they don't need to approve 100 but letting 6 or 7 through is possible
Why would the Senate even let one extra justice through?
You would need 51% of them to do that. Which would necessarily either include Manchin and Sinema or two Republicans. If you honestly believe either of those scenarios would result in even increasing the size of SCOTUS to 10 justices, you really don't understand the U.S. government.
of 100 candidates having to go through all the consent hearings, I think they would come to an agreement about a few
Why would they come to an agreement on any of them? What would compel Sinema and Manchin to agree to expand the court by a single justice? And if not them, name the two Republicans who would please.
imagine the immense opportunity. I don't know how they wouldn't all think about the power being given to them. the pool of candidates. the legacy. but Biden won't even nominate 2 more because he doesn't actually care.
In other words, you can't give a reason for Sinema and Manchin to support Biden if he did this or name two Republicans.
Because as far as I can tell, the 'immense opportunity' would also be there to say no to every single judge and not allow Biden to increase the size of the Supreme Court. Which they would totally do since even plenty of Democrats would be against it.
Why you think this is a politically winning issue I don't know. If it were, it would have been done already by other presidents. Do you think Clinton would have had a court with Thomas, Scalia and all the other Republican appointees? Do you think Clinton would have dealt with Rehnquist as chief justice if he didn't have to?
Even FDR had the Supreme Court working against him. Why didn't he expand the court so all of his New Deal programs would pass? Do you think maybe it's because it is not something the Senate would ever agree to or do you think FDR was just less popular than Biden?
fdr at least tried.
When did he try to expand the court? Details please.
So what would the point of Biden trying be exactly? Because it sounds purely performative and the Senate already wastes way too much time on performative bullshit.
I was just spit balling. he could literally do anything to fix the situations we are facing instead of not.
He could literally do nothing about the Dobbs decision. It was entirely out of his hands. The executive branch does not control the judicial branch. That's the whole point of the separation of powers.
he could have introduced a constitutional amendment. he could have packed the court. he did nothing.
he could introduce a constitutional amendment. he could pack the court. he could do something.
A constitutional amendment takes a supermajority of congress and 2/3rds of the states to ratify it. That is literally impossible for Biden to achieve.
We already talked about how he would fail at packing the courts.
I think you don't really have a good understanding of how the U.S. government works.
they don't need to approve 100 but letting 6 or 7 through is possible
Why would the Senate even let one extra justice through?
You would need 51% of them to do that. Which would necessarily either include Manchin and Sinema or two Republicans. If you honestly believe either of those scenarios would result in even increasing the size of SCOTUS to 10 justices, you really don't understand the U.S. government.
of 100 candidates having to go through all the consent hearings, I think they would come to an agreement about a few
Why would they come to an agreement on any of them? What would compel Sinema and Manchin to agree to expand the court by a single justice? And if not them, name the two Republicans who would please.
imagine the immense opportunity. I don't know how they wouldn't all think about the power being given to them. the pool of candidates. the legacy. but Biden won't even nominate 2 more because he doesn't actually care.
In other words, you can't give a reason for Sinema and Manchin to support Biden if he did this or name two Republicans.
Because as far as I can tell, the 'immense opportunity' would also be there to say no to every single judge and not allow Biden to increase the size of the Supreme Court. Which they would totally do since even plenty of Democrats would be against it.
Why you think this is a politically winning issue I don't know. If it were, it would have been done already by other presidents. Do you think Clinton would have had a court with Thomas, Scalia and all the other Republican appointees? Do you think Clinton would have dealt with Rehnquist as chief justice if he didn't have to?
Even FDR had the Supreme Court working against him. Why didn't he expand the court so all of his New Deal programs would pass? Do you think maybe it's because it is not something the Senate would ever agree to or do you think FDR was just less popular than Biden?
fdr at least tried.
When did he try to expand the court? Details please.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937
Okay. Fair enough. He tried.
And he failed.
So what would the point of Biden trying be exactly? Because it sounds purely performative and the Senate already wastes way too much time on performative bullshit.
I was just spit balling. he could literally do anything to fix the situations we are facing instead of not.
He could literally do nothing about the Dobbs decision. It was entirely out of his hands. The executive branch does not control the judicial branch. That's the whole point of the separation of powers.
he could have introduced a constitutional amendment. he could have packed the court. he did nothing.
he could introduce a constitutional amendment. he could pack the court. he could do something.
A constitutional amendment takes a supermajority of congress and 2/3rds of the states to ratify it. That is literally impossible for Biden to achieve.
We already talked about how he would fail at packing the courts.
I think you don't really have a good understanding of how the U.S. government works.
he didn't even fail at it. he didn't fucking try.