General Discussion

Ilikepurple

(783 posts)

103. I'm not sure what the principled reason for expanding the court is other than changing/correcting its bias.

Sun May 10, 2026, 08:44 PM

5 hrs ago

If the principle is that we need 13 Justices to match 13 circuits, it’s pretty much one that was created to disguise the real impetus behind boosting the number of Justices to alter the balance. I do agree that selling the people on a rule seemingly based non-politically might have more legs as a constitutional amendment, but I really see no principle other than a variation of the playground no touchbacks rule. Trying to find a way to stop further escalation has always been the worry about expanding the Court for political effect. I really doubt we’d get the bipartisan support for a Constitutional Amendment after expanding the Court this way. Let’s not pretend 13 rests on any principle other than wanting to correct the harmful decisions of the current Court. If adding 6 justices is cheating by your measure, one would have to provide a principled reason why 4 isn’t. Even if one could provide a principled reason, they would then have to find a principled reason why the court shouldn’t be expanded to 13 right now. I think Standingtall is arguing that their principles concerning rights and humanity are more foundational than one based on structural numerology.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

107 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should the Dems expand the SCOTUS to 13 justices [View all] BigmanPigman Apr 30 OP

They need the President. mr715 Apr 30 #1

Damn it! BigmanPigman Apr 30 #4

2029. Nt Fiendish Thingy Apr 30 #15

Huh if we are ever going to add Justices to the Court standingtall May 1 #29

Besides which we need a Democratic president to make decent SC nominations--- Jack Valentino May 1 #90

Yes MustLoveBeagles Apr 30 #2

The whole idea of American government was divided power bucolic_frolic Apr 30 #3

That's a thoughtful reply and I agree. BigmanPigman Apr 30 #7

We'll need 60 votes to overcome the filibuster Buckeyeblue Apr 30 #5

Nope Fiendish Thingy Apr 30 #14

THIS is a must do, if we get in there. bluestarone May 1 #51

Yes,... dump the filibuster magicarpet May 1 #59

Indeed Fiendish Thingy May 1 #62

Yup,.. Fully agree. magicarpet May 1 #65

I'm pretty sure the assumption is Democrats would get rid of the filibuster in order to pass this. Wiz Imp May 1 #55

Damned right they should. hlthe2b Apr 30 #6

I listened to a liberal podcast and that made remember this issue... BigmanPigman Apr 30 #8

Yeah.. It is an uphill battle, though the SCOTUS review that included Lawrence Tribe, did recommend hlthe2b Apr 30 #10

Hear, hear!!!!! BigmanPigman Apr 30 #11

Biden's SCOTUS review did NOT recommend expansion Fiendish Thingy Apr 30 #17

OFFICIALLY NO. Did you read Tribe's discussions? Apparently not. hlthe2b May 1 #21

Well, of course, there were people screaming for court expansion long before the commission was formed Fiendish Thingy May 1 #53

Lawrence Tribe was ON the committee!!! hlthe2b May 1 #63

He was but one voice on the bipartisan committee Fiendish Thingy May 1 #64

Yes. There should be 13 Justices to coincide with the 13 Circuits. yellow dahlia Apr 30 #9

That makes sense. Emile May 1 #91

What if the Republicans agreed with that logic and increased it to 13 themselves? MichMan May 3 #92

Actually, the process is more complicated than a magic wand. yellow dahlia May 3 #94

Should they? Probably. Will they? No. BlueTsunami2018 Apr 30 #12

Dems must not govern from fear of what republicans might do once back in power Fiendish Thingy Apr 30 #18

I don't think they govern out of fear of Republicans. BlueTsunami2018 May 1 #66

Priority #1 in 2029. Nt Fiendish Thingy Apr 30 #13

Oh hell yes!!! oasis Apr 30 #16

Make it at least 15. dalton99a Apr 30 #19

No Renew Deal Apr 30 #20

That hasn't been working out for the last 30 years... and we've been winning elections. In It to Win It May 1 #74

Unfortunately not at the right time Renew Deal May 1 #75

Yes, exactly... and you know they plan to retire when Republicans win. In It to Win It May 1 #77

Graham Platner says yes. Emile May 1 #22

Yes I was just thinking that. magicarpet May 1 #67

We so need young blood in both houses of congress with fresh new provocative and magicarpet May 1 #70

No. It's The Kind Of Thing Republicans Would Do. ColoringFool May 1 #23

No it should be expanded to 15 at minimum probably more standingtall May 1 #24

It's 13 because SocialDemocrat61 May 1 #26

So we don't need to limit it to 13 because there are 13 federal districts standingtall May 1 #30

