Kamala Harris calls to expand Supreme Court, add states if Dems take Congress - What are your thoughts? (self.AskReddit)
3594 points · submitted by One_Look_7008 to r/AskReddit
3594
all 3050 comments
Consistent_Stay_4405 4.7k points (7 children)
My thoughts are that she should shut up until after the elections. And I’m a Democrat.
NativeMasshole 2.3k points (11 children)
I think she should shut up in general. I don't know why she's being treated like party leadership when she's never proven popular at the national level.
snyderjw 1.3k points (4 children)
It seems obvious to me that both candidates who managed to lose to Donald Trump should have no voice in the party.
spongebobisha 870 points (4 children)
It’s people like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries that should have no place in the party.
mejok 285 points (5 children)
God back after Trump won the last election, I listened to the episode of "The Weekly Show" where Jon Stewart spent an hour interviewing Jefferies. Afterward I was so distraught about the direction of the party. He had an hour to talk, to lay out his plans for opposition and winning elections, etc. In that hour he talked a lot and said absolutely nothing.
Mechasteel 103 points (1 child)
In that hour he talked a lot and said absolutely nothing.
Lots of important people are like that.
Rickreation 47 points
And risk losing his sweet No Show job? He is doing what his owners want him to do.
RIPphonebattery 7 points
Some say he is still waiting for his pitch to this day
SilentNightman • points
Remember what Hillary said about the Dakota Access Pipeline protests? That's fine, no one else does either.
moving0target 71 points
You're both right!
StupaTroopa 52 points (4 children)
They are elected leaders of the party though.
SgtSnapple 101 points (1 child)
Elected members, they choose their own leaders.
I cant vote in Schumer's primary.
steph-was-here 31 points (2 children)
they are elected by the people you elect
AustinAuranymph 11 points (1 child)
So not me, but individuals who are supposed to act in the best interest of their constituents, but don't.
Ire-Works 17 points (1 child)
Unless you live in a red state in a gerrymandered district... like a whole lot of people do.
Ire-Works 56 points (2 children)
That doesn't mean I respect them or their complete inability to do fucking any single thing about the current situation we're in.
We don't need this "holier than thou" decorum shit. We need some pit fighters to actually hold people accountable and not ask permission to do it first.
AtraposJM 10 points (1 child)
This. Republicans use their power to enact changes. Shitty changes that will ruin the government for generations to come. Dems use their power to let the Republicans stall out anything they do because they don't fight for anything.
OutlyingPlasma 19 points (1 child)
Except they really aren't. I didn't vote for them, party leadership is selected more by seniority than elections.
Skabonious 56 points (3 children)
Hillary Clinton was basically right about everything lol. She is 100% vindicated at this point
Bill_Brasky01 29 points (1 child)
Being correct doesn’t make you popular in America.
Hautamaki • points
One thing I learned a while ago is that people find it way easier to forgive you for being wrong than for being right.
SRogueGman 19 points (1 child)
Hillary won the popular vote. I'd give her an exception.
RickRussellTX 55 points (1 child)
She couldn’t win a primary in her own state.
SeriousBusiness67 44 points
She never came close to winning a presidential primary.
crazyhomie34 43 points (2 children)
She didn't make it to Iowa during the 2020 primary. Then was just handed the nomination in 2024. Left a real sour taste in the mouths of independents.
SanityIsOptional 9 points (1 child)
Left a real sour taste in the mouth of anyone on the left who wasn't a neo-liberal.
taulover 69 points (3 children)
She just says whatever the polls say is popular at any given moment. That's why she has no clear beliefs or convictions.
sftransitmaster 35 points (1 child)
Exactly. much of the democratic party has no principled values when it comes to meaningful policy discussions. But Harris is just so obvious about it(Newsom is the same way too BTW)
LonelyMachines 8 points (1 child)
The thing about words is, they say things. I like saying things. And I like money. So I like words, which are like money but you can't spend them on things so money is also important if you want to be unburdened by things.
king_of_the_potato_p 3 points
Were you her speech writer, that sounds exactly like some shit she would say lol.
TheGloomyWoodpecker 23 points (1 child)
She’s never been popular at any level.
lmaorezme 27 points
Beat me to it. She needs to shut the hell up, she has already done enough damage. Her running again is disrespectful of all of us.
yardPrawns 13 points (1 child)
Shocking I pointed this out during the 2024 election and got as many downvotes as you got upvotes.
Synaps4 8 points
Shocking I pointed this out during the 2024 election and got as many downvotes as you got upvotes.
No surprise there. Once she's got the nomination, tearing her down like that no matter what her flaws was just carrying water for Donald Trump. When you do it matters and I would have downvoted you too back then. There is a time for sewing divisions and that aint it.
