You can expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court via a bill passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president. So we'd need the presidency, a majority in the House, and a supermajority in the Senate to invoke cloture to end the inevitable legislative filibuster from the Republicans. So even with a blue wave in November, that's not possible because it is extraordinarily unlikely that we gain a supermajority in the Senate.

The only other option to pass such a bill in the Senate would be to gain a Senate majority and use that Senate majority to end the legislative filibuster, which is the last filibuster anyways. With the filibuster out of the way, we'd just need the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress.

> The only other option to pass such a bill in the Senate would be to gain a Senate majority and use that Senate majority to end the legislative filibuster, which is the last filibuster anyways.

This is what I call for in another comment. There's no way to get a supermajority in the Senate, so the legislative filibuster would have to die.

Who is "we" in this comment? Democrats? Not Republicans? Progressives?

While your comment is both technically and strategically correct, this sort of binary "us vs them" mentality has caused america such harm and always strikes me as somewhat reductionist. I wish more focus would be on policies and individuals instead of D vs R (as if greens, libertarians, socialists, etc simply do not exist in america's 300M+). Perhaps i am just romanticizing an impossible future, though.

I strongly agree with your desires, but I've also been sucked into the D vs R world lately. While I've always been politically left, I despise the 2 party system.

I'm of the opinion that a first past the post and winner take all voting system will almost always produce a 2 party outcome. As such, until we change the voting system I've decided to stop considering myself independent and throw in with the party most closely aligned with my views.

I don't think your imagined future is impossible, though! I just think it's heavily discouraged by our voting system. We can change our voting systems, though. I'd really strongly encourage you to check out and support Ranked Choice Voting (or other proposed voting systems). I don't think it's a silver bullet, but I think RCV would go a long way to breaking down the 2 party system

I think I’ve seen that movie before; Gaining control of two branches and then using that power to cement absolute control by seizing the third is what the bad guys do.

But then get rid of the legislature filibuster after they've used it. The Senate will probably tend GOP, so make sure it is weaker.

Not if you give statehood to DC (and PR if they vote for it).

This might pass the senate — so long as we add two more Dakotas at the same time.

No

So why wouldn’t the Republicans do the same thing next time they win an election? Or would the Democrats somehow guarantee that never happens again?

They will. The SCOTUS as a nonpartisan institution that isn't a political football is 100% dead if McConnell confirms a nominee before the election.

It's time Democrats recognize that, and play offense when they have the ball.

It's sad to see the institution end as a non-political body, but it's been happening for the last couple of decades. This will be the absolute end of it.

SCOTUS is already clearly partisan if the newly departed justice's final wish is for a different president to appoint her replacement. Playing politics up until the end.

Ah yes, wishing for a successor that does not undo your life's work is definitely what I would call "playing politics up until the end".

Genuine question for anyone following Supreme Court decisions since the inclusion of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. How have either of those two nominations contributed to decisions in a way that undes RBG's life work? If they haven't, on what basis are you coming to the conclusion that the third nominee to SCOTUS would somehow be radically different than the first two?

I personally haven't read an opinion from either that most democrats would be disappointed with. Most people actually don't follow what the supreme court does and the extent of the attention they pay is just making sure that the president they support gets to pick SCOTUS justices.

We can compare the stated philosophies of RBG against those of the two most recent nominees and the shortlisted candidates put forth in the past week and see that they're very different. It seems very plausible to guess that, given a large majority, these people will enact these philosophies. No?

Damn right it is. Once she passes the President and Senate get to nominate a replacement. RBG isn't somehow deserving of a candidate that maintains her legacy. In fact, she has zero say in who her replacement is.

The current status quo is that SCOTUS is staffed based on who happens to die and who happens to be President at that time. That's a terrible design: Roe v. Wade should not hang on whether there was an economic recession two years ago.

So if there's a court-packing arms race, that may not be a bad thing. It would bring this anachronism to a head.

Maybe we have LOTS MORE justices. Then each appointment would not be so politicized because their influence would be lessened. See https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/12/academic-highlight-epps-a...

If the Supreme Court becomes a more partisan institution that shifts in viewpoints every 4 years, that's not ideal, but I think it's quite a bit better than the status quo where so many people see every appointment as an existential threat.

Nothing. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

One party coalition has demonstrated they will do ANYTHING for power, and now there are very few good choices available.

Either respond in kind, or face permanent defeat

SCOTUS is dead

There are ways to do it. Expand the court and then pass a legislation banning court expansions without supermajority

If Democrats gain power, nothing changes unless they frame their opportunity as "what would Mitch do?"

There's no reprisal that would intimidate him into not taking every opportunity to claim more power.

You want to split McConnell and Trump starting now. McConnell will throw Trump under the bus the moment he loses and has done the nomination. If Trump holds out he can bargain with the Democrats during the lame duck session on immunity.

Trump will leverage his lame duck session to contest the loss in the courts.

I can’t see Dems doing that. They don’t have the popular support for something like that, let alone the courage.

What they should do is physically barricade the Capitol. I’m not really joking. It will come to that.

My first guess of the most action they will take:

Staging a walk-out of the vote.

I think we're about to see some of the more arcane rules of debate in the Senate take center stage: repeated quorum calls, filibuster, cloture, etc. I suspect this will not go down without a fight.

Filibuster was abolished for SCOTUS nominations.

There was nothing procedurally that Democrats could have done to stop Kavanaugh. If there were, they would have.

They cannot stop this nomination by traditional means.

A walkout? That wouldn't do anything. There's 53 sitting Republicans. That's enough to confirm a nomination.

They will.

They don't have the support there own party will turn on.

Uhhh, the Senate confirms nominees. Expanding the court would just allow Republicans to name more justices...

The Democrats would not be able to expand the size of the court until they could pass legislation.

This threat assumes that Democrats would take this action once they control the House and Senate.