumbents tend to lose legislators in the subsequent years after re-election. Think of what could be done with 50 conservative senators, a GOP House, and GOP president without a filibuster. In 2024 many of the seats won by Democrats (WV, MT, WI, MI, PA, NV, OH, and AZ could all flip back to the GOP). An Obamacare repeal lost by just 1 vote when there were only 3 moderates in the party (Collins, McCain, and Murkowski) and that didn't need 60 votes. If Democrats remove the filibuster they will rue the day.
I'll be honest, if the Dems take the Senate it's likely they have 50 or 51 Senators. Manchin, Sinema, and Tester are against it. Luckily I don't think they could add a FTT in reconciliation. That would be a major change to the tax code.
That's fine, the entire Conservative Judicial project is about pretending that the judges are some neutral body to neutralize Democrats' demographic advantage, if they want to make the judiciary look like a partisan tool then it completely exposes them and removes the mask of judiciary being a check on legislative overreach.
Extreme liberal Democrats are just such utter hypocrites when they argue that Ruth Bader-Ginsburg's seat must remain unfilled? Obama trying to appoint Merrick Garland who is an extreme liberal judge into Antonin Scalia's spot? Are the Democrats going to say that is not politically motivated? Of course it is, they wanted to add 1 more extreme liberal judge in the US Supreme Court. So, it is but, fair. Democrats can have a go at it if they gain the majority in the Senate and win the US Presidency. I am sure nothing will stop them. They never respect any laws anyways.