MrDLTE3 12 points (1 child)
Yep. She was quite literally the 'Its Trump or me' and she lost. Like what the fuck are we even talking about here.
juliuspepperwoodchi 13 points
She's the new Hillary in that they're going to keep trying to shove her down the voters' throats despite no one wanting that.
User1539 183 points (2 children)
Yeah, the Democrats need to talk about how they're going to make shit affordable again. Period.
If you're not talking about putting food on people's plates, you need to close your fucking mouth and figure out how to put food on people's plates.
Cool_Ranch_Dodrio 36 points (2 children)
Yeah, the Democrats need to talk about how they're going to make shit affordable again. Period.
I'd prefer they only talk about things they intend to do.
User1539 13 points (1 child)
Well, and they need to both figure out how, then intend to do it.
theborch909 6 points
She should shut up until she proves she can win a primary and has her own thoughts
Mnm0602 96 points (1 child)
Every time I see “Kamala Harris…” I’m just ready for my blood pressure to increase.
When I see it mixed with anything about 2028, doubly so.
Kyrxx77 48 points (1 child)
Yeah she needs to not be the one for the dems. I can guarantee you if she tried again we'll end up with Trump for another 4 years somehow. She is a BAD candidate & spokesperson for the dems.
MimeGod 44 points (1 child)
She dropped out of the 2020 Democratic primary 2 months before the first primary vote in Iowa, because she had basically no support.
She was always a bad choice.
AmazingMoose4048 19 points (2 children)
wtf
If we have a candidate that needs to stop saying what they want until after we are stuck with them, we should want a different candidate.
SixSpeedDriver 14 points
She's not on the ballot, she's stumping for others.
DOGE_ME_DADDY 251 points (2 children)
We should be pushing for term limits.
How about that?
Sebekiz 65 points (2 children)
But to go with this, it should be mandatory that a judge vacant position must be filled, at all levels. Trump refused to suggest judges when he didn't have control of Congress, allowing the positions to remain vacant. No one should be allowed this "option" so they can only appoint judges when they are able to game the system by having complete control over who was being appointed. Congress would also refuse to accept any appointee when Biden was in office but the republicans controlled Congress.
Neither party should have the ability to prevent ANY judges from being appointed until they can control things 100%.
Edit: Also, judges should have a minimum requirement of legal knowledge before they can be considered. Simply picking out someone with absolutely no legal training or background and saying "You can be a judge in return for ruling in my favor regardless of what the laws that you do not have any understanding of say is legal." should not be possible.
LargeLanguageModelo 3 points
Also, judges should have a minimum requirement of legal knowledge before they can be considered.
Minimum time on bench, high ratings from ABA or similar independent industry org(s).
We also need a bit more in the impeachment dept. We have sitting members on the SC that said stare decesis in the hearings for their confirmation, and Maury opens envelope that was a lie.
sailphish 1.1k points (6 children)
I think Kamala should just go away. I voted for her. She would have been an infinitely better president than Trump. But nobody really wanted her. She was just the best option at the time. Politically she’s a loser for the Dems, and I think she knows that too, but she’s trying to keep her political career going for selfish reasons. If she really cared, she should step away. Shes a corporate centrist and isn’t what we need right now.
If the Dems take over, instead of playing games by expanding the courts and trying to add more states, they need to address the actual problems, put every treasonous and fraudulent politician and judge on trial, and enact actual reform.
eepos96 16 points (2 children)
Can congress impeach judges?
randotd152 42 points
Yes but it requires 2/3 senate, which is a non-starter for anything short of a bipartisan reason. (Which is the point)
Yglorba 11 points
If the Dems take over, instead of playing games by expanding the courts and trying to add more states, they need to address the actual problems, put every treasonous and fraudulent politician and judge on trial, and enact actual reform.
The problem is that putting a judge on trial would require impeaching them, and that requires a supermajority, which is implausible to obtain in the Senate under the current political landscape. And putting anyone else in jail would require dealing with the Supreme Court, too, because they'll just protect them otherwise (as they have with Trump.) Additionally, Trump can literally pardon everyone, and, again, overcoming this would require a constitutional amendment, which requires a supermajority of states or other implausible-to-reach thresholds.
The reason why court expansion is popular as a solution is because it can be done with a bare majority of the house and senate (assuming non-talking filibusters are eliminated, which can also be done with a bare majority of the senate.) That makes it actually achievable.
The other things you listed might sound cooler or less radical to you, but they're simply not possible under the current political system (and obviously "screw it, overthrow the entire government and just throw people in jail without regards for the law" is gonna be more radical and would be less popular.)
Expanding the court is something they can unequivocally do just by voting once they have control of both chambers (and the presidency, because it would obviously be pointless to do it without the presidency.)
and enact actual reform.
