And yes, they should

"Presidential Approval Needed: Increasing the number of Supreme Court justices is done via a bill passed by both the House and Senate, which must be signed by the President to become law.Veto Override: If the President vetoes such a bill, Congress would need to override the veto with a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate.Appointment Power: Even if Congress passes a law to increase the number of seats, the new seats remain vacant until the President nominates individuals and the Senate confirms them".

I guess we could do it but we need we need 2/3 in the House and Senate and the POTOS still can appoint them. I'm so depressed!

We would have a Democratic President. At least the majority in the Senate and the House. So we would not need 2/3rds of the vote a simply majority would suffice as long as we repeal the legislative filibuster with a simple majority and repeal the post civil war law that limits Justices to 9. A Democratic President isn't going to veto a bill by the Democratic Congress giving him or her the authority to nominate more seats to the court they would be foolish to do so after everything that's happened the last 10 years and my guess is they would probably move quickly to nominate them and have them confirmed by the Democratic confirmed Senate. We would only need 2/3rds if we were trying to add seats with a republican President.

don't want to let Trump appoint 4 more justices before he leaves, do we ??

Court power should be dissipated - widely. Rotating judges, random assignment of cases, random collaborations. In the digital age proximity is no longer a restraint. Sad for the courts to be so slow except for the shadow docket which is a GOP convenience at this time. 13 Justices are great, but the problem is bigger than that and we need to think outside the bench.

We have a HUGE problem and it's not all about the SCOTUS.

On January 3, 2029 the new senate can abolish the filibuster.

Yes,.. Expand the court. The Federalist Society has captured the USSC.
The top court has been handed to the KkKrishtun Fascists. (Mostly Catholic Opus Dei - hyper Fanatical Fascist Religious Extremists.) They are now using the top court as their private club to be used as a battering ram, a battlefield mace, a cudgel, or a set of brass knuckles to force the general American public to comply and submit to their very special brand of social design and social engineering.

With a KkKrishtun Fascist Theocracy in the mix and then blended in their recipe in their quest to build their ideal version of a healthy society inorder to construct their warped utopia based on their warped Theocracies. But they are only unqualified religious fanatics tinkering and playing with our culture and our society while causing great detriment and long term damage as they go about in their, (they think) secret task to mold and revamp our society.

This death grip the Federalist Society has over our courts must be smashed and broken. Then the court repaired and reformed to follow the wishes and will of the American people as they consider the various court cases brought before them.

Hyper Fascists, hyper Capitalists, and hyper religious wackos should not be permitted to gain sway over our - top and final say - The Supreme Courts. They are distorting, perverting, twisting, and negating the wishes, the desires, and the directions the general population wants our society to go.

The American people through their congressional representative need to grab the reins of justice from this errant court. Then quickly dilute this Fascists courts power that they have over us. We will be a better society and better country if we finally do this and make this move. It is one of the few remaining escape hatches still available for use - to curtail the rampant Theocracy and rampant Fascism that has washed over, flooded, is in the process of drowning to the death, American society American culture, and American form of governance built on the foundation of stable Democracy. This Democracy will soon disappear from the political landscape if we fail to act soon with some provocative results orientated changes to this Chief Justice Robert's runaway errant court.

+++++++++

The warm and familiar embrace of the status quo of our political systems must also be cast aside and uncerimoniously curtailed.Leaning on the proverbial crutch of the status quo to maintain a sense of stability and balance is a fools folly. Taking the do not rock the boat approach, or the do not make waves, or don't look back - only look ahead, turn a blind eye to acts of treason, incessantly taking the forgive and forget approach to bribery, corruption, and blatant criminal conduct are all the methods this country took to put these issues behind us expeditiously. Don't make a mountain out of a molehill type of thinking is what caused us to stumble and fall into this fucking abyss we currently find ourselves in. We must alter and chart a radically different course to right this ship of state once again.

Milquetoast for breakfast, lunch, and supper can no longer deliver the changes we need and want as we strive to reach a better level of functionality forr our government and for our society and all the people concerned no matter what their station or position in life or where their status is in the vast hierarchy.

We can do this, we must do this, to restore American society to the level of success and respect as we previously enjoyed. America can not hope to be the bullies and thugs of the world. Where our only contribution, ability, and skill is to be able to grease and keep oiled the vast war machine that we have assembled. Nor can that war machine be our primary, main, or major export to share with various countries a round the world. Warmongering is not a worthy vocation to market to the world.

