You add 4, then we add 4, until it's so large and politically elected and motivated that it's functionally destroyed as an institution.
politically elected and motivated that it's functionally destroyed as an institution.
That happened decades ago. They are politicians who serve for life.
Sorry, but I disagree.
This is because appointments to the supreme court used to require a supermajority of the senate in order to be approved for the position. The democrats changed these rules in 2013 under Obama to only require a simple majority for appointment. They did this because the Democrats wanted to politicize the Supreme Court. You see, in order to obtain a supermajority approval, both the Democrats and Republicans were required to pick moderates in order to get support from the opposing side of the isle. Now that it is no longer the case, and only a simple majority vote, you can pick a highly polarized politically motivated justice instead of someone who's role is to simply uphold the provisions of the constitution.
This is a very recent change.
Well I still dissent in part. You're right that the rule change could allow more polarized justices to take the seats. However, since the rule change only Neil Gorsuch (54-45), Brett Kavanaugh (50-48), and Amy Coney Barrett (52-48) have taken Supreme court seats so the rule change absolutely came to bite Democrats in the ass in a way that is amusing to me on levels you can only begin to imagine. The fact of the matter is that because they lost 2016, they missed the chance to appoint 3 justices which would have permanently libtarded the highest court of the land. They also lost the chance to pack the lower courts with justices.
Even still, the departure from supermajority is a symptom of the polarization rather than a cause as the parties become unwavering voting blocks on supreme court nominations, and impeachment. The middle cannot hold and is bound to collapse, and political power will simply dwell with those who can eek out a marginal victory.
(post is archived)