You're missing the point. Any reform has to pass constitutional review. As long as Republicans control the Supreme Court they can just declare anything the Democrats do unconstitutional. We literally saw this with the Voting Rights Act. Expanding the court is the only realistic way to get past this. Other things can be done later, but pursuing anything else first is a waste of time (except maybe as a way to build support for expanding the court by forcing it to take unpopular positions.)
burninatah 78 points (1 child)
I agree. She's not a personality that is going to expand the tent at this time. What we need is a full court press from her, the Obamas, Shapiro, Ossof, Mayor Pete, Abdul, etc. They need to deliver a damning indictment of trumps incompetence and corruption. Keep the focus there. These people are enriching themselves on your dime while you struggle, they cannot keep you safe, they cannot protect your children, they do not care about your future. We need to hear that EVERYWHERE, not just the occasional interview on a news channel. Buy some fucking ad time on the major networks. Remember Navalny's long form essay on Putin's corruption? How are we not getting something like that in prime time produced by Hollywood elites? Put these goons on blast so that we can put them in prison
shakeyshake1 29 points (2 children)
I’m a moderate independent and I agree she should go away.
Charisma is probably the biggest factor a president needs to win. She doesn’t have any. She presents as smug. No one wants to vote for someone who is smug.
To the extent charisma can be learned, and I’m not sure it even can be, it’s already too late once you’ve already been a public figure without any.
I’m sick of the “it’s this person’s turn” approach. So what if she didn’t get a full chance to campaign? She lost. That should be the end of it.
I was just talking to someone about this in real life the other day. When Hilary ran, she had a history of something like 20+ years of jokes at her expense. I was inclined not to like her and I wasn’t sure why, but then it occurred to me that people had been making fun of her since I was a kid.
cearrach 29 points (1 child)
No one wants to vote for someone who is smug
Except for Trump, who is smugness personified
HolidayNick 25 points (2 children)
Finally someone else that sees it the way I do. It sounds harsh but she isn’t going to win a presidential race.
DavidlikesPeace 40 points (1 child)
Are you kidding? Finally someone else?
Distaste for Kamala returning to politics is the overwhelmingly general consensus on Reddit. I would venture to state I haven't seen a positive comment about her in months.
Expensive-Sundae-831 13 points
I'm all for true originalism. Let's also have a shit ton of representatives in Congress. The Constitution stated that a rep was to hold a seat in the House for, what, 30K citizens?
Get this damn republic back to a representative democracy and mitigate the horrible control of the corporations and 1% interests.
Burnsidhe • points
I think they should be moving to impeach justices and replace them instead.
Awkward_Meat_7733 1.2k points (10 children)
The Supreme Court should serve the people, not either party, but would expanding it actually fix the problem or just make things more political? 🤔
NessTheDestroyer 569 points (8 children)
I’ve heard proposals that would be something like “every 4 year presidential terms get a SCOTUS pick and each pick can only stay for a certain number of years”
This could solve the age issues, but would still make the picks very political
Riggs1087 316 points (3 children)
There’s no undoing the politicization of the court. That particular proposal would require a constitutional amendment though.
vixous 149 points (2 children)
It would not. Go read Article III, neither the size of the court nor the terms of justices are fixed in the Constitution, and Congress has changed the size of the court before.
eastw00d86 77 points (1 child)
The terms absolutely would need an amendment. Article III says they "shall serve" while in good standing. To bracket that via age would alter the continuing status. Even IF Congress tried it with a bill, a Fed judge could and would block that portion, and certainly the SC would overturn it.
LumberBitch 20 points
Especially while the Federalist society exists and the Republicans have no intention for it to be apolitical
ManyAreMyNames 61 points (4 children)
The best one I heard is every two years, in an odd year, so no election that year. Keep the court at nine, remove the longest-service justice each time. That would move it to a maximum 18-year term.
We also need term limits for the house and senate, and a mandatory retirement age of something like 72, or 75, but either way we can't have people stay in office for decades until they're like Mitch McConnell, who is no longer verbal or responsive and clearly has no idea what's going on around him.
crazybutthole 12 points
who is no longer verbal or responsive and clearly has no idea what's going on around him
There's several politicians that fit the same description. Mitch ain't the only one.
BillyTenderness 18 points (1 child)
We also need term limits for the house and senate, and a mandatory retirement age of something like 72, or 75, but either way we can't have people stay in office for decades until they're like Mitch McConnell, who is no longer verbal or responsive and clearly has no idea what's going on around him.
I tend to think the best solution to this problem is not term or age limits, but to focus on making more elections more competitive. Nobody should have a "safe seat;" everyone should have to face voters in a serious way and not take their office for granted.
Only about 10% of seats in congress are even considered "competitive" and the rest are just completely taken for granted. This is awful for democracy for many reasons (90% of people essentially just don't matter in an electoral sense), but a subtler one is that this creates lots of opportunities for ineffective, out-of-touch, corrupt, senile, or otherwise bad representatives to continue to hold a seat indefinitely.