In short, so many things about our dysfunctional government need to be radically tweeted and altered and the damage that has been done since djt got his filthy hands on it needs to be addressed and the damage immediately be remeadiated by qualified people who care and recognize the need for a government run by qualified experts, not clowns, damaged people, fanatical religious zealots, or absolutely utter buffoons.

America so badly needs to finally distance itself from this nightmare of red hat MAGAism & trDUMPism and begin forthwith to repair the damage Team trDUMP has brought to and done to our government body. There is much work to be done.

Precisely why support for expanding the court, and killing the filibuster to do so, must be THE litmus test for electing Dems with the courage to make it happen.

Whatever action items are on anyone’s wish list, none of it is possible without first neutralizing the MAGA majority on the court by expanding it to a minimum of 13 seats, and killing the filibuster to do so.

Biden do so (or were going to recommend, I forget)early on in his term...Biden declined to move on their recommendations for change. I'm sure he regrets it now, just as he does naming Merrick Garland the AG...

At any rate, it would take a veto-proof majority in the Senate and a President willing (and obviously from our POV, one who would choose wisely).

They took no position on the issue.

As I said, the Biden admin refused to consider it, so NO, there was NO OFFICIAL recommendation for same. But there were behind-the-scenes.

Biden used the commission’s ambiguous indecisive conclusions as an excuse not to take a position himself on expansion. (Dems in congress did the same)

Not just a mere observer! Geebus!

The committee’s final report was filled with ambiguous weasel words that came to no definitive conclusions on court expansion, and Biden and the Dems used the committee’s inaction as an excuse for their own inaction.

To be crystal clear, Biden ignored Tribe’s recommendations (which weren’t part of the committee’s official recommendations)

Moving forward, We must elect only courageous Dems willing to support court expansion and to kill the filibuster to do so.

There is no other path to restoring lost rights and repairing the damage of the Trump era - anything short of killing the filibuster and expanding the court is simply a smoke screen for gridlock and politics as usual.

One judge to oversee each of the circuits.

In 1869, when the number of justices was set at nine, there were nine judicial circuits.

I have seen it laid out by legal scholars. The change would be done in a way so as to share the changing of the number of justices in ways that spread it over more than one administration. I can't remember all the details.

Partially because they can’t and partially because they don’t actually want to.

Because when the Republicans get back in power they’ll just make it 19 or bring it back to 9.

This system is so broken and fucked the whole thing needs to be trashed.

After all, Republicans don’t govern that way.

They govern out of fear of capital. They can’t really serve the People the way they deserve because of this. All of the main leaders are against universal healthcare, housing, education and so forth. In the Richest Country in the World™️, we don’t have anyone advocating for having the basic needs of the People met before we do anything else.

America just keeps getting dumber and less able to achieve anything except making obscenely wealthy people even wealthier.

It’s much easier for Republicans to do what they want because they make no bones about what they stand for. They’re completely in favor of extracting as much wealth as possible from the working class and placing it in the hands of the owners. Not only here but all around the world. They want winners and losers. They want inequality. They want more than anything to go back to the Gilded Age and they’re damn close to achieving it. They fight for their class.

You can’t fight for the owners and the workers at the same time. That’s what ties the Democrats’ hands more than anything. They’re always trying to thread that needle and it’s nearly impossible.

We all know what the right thing is but no one seems willing to do it or even try.

It will be a never-ending escalation. Keep it at 9 and win elections

2016 really hurt. So did 2000.

Graham Platner, a 2026 Democratic U.S. Senate candidate from Maine, has proposed aggressively expanding the Supreme Court, and impeaching conservative justices. He advocates adding justices to counter the current conservative majority, which he argues functions as a political action wing rather than a constitutional body.

... Progressive political ideas, policies, and remedies to get us out of this trDUMPian-esque rut.

The old reliable, tried and true pillar of stability called the Status quo is not going to extricate us from the dangerous abyss trDUMP has cast America into. We need a more provocative and radical approaches to free us from hellscape of rampant Fascism foisted upon us by the likes of the Federalist Society, The Heritage Society, fanatical KkKrishtun zealots, other stealth Nazi groups and individuals, and last but not least the Fascist in Chief the Orange Dotard and his merry band of self proclaimed Nazi loyalists in his cabinet.

