• whygohomie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    The court was already packed with activist judges appointed under suspicious or hypocritical circumstances who then lied to Congress during their confirmations about their deference to precedent on a host of issues only to the engage in a massive power grab from Congress. Subsequent action to rebalance the court is not court packing.

    • Tinidril@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      The term “court packing” has a very specific meaning. It refers to adding seats to the supreme court to shift the balance.

    • retrospectology@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Court packing is the solution. It’s been suggested that the number of justices be increased to something like 20-30 (similar to the next lowest court is right now) and then judges be rotated out to other federal positions every few years (effectively a term limit in the SC itself).

      This achieves two things 1) It allows for each administration to make appointments to the court as a routine matter, making it difficult to capture the court for generations at a time 2) the amount of judges waters down the influence of the extremist dipshits. We know this works because, as we saw in the past, even lunatics like Alito were kept in check when the court was not majority far-right.