Post

"Would support a 'partisan'" plan literally just "democrats can't because they are democrats"

Very confused article. The proposed amendment was NOT to expand the court it was to PREVENT expansion of the court. An amendment would be required for that BECAUSE it can be expanded through legislation today.

It only says that it isn't in the constitution. Whether or not something is in the constitution has no bearing on if it is unconstitutional. Something is unconstitutional if and only if 5 justices want it to be.

Look at the Judiciary Act of 1869 setting the number of justices to nine. That can be changed to 13.

Headline writers are management - not the author of the article. I cancelled my Washington Post sub a year before many others when “obeying in advance” became the operating principle of headline writers there. @nytimes.com does this occasionally too.

The GOP is affirmative action for mediocre men mad at their mediocrity and women without self respect. Change my mind 😌

🎁https://www.wsj.com/opinion/is-court-packing-constitutional-dont-be-so-sure-0e602345?st=tNhuft&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

SCOTUS oversees 13 Appellate Courts so there should be a justice for each and the only reason it's been kept at less is for easier oligarch control. bsky.app/profile/jayw...

Does the author believe there is currently judicial independence and separation of powers? That the current Supreme Court is non partisan, and doesn’t need fixing?

Outstanding 😅

To be fair, the Constitution is currently whatever the hell Thomas and Alito's wealthy benefactors decide it is.

I do wonder though, what will happen if the Democrats do expand it and then SCOTUS decides it’s unconstitutional before the new justices are seated, because you know they will.

So if that’s the case, the three most recent justices have to step down to bring it back to six, right?

Yeah I put my feet up on his couch

That’s why it’s secret.

Wall Street Journal finds it unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to be majority Democrats.

can someone explain the how SC expansion remedies the human weakness / money problem associated with our current predicament

Pure sophistry

Trump voters would not understand this.

I suspect the article was ordered into existence by Trump ally and Post owner Jeff Bezos. And the "refuting" paragraph snuck in by a reporter trying to get facts across. Or I'm giving a total idiot way too much credit. It's one of those.

that's fear talking

The 2 sentences contradict each other!

🤦🏻‍♂️

The basic conservative constitutional argument is they live in a world where they can do anything the constitution does not specifically forbid (and even lots of stuff that is forbidden) while liberals exist in a world where norms and customs bind them completely.

Judicial independence! Separation of powers! I don't know whether those are the setup or the punchline or both but Christ almighty.

They need to review the crap GROK spits out before publishing it.

How much you want to bet that Alito ghost this? Lol

"Sure it says as much in the Constitution but we're selectively ignoring that thing these days so who can say?" I am a savvy operator, give me six figures.

Had Biden and Harris been up to the challenge, Trump would have been in jail and SCOTUS would have been neutered with added members. Declare a national emergency and act accordingly because it was and is and instead the country is dying.

I've often suspected that no one reads that stuff before it is published, not even the chump who writes it.

Haha.

Where is this strong argument? Is it in the room with the WSJ editorial board?

Sounds pretty... sloppy.

Honestly that second paragraph reads to me like chatgpt slipped one through

Incredibly careless. AI at work?

Congress determines the size of the Supreme Court. Mitch McConnell changed the size of the Court from 9 to 8 justices for over a year when Scalia died because he refused to fill the vacancy. I don’t recall WSJ saying that was unconstitutional.

Wait until they find out that starting a war without Congress declaring one is EXPLICITLY unconstitutional.

So right! 13 precedes everything. They should have the bill teed up for a vote on 1/21/29.

13 is a start, but 39 (3 from each circuit) selected randomly from the practicing Bar for a cross section approximating the views of the Bar as a whole. Panels of 7. Should make SCOTUS less prone to generating ideological fiction & more aware of the practical effects of its decisions.

It is actually interesting that the Always Wrong WSJ opinion section decided to host such a half-baked wrong argument; it feels the urgency of injecting stupid wrongness into the discourse.

As ever, the WSJ opinion section is Always Wrong, but it is worth paying attention to what wrongness it chooses to pollute the discourse with on any given day.

I only skimmed briefly, but the Chief Justice is mentioned in Article I?

🎶🍌No, Congress can certainly change the Supreme Court structure🍌🎶 🎶🍌No, they can change it today🍌🎶

Fascist brain worms.

The Constitution also explicitly permits Congress to regulate and exclude SCOTUS from having appellate jurisdiction in types of cases. A Dem Congress and POTUS should vastly limit SCOTUS’ reach and instead assemble a random panel of appellate judges to reconcile conflicting decisions.

Yeah, but we're talking about the Dems here. They need to convince themselves the New York Times editorial board approves.

Jay, you are not giving enough weight to the foundational legal principle of "I don't like this, so you can't do it"

This is the column you write if you have no respect for your readers, your editors, or yourself.

Yeah, I can imagine a system where sitting on the Supreme Court becomes a version of jury duty with an essay component.

Ahh yes, but it is _partisan_ court packing that is unconstitutional, just like partisan gerrymandering (excuse me, I'm just getting word that this court doesn't care about partisan gerrymandering, but surely partisan court packing is unconstitutional)

Well someone can ask the new court if they think they should keep their jobs.

And the Democrats would also have to get a much more hardline attitude than they have historically had. They usually go "Oh. OK" when the Supreme court says no to their ideas.

Charles Evans Hughes "(T)he Constitution is what the judges say it is." But also him: "No greater mistake can be made than to think that our institutions are fixed or may not be changed for the worse." And: "When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be free." (Trans rights?)

Yeah, the constitution is written in very plain and simple language. Its designed to be obvious rather than needing lawyers to interpret it.

By those standards 4 could be added.

Well, yes - that part was thrown into relief when McConnell quite literally stole two seats.

Jay, I have been saying it forever...The Manhattan Institute is the New York Post of fake academic institutes www.hrc.org/press-releas...

Get his or their asses

OH MY GOD. You jerk!! I now have an additional reason for being extremely grateful that, to my knowledge (and to my doctor 's), my heart is still holding up well. And if this post of mine turns out to jinx it, I'm suing you.

It’s SUCH a funny thing for him to go out of his way to specify

I can't get you a million a year, but my great-nephew gave me a warm gummi bear you can have?

promises made promises kept

Make it into a vilanelle.

Average oligarch funded think tank propagandist

So when it has expanded, that was illegal?

Look at this biography. He has not held a job at anywhere other than a conservative think tank for more than four decades. His livelihood is based on his willingness to say obviously wrong things.

or Republican?

Even mentioning “separation of powers” is like a huge joke.

"there are no clear precedents that support... a strong argument that it would be... unconstitutional." I think we're just reading the sentence wrong.

i feel like republican laziness and inability to read should harm their fortunes at some point

You may reasonably expect the six conservative traitors on the Court to declare any law that expands the court size to be unconstitutional. Just because they say so A prepared democratic administration should be fully prepared to ignore the current court and form a new one

The only way to resolve this is to ask the Supreme Court.

Stunning level of buffoonery and lack of self awareness from the Wall Street journal