they become a minority at the US SC.

It takes the vote of 50 senators and the VP to amend or eliminate the filibuster

the next Sinema/Manchin/Lieberman to make sure we still can't get what we need.

limit on their age or time serving?

will be "grandfathered in."

The only qualifier is “with good behavior,” but there is no description of good behavior. I don’t know whether Congress could pass a law codifying the terms of good behavior, but something is needed because the only remedy is impeachment, which Republican have taken off the table when one of their own, like Trump, has committed crimes. The corruption of Thomas especially should be grounds for impeachment, but that will not happen because Republicans will not agree no matter how corrupt he is. He and Alito both just thumb their noses at the idea that anyone has any power to stop them from doing whatever they want.

Even though it could take a long time to accomplish, I favor introducing a Constitutional Amendment limiting Supreme Court and federal court terms. It’s badly needed, and it needs to start now because most Republican states will not vote for it unless their citizens demand it. In the meantime, Democratic majorities in Congress and a Democratic president could expand the SC, though that, too, would be a hard slog. It’s frustrating to see the utter arrogance and corruption by the right-wing extremists on the Court and be unable to do anything about it.

We also need to revive the ERA and get it passed because Republicans have shown that they have no intention of allowing women equal rights, unless it’s the right to die with no medical treatment.

There could be ways to encourage them to retire.

If the filibuster is killed via the nuclear option.

The 60 vote threshold to invoke cloture and permit a floor vote is part of the current rules package for the senate.

Those rules can be changed 1) with a simple majority at the beginning of each congress every two years (next time is January 3, 2025) or 2) via the use of the nuclear option at anytime. The 60 rule could be eliminated completely, just for the current piece of legislation, or for a certain category, such as was done for approving judicial nominations.

Will we have 50 willing to remove it, and sign for expansion? Will Biden sign it?

The Constitution is clear, only a handful of things require super majority votes.

Madison and Hamilton did not want the tyranny of the minority if you read the federalist papers, especially #10.

Under the current rules, it would take 60. Under historical rules, it would take 51. Then let them stand and talk in depends for 30 hours straight to maintain a filibuster.

the number of Justices now since we control the Senate and the presidency. (Although doing it in an election year isn't great timing.)

Didn’t you ever watch Schoolhouse Rock?

Since this is not a money bill, it could start in either part of Congress.

Many don't.

What's necessary is house passage of a bill, regardless of its origin.

Article I, Section 7, Clause 1:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Manchin and Synema won't sign off on getting rid of the McConnell version of the filibuster.

The racist history of the filibuster should be its doom, but for the Republicans who invented this version it's a feature not a bug.

It takes a willingness to do it. Neither Biden, nor Schumer, nor any of the top Senate or House Democratic leadership has shown any interest in expanding the court.

That could change AFTER the November election, and a couple more stupid decisions from THIS supreme court. Time will tell is what i say.

The other side didn't demand expansion or attempt it, so if we do it there will be hell to pay when they're back in power, perhaps in 2028.

We all see that the court is corrupt. McConnell cheated his way into having 6 far right wing justices who have overturned important rights / victories. Had McConnell been consistent, trump would have only been able to add two justices.

What is your suggestion for how to get things back in order or at least back to a fair playing field?

I guess to answer my own question, we could start by subjecting the justices to actual rules that they have to abide by or face criminal charges.

Maybe it's also time to change the way they are placed on the court. Divide the country into nine or 11 regions, each of which gets its own Justice. Let the president nominate multiple candidates and then the American people in those regions choose by popular vote, with an option being none of the above. If none of the above wins, the president has to find a more acceptable option to nominate within his term or s/he'll lose the chance to nominate.

But leaving things as is isn't really an acceptable option for me. We're watching in real time as the GOP lies and gaslights their way into office and they're doing things to cement permanent rule over the majority. A president who's a king. A right-wing Supreme Court that's also above the law. We're being backed into a corner.

We have a pretty high chance of losing the US Senate in 6 months, so there goes that for the next 2 years (at least) if that happens.

The Rethugs only have to defend 11 seats, all in red to deep red states. We will deffo lose WV, so will be at 50-50 then.