In the house this could be easily solved with proportional representation (which most other developed countries adopted a long time ago). The senate is much trickier, unfortunately. Maybe term limits do make more sense there.
elconquistador1985 7 points
The term limit would require an amendment.
Every president getting a nomination would just require legislation. The size of the court is decided by an act of Congress.
benk4 11 points (1 child)
The consistency of picks up presidential terms is key to reform for me. The status quo of justices retiring strategically to get a like minded replacement is insane. Trump appointed as many justices in 4 years as Obama and Biden did in 12. There's a disconnect.
JetKeel 21 points (2 children)
That would require an amendment which in my mind is basically impossible in the current political climate.
Yknut 12 points (1 child)
The Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court. It allows Congress to determine the number of justices, which has changed multiple times throughout history
DefiantLemur 15 points (2 children)
It's already very political at this point unfortunately
azulun 28 points (1 child)
It’s always been political
cygnus33065 5 points
One of the first landmark cases of the court Marbury v Madison was very political. John Marshall dislikes Jefferson and gave him a win while also seizing immense power for the court
SteelDonut 3 points
Like everything else in our lives today.
sleepyj910 30 points (2 children)
It's ridiculous to imagine it not being political, it always has been. There's a reason FDR wanted to tear it down.
So this proposal makes sense. You only get to pick 1 scotus, unless it drops below 9.
If this were combined with electoral college reform, you'd at least get a truly democratic pick every 4 years.
Zkang123 8 points (1 child)
FDR wanted to tear it down?
GIfuckingJane 28 points (1 child)
He wanted to pack the courts to get a supreme court that was sympathetic to his New Deal legislation.
Evilsushione 10 points
It can be done.
18 year term limit. Each president gets one and only one pick each year but it has to be from a lower court. However each member of the senate gets to eliminate a lower court justice from consideration. The President gets to pick from who’s left.
Once you have 18 justices, only 9 get randomly selected to hear each case. This eliminates timing cases to get favorable justices. Once the 9 are chosen, each party in the case gets to eliminate 2 justices leaving only 5 to hear the case.
hobbestigertx 110 points (2 children)
The Supreme Court should serve the Constitution and the law. it should not serve the people. It should never make policy or laws.
It is Congress' job to serve the people and the states that they represent.
Nabobou 54 points (2 children)
This might be an unpopular opinion among Democrats, but that's essentially the judicial philosophy underlying Dobbs. The majority's argument was that the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion, that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided, and that abortion policy should therefore be left to elected lawmakers rather than dictated by the Supreme Court.
And there's a certain logic to that argument, particularly when you consider how many states had spent decades passing legislation either restricting abortion or expanding its protections. The majority's position was essentially that, absent a constitutional right, why should nine unelected justices prevent states from making those policy decisions through the democratic process?
Now, we can engage in all the whataboutism we want regarding other Supreme Court decisions, including those in which the Court has arguably done the exact opposite and effectively created law or policy from the bench. There are certainly legitimate arguments about the consistency of the Court's judicial philosophy, its constitutional analysis in Dobbs, and its decision to overturn nearly 50 years of precedent. But that's a separate discussion. The point you're making about the proper role of the Supreme Court is precisely the argument the majority relied upon in Dobbs.
rg996150 13 points
The SC has historically stepped in when Federal laws and regulations weren’t being enforced at the state level. More recently, they have shifted to nullifying Federal laws and regulatory authority of Federal agencies in a nakedly political manner.
ahnotme 11 points (1 child)
Other countries have bigger Supreme Courts, but in each case they judge only a subset of the entire panel sits on. They use various different systems to decide who gets to sit on a case. Some have a fixed roster, others use some sort of randomized selection system. But as a litigant you can’t know beforehand who is going to sit on your case, because even in a fixed roster system it all depends on when your case actually shows up on the docket. The result is usually far less politicking in the courts.
Moreover, some jurisdictions have separate chambers for e.g. civil cases, criminal cases, constitutional cases and also sometimes for cases where a citizen is suing the government or a matter of governance is the issue.
TheCarrzilico 17 points (1 child)
I'm not sure how it could be more political than it already is. Politics kept one president from nominating a Justice during their term, and the save politics gave the President immunity from their crimes.
The politics are already at one hundred.
archimedesrex 28 points (1 child)
More seats makes it harder for one administration or party to radically shift the composition of the court in one or two terms. I feel like other moderating mechanisms also need put in place to limit partisan influence. Lifetime appointments probably also need to go.
purgance 29 points (1 child)
To be clear, "the problem" is not that people agree or disagree with the Supreme Court; it's that the Supreme Court justices are incredibly susceptible to external pressures (even though they pretend tha they're not).
In the 1980's a small group of billionaires began a project to "overthrow" the Supreme Court. They have invested literally billions of dollars in doing so - building up a criminal organization called FedSoc (The Federalist Society) which engages in bribery, racketeering, and corruption with Federal Judges, buying opinions and trading judicial appointments and cold hard cash as currency.
