• Lexi Sneptaur@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    They are not completely within their power to pack the court, sadly. They would have done so already if this were the case. They need 60 in the senate as well as a majority in the house and the presidency. Then they could.

    • Tak@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Excuse me but to my knowledge the House is not needed for appoint judges, the president nominates and the Senate votes to appoint. The Senate would simply need a majority and I’m pretty sure Dems have the majority in the Senate.

      • ski11erboi@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unfortunately the dems do not have a true majority in the senate either. It hasn’t been as easy as we hoped to get everyone on the same page.

        • Tak@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Damn. If only the system gave representation per capita instead of for arbitrary reasons to get slave owners to agree. Shucks. I guess we just have to accept it and get back to work. /s obviously.

      • ahnesampo@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The House is not needed to appoint justices, but the size of the Supreme Court is set by federal law, and you need the House to change that law to go beyond nine justices.

        • Tak@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m sorry but I can’t find anything on there being law setting the size of the Supreme Court but only precedent.

          Would you happen to have the name of this law?

          Found it and it looks like FDR had some fights of a very similar nature.

        • Tak@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think you’re probably right as it looks to be something involving the Judiciary Act of 1869 but I’ve also heard that only the senate is needed to do this even today.

          Obviously not a lawyer and ultimately it could have been done by Dems prior to the midterms so they would still be responsible for not packing the court earlier.

    • chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Technically, they don’t need 60. The cloture rule is what necessitates a 3/5ths supermajority to pass bills, but the cloture rule is not itself a law and so Senators can just… change it with a simple-majority vote. This has already happened twice in the recent past: once in 2013 when the Democrat-led Senate voted to eliminate the cloture rule when nominating federal circuit judges and once more in 2017 when the Ruplican-led Senate voted to eliminate the cloture rule when nominating supreme court justices.

      FWIW: Senators tend to really hate doing this. They call it the “nuclear option” because they normally like to get a 2/3rds supermajority agreement before changing any standing Senate rules – not to mention that the cloture rule itself is often treated as a total third-rail even among the other important Senate procedures. Combining the nuclear option and killing cloture is a massive political powderkeg waiting to explode… but maybe it should?

      • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I guess full throated fascism and authoritarianism isn’t enough to consider a “nuclear option.”

        • chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s a shared norm. Part of the deal is an implied promise that the other guys also ignore the big red button. Really, though… that ship had already sailed years ago leaving the cloture rule to hang on by the barest of threads. I’m half-convinced that the current Senate would have already done away with it if only they had a slightly more reliable voting margin.

          IMO: cloture is a dumb rule because we already have a robust system of checks in the form of a bicameral legislature plus presidential veto. The requirement for a 2/3rd supermajority in addition to these for regular everyday business is odious and something that no other large democracy does. I’m anti-gridlock on principle alone, even if I acknowledge the absolute chaos it will probably plunge the Senate into for the next dozen years or so.

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I like how when Democrats are in power, they’re unable to do anything…

      But when Republicans are in power, they break the law at lightning speed, do things they’re not supposed to do, and nobody stops them because actually the only thing staying in their way are “rules” and “decorum” and not “laws” and yet mysteriously the Democrats are always beholden to “laws” that prevent them from doing the same.

      It’s a fucking farce.