We have to defend 23 seats, many in red or purple states, plus Hogan in MD is a tough opponent.

It's just unbelievable to me that people would still vote for republican senators after everything we've seen: Their refusal to stand up to trump. Their willingness to do a nationwide abortion ban. Stacking the courts with nut jobs.

I'm really disgusted and disappointed.

Not because I necessarily support keeping the status quo, but I just don't think we can change it. Even if we can, I worry about revenge in 2028. The best bet is to hope that Biden gets re-elected and one or two conservative Justices retires. It's the luck of the draw in a way.

Or the lack thereof, is not the same thing as lacking the desire or will to do it. We don't know what they'd really want to do, if they had a majority legislature and public demand pushing them to exercise said majority for a good cause.

Smart politicians keep their powder dry until they can use it, and I don't think anyone can say Biden, Schumer, Jefferies and et al aren't smart politicians.

It of course requires the will to do this, but the constitutional requirement to pass legislation in the senate and the house is a simple majority.

Only two things changed. Harry Reid changed confirming a federal judge to a simple majority, and Mitch McConnel changed confirming a Justice to a simple majority. Everything else can be filibustered.

I said this:

you said

Such as legislation, not appointees such as cabinet members and the like. Sorry that you misunderstood.

You are now trying to ex post facto inject additional language and unwritten meaning into your words, and state what you meant to type, not what you actually typed.

No one here is a mind reader and things like this (wherein someone is in clear error and yet still goes into 'after the fact' revisionist mode instead of just admitting they were incorrect ) make this place a slog far too often.

You, Polybius, normally do not engage in things like this (that I have seen) but this colloquy is becoming similar to ones I have had with some other long time posters here who, (unlike you), SO often do the same thing. I am disappointed that this is apparently the path that this interaction has ended up striding down.

here is what you typed, in full:



You left out non judicial Presidential nominations in what you typed (and I already showed Reid's exact words that show I am correct in calling out their omission) when you did not mention them and then used absolutist (ie 'everything else') language that shut the door on their inclusion.

cheers

Cel

But it wasn't what I meant. I can't prove it to you, but do you really think that I thought the filibuster applies to Presidential appointments and other things? Obviously, if it did Mitch would be doing it constantly, and Biden would have little or no cabinet. I am sorry that I left out the important things, and I was confusing. The poster that I was replying to said this:

There are 38 republican senators that are not even up for reelection this cycle.

Of the eleven that are running for reelection... only two are considered marginally competitive races.

All while we're defending several endangered states that we currently hold (and one that we know we're going to lose).

Absolutely best-case scenario is 52 seats. And that would take a tsunami

it has no hope in the senate. get the facts out there.

I doubt any Senate repugs will vote for this.....so I ask...Are there 10 seats open for us to win?

Someone will say if we have the congressional numbers to actually do it then they'll have the will but maybe it's the other way around. They should standup & say this is what we want to do, now get us the numbers to do it.

Chicken or egg? IDK, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around why this didn't land the orange fucker in jail.

I’d say you have a bare handful…

To change the number of Supreme Court Justices would only require a simple majority of both chambers minus the Senate filibuster. To replace any judicial vacancy in the nation requires a simple majority.

Hold the Senate and Republicans will never appoint another federal judge. Removal of any judge in the nation would require successful impeachment by two-thirds of both chambers.

when a Republican becomes president. Then the president will pick a young conservative.

I mean, why not? He has served for 32 years, 189 days. William O. Douglas served for 36 years, 209 days.

Fun facts, thanks 👋

If only more of those on the Left had bothered to vote for Hillary in a handful of battleground states, Trump likely never would have happened. Let's hope '24 is not another woulda, shoulda, coulda year.

Divide California into 10 parts?!

I doubt the California Legislature will want to split their own state up. There's is also the problem that outside of the coastal cities, parts of California are pretty red.

... a couple of other things I don't see discussed much, anymore: Consider ending the Electoral College and offering statehood to Puerto Rico.

Yet, I think there's nothing to really prevent a long campaign of honest public criticism of his known missteps and obvious misjudgments.