For example: Amy Coney Barrett was given a $12M book deal on the day of her appointment. That's the kind of money a Wall Street CEO gets as a signing bonus - but this is a public servant. Huge amounts of money are flowing into law schools, courthouses, and finally the Supreme Court itself.
The billionaires who are buying Supreme Court judges bought the building across the street from the Supreme Court Building, and routinely hold "court" there with Supreme Court justices, away from prying eyes of the public.
And the corruption is endemic. Let me give you another example: Samuel Alito was found to be receiving free seats on private jets of the billionaire donors he was flying with. I want you to imagine that one of these billionaires came forward and admitted that he "bought" an opinion from Samuel Alito. Alito obviously denies this, publicly.
Would you believe it? A man who received free private jet usage from a billionaire who had business before the court wasn't influenced by it?
Of course not, there clearly is a conflict of interest there.
And Alito knows this. Because of his acceptance of the bribes, his hands are tied. Even if he wanted to do the right thing, he couldn't - it's a classic mafia situation (this is what I mean by the racketeering). The Republican-appointed judges have had to be "made" in order to be accepted into FedSoc and the Republican judicial racket, and once made they can't get out - the consequences for doing so are complete destruction.
So what is Alito going to do if he gets instructions to rule a certain way? The answer is, "whatever he is told." Because no one would believe him if he tried to do the right thing. I don't imagine that he cares, but that's the moral hazard we've created in the Supreme Court.
The scenario I just layed out? It has already happened. Alito took bribes from billionaires who had direct interests in cases before the court. It became public, and Alito denied it. And nobody believed him; but the same attitude that you're displaying here (no shade, respect for institutions isn't a weakness) is what muted the response to the corrupt criminal organizations that buy Supreme Court justices.
The answer isn't going to be any one thing, just like cleaning up organized crime wasn't any one thing. It was systemic purge of our system that resulted in the end of the influence of organized crime.
fredthefishlord 8 points (1 child)
You're missing a pretty key point there:life time appointment means they have no need to continue playing those games, even after starting. No one has the votes or will to impeach. They're choosing to continue, not because of threats, but because they like the lifestyle
tdgabnh 8 points (1 child)
Incorrect. Their job is to impartially interpret the law and apply and protect the constitution.
Bluegrass6 19 points (1 child)
Reddit would love it until the next Republican led congress further packed and then they'd be screaming about Jim Crow and Constitutional norms again
Dense-Ad-5780 140 points (2 children)
I think age and term limits would be better.
ATXBeermaker 26 points (1 child)
That would take a constitutional amendment. Changing the size of the court doesn’t.
considertheoctopus 132 points (7 children)
I support these proposals but I would prefer that Dems would use their window of political capital to reverse Citizens United and/or pass a constitutional amendment to limit money in elections, shut down the dark money nonprofits and plug other loopholes that have allowed hundreds of millions of dollars to pour into every single election, increasingly, since 2010.
Skabonious 27 points (1 child)
and/or pass a constitutional amendment
Sigh.
Are teenagers the only people who browse reddit anymore?
NoConfusion9490 57 points (1 child)
There is zero chance of amending the Constitution. You need two thirds of both houses of Congress to pass and three quarters of all the states to ratify. Democrats would need landslide victories in every election for the next decade to even get close.
nerdyguytx 18 points (2 children)
Have you looked at the constitutional amendment process? You need 2/3 of the House, Senate, and state legislatures to amend the Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t state the size of the Supreme Court so adding seats just requires the President and a majority of Senators.
Once you add justices to the Supreme Court, the Court can overturn Citizens United.
tomalator 3 points
And 3/4 of all state legislatures
NothaBanga 6 points (1 child)
How can they reverse it with a stacked Supreme Court? Sure they might be able to squeeze out a weak sauce law but the SCoTUS could deem it unconstitutional.
Silverfrost_01 21 points (1 child)
Ranked choice voting and expanding the House would make all other things way easier imo
TheeAntelope 11 points
Expanding the house is high on my list of things that would help. Same with ranked choice voting. The two party system would be obliterated and we’d see 5-6 parties having 10-20% control in congress.
RadicalNation 14 points (2 children)
I want all of that to be eliminated and more, but it is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Most Democrats and Republicans benefit from Citizens United, dark money, and super PACs in that they'd happily be bought. I think you need the pendulum to swing hard left, like elect Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.
FrogsOnALog 4 points
Hillary Clinton ran on passing a conditional amendment to end Citizens United and nominating liberal judges that would overturn it. Some of y’all never actually cared though.
SammieStones 53 points (3 children)
Could we just take the money out of politics and go back to what it’s supposed to be with 3 separate but equal branches and such
SerialSection 11 points (1 child)
no one ever called them separate but equal.
