Sherrilyn IfillMany commentators are tweeting & tooting that we need to expand the SCOTUS. That is not the answer to everything. Unless you just want a larger Court, not bound by ethics rules, engaging in the kind of behavior described in the NYT piece. What we need are guardrails - an understanding that the Court sits w/i our democracy. Our job us to strengthen it by creating the processes that promote impartiality & insulation from lobbying, not crossing our fingers & hoping for the best.
K. Koth@ifilljustice Can we have both?
MathiasTCK@kkoth @ifilljustice yes both, please #UnpackTheCourt but also more #Transparency. The court has failed to hold itself to ethical guidelines, and that is what I want in new justices.
SocialistStan@mathiastck @kkoth @ifilljustice But why would those new justices hold themselves to ethical guidelines when they have lifetime appointments, can't be impeached, and for all intents and purposes decide what they believe the law should be? It's a principle agent problem.
@SocialistStan @kkoth @ifilljustice we need to get the public rallied around the idea of expanding the court. The Federalist society really thrust organized party politics into the supreme court selection, nomination and confirmation process. It will require an organized response. I would love to keep pontential supreme court candidates talking about the needed reforms. It is true the system as designed makes it hard to hold them accountable in office, making the selection process crucial.
@mathiastck @kkoth @ifilljustice The incentives just don't align post selection, they'll say one thing and do another because they can. Barret is a perfect example.
Not to mention the system as designed renders the whole institution illegitimate, it's unelected, unaccountable, and concentrated in the hands of a few elites. It's replacing the institution that people should rally around imo, not expanding something that's inherently undemocratic.
@SocialistStan @kkoth @ifilljustice that seems like a bigger ask. Are you proposing a constitutional amendment or even a constitutional convention?
@mathiastck @kkoth @ifilljustice The people have more leverage to pressure local elected officials to ignore the court than they do to have the federal government change the selection process.
@mathiastck @SocialistStan @ifilljustice Great discussion. While I agree with some of what you’re saying, putting our faith in local governments to do better leaves many vulnerable people unprotected. That’s what the Civil Rights movement was about.
Grinning Cat 
@kkoth @mathiastck @SocialistStan @ifilljustice Exactly. We rightfully rejected “We don’t serve your kind”; we rejected a patchwork of rights and wrongs depending on where you live or where you’re traveling. (Cross a state line and your wife or husband becomes a legal stranger? NOPE!)
@grinningcat @kkoth @mathiastck @ifilljustice
Protecting rights with a bottom up patchwork is better than losing them nationally and more democratic. Yes, going top down we could also gain rights nationally, but with what leverage? Even if we had leverage over them what the supremes give they could later take away.
Also influencing people in a local area to make the right choices is something we can all do every day, there's no mechanism for doing the same with a supreme.
@SocialistStan @kkoth @mathiastck @ifilljustice
Why not both! (Bottom-up, local protections, AND top-down, national protections.)
I agree with Stephen Feldman that if a rebalanced Supreme Court protects voting rights, then the Republican Party as we know it [with its unpopular, cruel, and deadly policies] simply won’t return to power.
https://www.wamc.org/2021-09-05/the-case-for-court-packing-as-a-way-to-promote-democracy