So the next democratic president can add 10 SocialDemocrat61 May 1 #33

The Supreme Court was designed to always be expanded standingtall May 1 #35

Yes it was SocialDemocrat61 May 1 #40

They have weaponized the Supreme Court to take people rights away standingtall May 1 #42

What is least controversial SocialDemocrat61 May 1 #44

If you have the power to add Justices then you don't need to defend it standingtall May 1 #45

In a democracy it should be defended and based on a principle SocialDemocrat61 May 1 #48

That's sounds like fighting to uphold red tape not principles standingtall May 1 #49

That's the argument of those who just want to win at all costs. SocialDemocrat61 May 1 #50

I'm not sure what the principled reason for expanding the court is other than changing/correcting its bias. Ilikepurple 5 hrs ago #103

Exactly, that's the only reason for expanding it SocialDemocrat61 1 hr ago #107

Would it have the same level of support if Republicans did it now? MichMan May 3 #93

Are they doing it now? SocialDemocrat61 May 3 #95

What do you mean by "originally only had 1"? sl8 May 1 #43

Yes SocialDemocrat61 May 1 #25

Yes Jilly_in_VA May 1 #37

Yes RandySF May 1 #27

After the extreme partisanship from the McConnell era, hell yes! Emile May 1 #28

Yes. OLDMDDEM May 1 #31

I want 50. One for each state. yourout May 1 #32

I want 6 new States too standingtall May 1 #34

The vibe I hear in the VI Jilly_in_VA May 1 #36

Not a secure Democratic enclave there are a territory standingtall May 1 #38

Making all US territories states would significantly exacerbate an already horrible imbalance of representation Wiz Imp May 1 #58

Well there is also a Demographic imbalance of representaation already too standingtall May 1 #72

Huh? Adding states with population under 50,000 gives California more power? Seriously? Wiz Imp May 1 #78

Yes I do standingtall May 1 #79

My search showed the representative of Puerto Rico was Jenniffer Gonzalez Colon who became Governor of Puerto Rico last Wiz Imp May 1 #81

How are laws passed? standingtall May 1 #83

So your solution to California being drowned out by smaller , less diverse states Wiz Imp May 1 #84

Still it would make America more diverse nationally as a whole standingtall May 1 #85

And you are perfectly fine with voters in American Samoa and Northern Mariana Islands having 800 times the voting power Wiz Imp May 1 #86

Absolutely! -misanthroptimist May 1 #39

2021 Final Report from the Presidential Commission on SCOTUS: sl8 May 1 #41

Instantly. Or sooner. CanonRay May 1 #46

It depends on the political landscape in 28. everyonematters May 1 #47

With a DEM POTUS - YES. Do they have the cajones to do it? CousinIT May 1 #52

Term limits would be easier to get through legislation? FloridaBlues May 1 #54

Term limits is the better idea IMO. expansion becomes a runaway game where the Pubs just add more later Amishman May 1 #56

Below, you explain why that can't really happen just now. MineralMan May 1 #57

Absolfunkinlutely randr May 1 #60

It's a non-negotiable the_liberal_grandpa May 1 #61

Nothing happens until AIPAC's influence within the Democratic Party is reduced and minimized Ponietz May 1 #68

13 circuits - 13 Justices. haele May 1 #69

Better to focus on term limits pinkstarburst May 1 #71

There is no chance in hell we are getting term limits on Supreme Court Justices in a standingtall May 1 #87

Yes and add more lower court judges too. In It to Win It May 1 #73

Definitely! creeksneakers2 May 1 #76

After we win the White House, we need to do this LetMyPeopleVote May 1 #80

Yes D_Master81 May 1 #82

And term limits. orangecrush May 1 #88

Mitch McConnell says no. Emile May 1 #89

FDR recognized the need to pack the court, so should we NNguyenMD May 3 #96

MaddowBlog-Why John Roberts' defense of the Supreme Court was so wildly unpersuasive LetMyPeopleVote Thursday #97

I want to puke 24/7 BigmanPigman Thursday #99

Needs to be in the Platform, along with DC and PR statehood JCMach1 Thursday #98

Clyburn: "I think Justice Roberts is gonna take his place alongside some other justices, like Taney LetMyPeopleVote 6 hrs ago #100

Clyburn: "I think Justice Roberts is gonna take his place alongside some other justices, like Taney LetMyPeopleVote 6 hrs ago #101

then it'll be 17 in 2033... WarGamer 5 hrs ago #102

Yes dpibel 3 hrs ago #105

I'd say we need to get rid of lifetime appointments first. Initech 5 hrs ago #104

The 67 Votes needed makes this a non starter. bob4460 3 hrs ago #106