Meat-Dimension 9 points (1 child)
Yeah that poster conflated a couple things lol
randotd152 10 points
That’s the real solution. Everything else is just further making a mess of things. Pull money totally out of politics and you’ll start getting politicians that actually work for the people.
DS_Vet_on_Linux 87 points (1 child)
My thoughts are that Kamala is the only candidate guaranteed to lose in '28 if she runs. She had her opportunity, failed and needs to let the party move on.
jamills21 81 points (2 children)
It’s my same concern with eliminating the filibuster. It’s great when your side is doing it, but if the other side does it then it would be a disaster. There is a reason even Trumps admin hasn’t gone that far.
AcmeCartoonVillian 23 points (1 child)
This. This right here.
We need more of this line of thinking ANY time we give the government more powers.
nerdyplayer 179 points (1 child)
Same argument every year. If Dems can expand supreme court so can GOP.
Crowsbrain 6 points * (edited 8m ago)
This comment section is filled with bots all using the same language and buzz words.
mundus108 43 points (1 child)
If Kamala Harris is thinking about running again, she can gtfo, we the dems do not want her. Shes going to cost us 8 more years.
ClvrNickname 16 points (1 child)
Funny how when progressives were saying this a few years ago while Kamala was in office the establishment dems relentlessly scolded them for it
Effective-Point-3349 61 points (2 children)
Harris is such a useless disappointment. Why didn't she push for any of this when her and Joe had the white house?
At this point it's just cynical and shows that she just doesn't know when to let go.
josephthemediocre 22 points * (edited 5h ago) (1 child)
Oh she's back to pretending she's progressive again like she did in the 2020 primary. This is what, her third trip around? Go away Kamala
Square_Ad6149 18 points (1 child)
I think expanding the Supreme Court and adding states are huge changes that shouldn't be pushed through just because 1 party has the votes. There are arguments for both reforms, but they need broad public support and careful thought about the long-term consequences, not just who benefits politically right now.
actanonverba1 23 points (1 child)
my thoughts are that someone should tell her not to run
melligator 10 points
Term limits first.
4elementsinaction 92 points (4 children)
I say just put in age restrictions like you’re done at 62 or 65 or even 70. That would eliminate a lot of the current justices.
I think those same age restrictions should be put in place on all elected and appointed federal offices.
madkins007 7 points (1 child)
Absolutely. The government has age limits for most employees, just expand it to all federal employees.
chocolatechipninja 3 points
Yes. I think it's insane that we keep putting up candidates in their late 60s and 70s.
bowhunterb119 27 points (4 children)
Then each party would just pack it with 25 year olds. Do we really want that?
Outside-Pie-7262 23 points (1 child)
They already look for younger people. Barrett was 48 when she joined. Clarence thomas was 43 when he started serving and he's 78.
A 25 year old wouldn't get the votes through Congress. That would be someone with less than a year of law experience. Lawyers don't typically become judges until they're 50 and been practicing for decades
zulako17 14 points (2 children)
25 ? No. And no one would seriously add a 25 year old justice. But a 35 year old? Or a 40 year old? They might know enough to serve.
expectingthexpected 19 points (1 child)
Yeah, I can’t imagine anyone in the current government appointing a 25 year old or other deeply unqualified person to an office of national importance. That would be craaaaaaazy…..
Conscious-Ball8373 3 points
35 is the minimum age to become president. Would the same work for the SC?
Inkpaduta1 36 points (1 child)
The Supreme Court has proven itself to be a political body, so I don't have any problem with packing, and I'm a lawyer. Political bodies should be subject to political processes.
Cool_Ranch_Dodrio 10 points
I think that if she wanted to do that, she should have said it back when she was running for president.
Instead, she said she wouldn't do anything differently from Biden.
existentialstix 12 points * (edited 3h ago)
Term and age limits is what we need. If you are eligible and required to withdraw from your IRAs, then it’s time to go sip your martini or whatever on a beach or retirement home and not still hold on to your seat and keep us in backwards times
Malodoror 20 points
Should’ve said that on the campaign trail but that’s not the thing you didn’t say that cost you the election.
ShopEducational6572 229 points (3 children)
Expanding the Court is a horrible idea. If the Democrats do it, then the next time the Republicans take power they will do it, and back and forth until we have like 25 justices. It's ridiculous.
donktastic 95 points (4 children)
Term limits is a better idea. As usual the Democrats messaging is miserable.
Mageborn23 16 points (1 child)
You’d need a constitutional amendment for term limits
HoppyPhantom 24 points (1 child)
Term limits on SCOTUS justices has a lot more barriers to implementation than expanding the court. The Constitution specifies that they serve for life. It does not specify the size of the court.
