6. Let's review here the history of the expansions of the Court in that period, some of which were more ideologically loaded than others. The Supreme Court was originally 6 Justices (even number - not ideal!). For both practical & ideological reasons, it was expanded to 7 in 1807
-
-
17. The Court has always been political in various ways, but life tenure, Justices long outlasting the people who appoint them - these things sustain the Court as a separate branch. Allowing them to just be swamped whenever POTUS wants new roles is banana republic stuff.
Show this thread -
18. McElwee is reaching here (he can't point to any action ever taken by the R caucus) but even so, Senate obstruction can be fixed by the next Senate elections. Expanding the size of the Court is a permanent step. Not remotely comparable.https://twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/status/1107652774852993024 …
Show this thread -
19. Bouie (does the NY Times styleguide require me to call him Bamelle Jouie?) ignores the ideological nature & context of Jackson's move by assuming I'm saying it was originally all about slavery. But rather ignores that Jackson appointed Taney.https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1107720100721950722 …
Show this thread -
20. Craig simply ignores both the history preceding the Garland fight, including prior D filibusters (I started this thread linking to my prior writeups rather than rehash them here) & the drastic difference in permanently changing the size of the Court.https://twitter.com/craigcalcaterra/status/1107727740013346817 …
Show this thread -
21. Yes, we have had power struggles of increasing drama over what the Senate minority or majority can or will do with judicial nominees. But Americans rejected in 1937 the idea that the size of SCOTUS can be a politician's plaything. If we cross that, it's deeply dangerous.
Show this thread -
22. Now, I agree with
@jbouie that the expansions of the Court in 1807 & 1837 were not as openly & solely ideological as what Democrats are proposing today, and were partly practical in nature. That's not a point in their favor!Show this thread -
23. Again, I don't disagree with this thread-it covers history I've been over before & *undermines* the usefulness of the 1837 precedent for today's Dems. My main point: the ideological Jacksonian reshaping of the Court damaged it & the country.https://twitter.com/rachelshelden/status/1107741916773396481 …
Show this thread -
24. Precisely! The Court as it has existed for 150 years, independent of political control, was made possible by stabilizing its size & resisting periodic efforts to break the independence Hamilton envisioned. This proposal would destroy that forever.https://twitter.com/rachelshelden/status/1107746476053225472 …
Show this thread -
25. Direct political meddling was, of course, one of the causes of Dred Scott (Buchanan conspired behind the scenes with Taney), corrupting Alexander Hamilton's vision of judicial independence secured by knowing politicians couldn't just change the courts at will:pic.twitter.com/cf6hAaiT8n
Show this thread -
26. Simplest explanation for the Democrats' effort to change the meaning of the term "Court-packing" away from its historically bipartisan commonly-understood meaning: they wish to disarm the opponents of actual Court-packing of the language in which to express the concept.pic.twitter.com/1vj68wmxpX
Show this thread -
27. You know who sees Court-packing for what it is - the quickest way to destroy the Court as the guardian of the rule of law in America? Ruth Bader Ginsburg. https://www.npr.org/2019/07/24/744633713/justice-ginsburg-i-am-very-much-alive?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter …pic.twitter.com/fl6nf2A4qa
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.