General Discussion

Cyrano

(15,073 posts) Sat Apr 27, 2024, 08:54 AM Apr 27

It takes 60 Senate votes to enlarge the Supreme Court. [View all]

IMO, at least four of the Supreme Court justices are thugs in robes. They are MAGAs who are trying to help their "Dear Leader."

If we have a blue wave this year, it's going to have to be a tsunami to get 60 Democratic senators.

Further, many want to see Clarence Thomas impeached for (at a minimum) "Conflict of interest." A Democratic House might impeach him, but it takes a two thirds vote in the senate to convict and remove him.

In short, we're going to need a massive majority in congress to make changes to the Supreme Court. And that doesn't seem likely. Looks like we're screwed until the grim reaper catches up with some of them. And when that happens, let's hope it's at a time the Democrats control the Senate and the presidency so that moderate/sane judges can be appointed and confirmed.

59 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

It takes 60 Senate votes to enlarge the Supreme Court. [View all] Cyrano Apr 27 OP

GQPs will not go for it until ................................. Lovie777 Apr 27 #1

Not if you eliminate the filibuster. gab13by13 Apr 27 #2

The filibuster is not in the constitution LetMyPeopleVote Apr 27 #24

I'm just waiting to see which Democrat will be FoxNewsSucks Apr 27 #26

There is always that. Voltaire2 Apr 28 #37

How many votes to put an age multigraincracker Apr 27 #3

Don't know. But it likely won't affect sitting justices who Cyrano Apr 27 #5

For that you need two-thirds of each house plus 38 state legislatures n/t Shrek Apr 27 #6

The Constitution has been interpreted as an appointment for life. Lonestarblue Apr 27 #15

That would require a constitutional amendment. LiberalFighter Apr 29 #59

Nope, just 50+ VP Fiendish Thingy Apr 27 #4

I got my info from google. Do you have a link to 50+VP Cyrano Apr 27 #7

Google "nuclear option" and "senate" Fiendish Thingy Apr 27 #10

Got it. Thanks. Cyrano Apr 27 #11

At best, we'll have 51 seats next year Polybius Apr 27 #30

Disagree, the right 51 Dems could kill the McConnell version of filibuster JT45242 Apr 27 #8

Okay, I didn't know that. Which seems to indicate we could change Cyrano Apr 27 #9

No the house would have to pass the bill first then send it to the senate Fiendish Thingy Apr 27 #12

True but if we get the right 51 in the senate, likely we hold the house JT45242 Apr 27 #14

Yes, but the house still has to pass it. Nt Fiendish Thingy Apr 27 #18

It's not necessary for a bill to start in the house NanaCat Apr 27 #20

Only for taxes. Voltaire2 Apr 28 #38

The right Democrats... JT45242 Apr 27 #13

Neither will be in the Senate next year. LiberalFighter Apr 27 #34

It takes far more than 60. former9thward Apr 27 #16

True for now. BUT bluestarone Apr 27 #19

There was a time from the 60's to the 90's when it seemed nearly every Supreme Court decision went our way Polybius Apr 27 #31

So what are we supposed to do? ecstatic Apr 27 #33

There are 13 US appellate courts, there should be 13 SCOTUS justices to match that number. Will it happen? Doubtful. Celerity Apr 28 #40

Thanks for posting ecstatic Apr 28 #46

Nothing Polybius Apr 29 #54

Having cognizance of the ability to pass something NanaCat Apr 27 #21

Where 50 is greater than 60, that is true. Voltaire2 Apr 28 #39

They changed that to a simple majority. Emile Apr 27 #17

Who did? Polybius Apr 27 #32

Incorrect. Celerity Apr 28 #41

Technically, I wasn't incorrect Polybius Apr 28 #47

you were incorrect Celerity Apr 28 #48

I meant things, not people Polybius Apr 28 #49

I did not misunderstand anything, please do not condescend to me. I went 100 per cent off what you typed. Celerity Apr 28 #50

It was clearly worded wrong Polybius Apr 29 #53

No. It just takes 51 if they are voting to end the fillibuster ColinC Apr 27 #22

Anyone going to point out that even the largest "tsunami" can't possibly get us to 60? FBaggins Apr 27 #23

it's worth impeaching him in the house, even if mopinko Apr 27 #25

Lets really focus on getting out the vote in November.. FarPoint Apr 27 #27

Biden opposes expanding the court so getting it past the senate doesn't matter if he won't sign it Takket Apr 27 #28

You also need the political will & I don't think our side has that. CrispyQ Apr 27 #29

It also takes 50 Senators (plus a VP) who actually want to change the Court brooklynite Apr 27 #35

Bottom line is you need two-thirds of the Senate and House to change the Constitutional requirements for SC Justices pecosbob Apr 27 #36

Thomas will most likely resign Tickle Apr 28 #42

I think he wants to break the record for longest serving Justice ever Polybius Apr 29 #55

I didn't know that was a thing Tickle Apr 29 #57

you mean it's not as easy as screeching to the President online "expand the courts" MistakenLamb Apr 28 #43

Expanding a conservative Supreme Court is a Democratic wet dream until they are enlightened how things really work. elocs Apr 28 #44

Why not create more states? anamnua Apr 28 #45

Requires approval of the legislature of the state involved and Congress DetroitLegalBeagle Apr 28 #52

Plus... Mike Nelson Apr 28 #51

Impeachment probably should be difficult Model35mech Apr 29 #56

They can change that if we take Senate...I think the filibuster needs to go personally. Demsrule86 Apr 29 #58