Rdhilde18 38 points (1 child)
No it isn’t. The entire reason against term limits is to prevent corruption because justices don’t have to worry about their next career.
salme3105 19 points (1 child)
We are where we are because the Republicans sat on a moderate Obama Supreme Court nominee FOR A YEAR in the hopes they would win the Presidency and corruptly appoint another right-winger. And then four years later they pushed through a Trump nominee in six weeks, just a couple of weeks before an election. To say we shouldn't do anything to counter that because Repulicans might react is cowering in the corner like an abused spouse. Screw that, kick them in the teeth and don't stop until they know we will keep doing it as needed.
The number of Supreme Court justices used to be aligned with the number of federal Judicial districts. We now have 13 districts, so let's realign things with a Court of 13.
No-Cantaloupe-6535 14 points
That she holds no office and this means nothing
btbam666 16 points
Go away Kamala Harris.
Presently_Absent 14 points
Kamala Harris needs to step aside. She had her chance.
statslady23 8 points
Where would that stop? Every time either party got a super majority, each would expand.
Previous_Network3716 8 points
The biggest concern for me is whether these changes would improve the system or just give whichever party is in power more control. Expanding the court and adding states are serious decisions that deserve proper debate, not just support based on which party benefits. And if one party does it today, what stops the other from doing the same thing tomorrow?
Awkward_Trip_4765 3 points
who?
lostinspaz 13 points (2 children)
you shoulda given a follow up with details on the states
brogflender 22 points (2 children)
DC, PR, USVI, New Dakota, South Illinanda, Secret Moon, Other Nevada, Des Moines, and Joe Pesci all get to be states.
1877KlownsForKids 4 points (1 child)
You can't have South Illinanda as a state. We already have West Virginia at home.
EverySingleMinute 25 points
Sounds like a terrible idea.
f0gax 26 points (4 children)
My SCOTUS ideas:
- Expand to 13, one for each circuit.
- Either 8 or 12 year terms, with a set number that come up for replacement each term of Congress.
- Max age of 70 (maybe 65).
michaltee 8 points
Wow this is so simple and sensible.
Which means it’ll never happen.
orthopod 6 points
Exchange to double that, then have random draw so that a fraction of them only get to rule on a hearing
ClownfishSoup 3 points (1 child)
My idea: if a new judge had been nominated, they must defeat a sitting judge in hand to hand combat to take their seat.
Smart-Tumbleweed-929 24 points
Can she just go away
KYBikeGeek 12 points
Used to be ardently against it, but this SCOTUS has abrogated their basic duties to protect even a limited Constitution. They are bad actors, and such, if they can’t be impeached, then load the damn Court.
Go_Cart_Mozart 11 points
Adding more lanes to a highway doesn't fix the traffic problem over a period of time.
mpbh 55 points (1 child)
If it was the Republicans suggesting the same thing, I'd be against it. So I'm against it on principle.
JesusShaves_ 7 points
No. We need term limits and more turnover. Adding states or judges just changes the size of the problem.
givin_u_the_high_hat 7 points (1 child)
Trump will beat them to it. Even the GOP senators that hate Trump would help him pack the court with conservatives. This is a dumb idea to push before the Dems have control of anything.
MediumRareNation 234 points (3 children)
Changing the rules to help your side win sounds a little fascist. Or are we not doing that anymore?
GoldenTicketHolder 59 points (1 child)
Same way she got appointed democrat candidate for the election, rules don’t apply to her
thelonewanderer333 46 points (2 children)
Lmao. But But But the politicians Reddit likes are the good guys!! They can only do good things!!!1!1. The politicians Reddit doesn't like are inherently evil and can only do bad things!
MediumRareNation 29 points (1 child)
I remember Reddit glazing John Fetterman during his campaign. Crazy how time flies.
tayllerr 51 points (2 children)
If the Supreme Court was owned by the democrats they’d see no issue with it and call republicans sore losers for suggesting court expansion.
Laluci 9 points
It's rare to read some common sense on Reddit on this kind of a topic, so your post was a breath of fresh air. First thing I thought of when reading the article.
2001_Arabian_Nights 10 points
I am against all “territories”. All Americans should have equal rights. Either you live in a State with full congressional representation, or you live in a different country. Territories create tiered citizenship.
Every territory should hold a binding referendum and get their status resolved once and for all. If Puerto Rico wants to be an independent country? Fine. If they want to be a state? Also fine.
DubiousTarantino 12 points (1 child)
I think it’s reasonable to expand the Supreme Court to match the amount of circuit courts which is 13. The SC and circuit used to match but the SC was capped in the 1800s while the government was still growing. The process of adding 4 justices should probably span 4 presidential terms so adding judges are more gradual.
Tasty_Particular4997 9 points
My thoughts are that Harris should just go be rich somewhere and step outside of politics.
DilshadZhou 13 points (1 child)
She's absolutely right. We need big structural reform if we're going to have any hope of having a functional government moving forward. We are running by far the oldest "democracy software" in the world and are in urgent need of a v3.
