completely different GOP in 2003

For sure. But there's no need for them to pack the Court first. They have a stranglehold on it. Why open that door when you're already in control? It would weaken them to do so.

This is how we get to actual Fascism, right? Invalidate the Constitution by rendering useless the only part of the government created to protect it?

After a century of judicial abdication I'm sure we won't even notice the difference.

They'll do it, and Mitch McConnell will act like he has no idea why people are freaking out.

Why would people freak out? Don't you want the courts packed?

I still don't understand what their incentive (with a 6-3 lead) would be to open that door and justify the Democrats taking the Court back the next time they win the presidency when the status quo on the Court looks really good for them for the foreseeable future.

Yeah, I understand the impulse to see Republican projection in other places (“they’re stealing an election,” the crowd screamed as they smashed their way into the building; “These wokes want to control your body with a mask and institute a state sanctioned social credit system…and by the way, do you think your Uber driver gave someone a lift to an abortion clinic? Investigate and punish them! Fabulous prizes to be won!”) and think it can be used predictively. But the minority rule textbook is always about reductive design. Shrink the battlefield. Reduce oversight wherever you can. Cut funding. Make it harder to vote. And for the love of god don’t add Supreme Court seats your opponents may one day get to fill.

Few judges and lifetime appointments is their best case scenario.

Make huge, absurd power plays and watch the Democrats do nothing. Republicans will pack the court early in their next Presidency. They'll reap the rewards, because it'll take more than half a decade for Democrats to get their new Justices in place and undoing what the Republicans did. But that won't matter because the Democrats won't add more Justices because it would be the wrong thing to do.

Then ...

I agree with McP on this one. I just don't see the upside for this particular move and lots of potential downside for the GOP. And I don't believe for one second that Democrats wouldn't do it right back as soon as they were able to if the Republicans (unnecessarily) set that precedent.

I know everybody is afraid of McConnell because he's an evil genius, but this sounds like playing checkers not chess. Remember when he resisted Trump's pleas to end the filibuster? McConnell plays the long game.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/1 ... urt-511603

"Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed concerns Sunday that the public may increasingly see the court as a partisan institution."

Pack away, Biden. This is stupid. Worst case scenario we'll get 2-3 years of rulings by humans.

Is it like when Michael Scott declares bankruptcy? Does he declare he's adding another member and starts the process? Is there something that has to go through Congress?

Has to be done by Congress.

So I guess the Court is still happy with qualified immunity.

Pretty disappointing that not even Thomas wrote a dissent. I still hold some faint hope that he, Gorsuch, and Sotomayor could form some sort of horseshoe alliance against some of QI's worst excesses.

I don't have a problem with the concept of immunity for police, but qualified immunity doesn't seem to be much different that complete immunity. Police have to be accountable for doing their job correctly.

That being said, neither of these cases, as summarized here, seem very compelling to me. I'm not sure if shooting a guy with beanbags while he's threatening cops with a knife and has already trashed his house with a chainsaw is problematic at all.

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/18/10470856 ... nity-cases

I'm really drawn to the idea that if police had to carry the equivalent of malpractice insurance that it would quickly incentivize better behavior by officers and would make problematic officers practically unemployable due to the high cost of the premiums the cities would have to pay.

42 USC §1983 would incentivize this too if the courts would actually follow through with taking it seriously.