The reforms needed are bigger than the two she suggests, but those would be an OK start.
Glittering-Lynx6991 6 points
Retire
LBIdockrat 7 points (1 child)
Interesting thought. Suppose the demo do not take congress in Nov, homany more seats should be added to the court?
1800Heathen 6 points
My thoughts are there needs to be a term limit on supreme court justices. They dont need to stay until they die or retire.
Comfortable-Idea-238 5 points (1 child)
It will be Unburdened By What Has Been 🏆
MrSnarf26 8 points
Hell it’s about time. Tyranny of a senate system that favors the few, Elon musk dropping hundreds of millions on every election, all the evil shit, people should be planning for this.
davidwave4 8 points
She supported this stuff in 2019. Then, as vice president and 2024 nominee she disavowed it. I don’t trust her on this, she’s saying whatever it takes to win the nomination.
howlinmoon42 18 points (2 children)
There needs to be a national referendum for citizens – the idea of checks and balances has become so poorly flawed It’s not even real.
Does anyone seriously doubt the people would not approve fighting climate change or taxing billionaires on day one How about approving universal healthcare? If the people can petition for an issue, then pass the issue say by a margin of 60% or more than there should be no entity within the government that can stop that mandate. How about telling the current Russian sympathizer sitting in the White House that his Russian diesel deal is off? The only reason he continues to enjoy that power is because we let him have it.
The only reason these things are not approved and get through is because everybody up and down the chain right now is bought and paid for-doesn’t matter what party you’re talking about
mmmmmmm_7777777 • points (1 child)
It's not about "people approving", this is the wrong question to ask. It's about whether there is a plan to make something better and whether science backs these claims.
Keep in mind, the average person is extremely stupid, do you want that person making decisions for everyone ?
sjclynn • points
That means that half the people are even more stupid than that... Credit to George Carlin.
cromanishere 12 points
Anyone supporting this genuinely wants America to end while serving their own interests. Just remember just because they are on "your side" doesn't mean you should support it blindly.
usernamesarehard1979 11 points (1 child)
Trying to rig the game because things aren’t working the way you want. No thank you.
kju 11 points
She needs to stop talking, let Democrats do what they need to do to win
We need Democrats to be pragmatic and do what it takes to win, not virtue signal about how great they would be if the big bad right would just give them a chance
subscribetwome 8 points
A form of term limits is better.
Syncanau 7 points
Kamala is dumb
anothercynic2112 5 points
Pete Buttigieg has talked about 13 Justice's to align with the current district which seems to make sense. Perhaps 20 year terms because consistency is important.
He had also mentioned a certain number should require a super majority for confirmation which I think at a minimum should be required of the Chief Justice.
Stacking the court with just progressives will just put us back in the same place in another generation. The court should represent the country, not a party. That means there should be conservative justices as well as progressives but what is most needed are justices that will rule on the law, not on ideology.
The reason SCOTUS has become such an issue is because the legislature quit legislating and handed power to partisan litigators to make SCOTUS rule on inadequate legislation.
AsstToTheManager 5 points
Simply putting more justices on the court is not the way to solve the problem. We don't need more justices we need to replace the bad justices.
tnj3d1 6 points
Can we restore the rule of law first? Hold people accountable?
Ruined_Armor 8 points
Um, guys, the president nominates supreme court justices and the Senate approves them.
Maybe now is not the time to push on this topic.
RecycledMatrix 7 points (1 child)
My thoughts are: I hope she follows in the steps of many former VPs before her and I never hear from her again.
Aside from this, term limits are a more robust solution. If court expansion must occur, it should be tethered to a scaling value not arbitrary else it could get out of control if modifying the number of justices becomes a misshapen political football that further delegitimizes the court.
LoveisBaconisLove 7 points
Terrible idea. Classic move to gain temporary power for one party that will backfire at some point. Just put a mandatory retirement age on the justices. That’s an actual solution.
CMarlowe 25 points (1 child)
She's right to recognize it as an aggressively political, partisan body. But suppose we expand it to fifteen. Then another Republican wins and they expand it to twenty-one. What's next? Are we going to have a thousand people on the court?
The problem is that Congress isn't sovereign, and that judicial review wasn't a power bestowed to the judiciary in the Constitution. Rather, it's one they gave themselves, and no one stopped them.
[deleted] 334 points * (edited 10m ago) (6 children)
[removed] — view removed comment
[deleted] 83 points (1 child)
[removed] — view removed comment
[deleted] 23 points (1 child)
[removed] — view removed comment
[deleted] 5 points (1 child)
[removed] — view removed comment
[deleted] 14 points (1 child)
[removed] — view removed comment
[deleted] 8 points (1 child)
[removed] — view removed comment
[deleted] 20 points (1 child)
[removed] — view removed comment