Come on Roosevelt wanted to ad 15 back in the 30's. I don't know why we are still being so weak on this adding 4 seats just so we can get a tiny 1 majority vote maybe. Stop worrying about trying to appear fair peoples rights are being strip away and we aren't going to be able to depend on restoring them with a 1 vote majority. If we ever get back enough power to add Justices to the Supreme Court then we need to go for the throat and we going to need to get some new States too.

there are 13 federal districts under the court.

The constitution has no such rule. Again we don't need to try and be fair.

then the next republican can add 20 and the democratic president after them can add 30 and so on and so on. At some point everyone in the country will be on court. Or tie to the federal circuits by law so there is some standard.

originally only had 1 complaining the next President might add 100 or a million more seats is a bad argument. The President can't add seats anyway only the Congress can do that. If people want a permanent fixed number of Justices then they can pass a proper constitutional amendment and not some flimsy law that can be repealed by a simple majority like every other law.

and tying it to the number of federal circuits makes the most sense. And if a constitutional amendment is needed, that standard would be the least controversial.

and even the right for people to have representation. What's least controversial should not be a concern for us. We should also weaponize the Supreme Court to restore and protect peoples rights. Neither should we worry about protecting the institution of the Supreme Court, because it's already rotten to the core. Adding just 4 seats only gives us a 1 seat majority and there is no guarantee all 4 of them will vote to restore Roe V Wade, repeal citizen united or vote to stop taking us back to the Jim Crow era and many other things. Adding significantly more seats would give us a cushion to get people their rights back quickly instead of having to possibly have to wait another 100 or even 200 years. People rights are more important then having a neat looking procedure. Besides if the people could have a constitutional amendment limiting the number of Justices then they could get one adding term limits to Supreme Court Justices too.

is also the most defensible. It sets a standard that most people will understand and can support. Otherwise you end up with anarchy which helps no one.

You just tell them why your doing it and proceed. Let's see Trump put the national guard in cities, had ice agents murder U.S. citizens and threatened to put homeless people in concentration camps, ripped healthcare from millions of Americans and yet there still not a huge anarchist movement in America, but yet if we add to many justices that's going to cause anarchy in America. I seriously doubt that.

If we are not fighting to uphold principles then what are we really fighting for? The argument that because they cheat, we have to cheat too. Is morally indefensible.

Not against the constitution and therefore not cheating. Nor are we going to the Supreme Court to gut laws passed by previous Congress's to protect voting rights. We are reforming the court and which the constitution gives the Congress right to do.


"The argument that because they cheat, we have to cheat too. Is morally indefensible."

By that logic. We should not have responded to republican gerrymandering by gerrymandering California or soon to be Virginia?

Might as well be rooting for a favorite baseball or football team. I'm sorry that I believe in fighting for principles.

The 1789 Judiciary Act set the number of SCOTUS justices at 6.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1789

But will need a democratic president too.

and there is nothing sacred about the number 9. I'd be happy even with 11, especially if we can impeach Clarence and Slimy Sam.

It's not time for more timidity with the fascist right-wing bastards.

Too much power in too few hands right now.

Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam,Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa and Washington D.C. and the 12 new Senators that go with them which would give us some leverage protecting the new majority on the Supreme Court for a while.

is that they would rather not be a state, TYVM. They're happier, at least right now, with being able to sit over there and say, "I can't believe you people did that!" It's a pretty secure Democratic enclave with a few rich assholes. Let's keep it that way.

and therefore at the mercy of the U.S. Congress and especially the President. So if they want to ensure they can keep their rights being a State not only allows them to vote for President, but also allows them congressional representatives and Senators.

The least populous state is Wyoming with about 588,000 population. The most populous is California with about 39.5 million. So California's population is about 67 times the population of Wyoming, yet they both get 2 Senators and California has only 53 Representatives to Wyoming's 1. The Population of the territores and DC are as follows:

Puerto Rico ~ 3.2 million
DC ~ 690,000
Guam ~ 154,000
U.S. Virgin Islands ~ 87,000
American Samoa ~ 50,000
Northern Mariana Islands ~ 47,000

California is 840 times the size of the Northern Mariana Islands!

Puerto Rico and DC are no problem but the others are far too small to be made states. To get anywhere remotely close to equal representation in the House of Representation would require the House to be expanded to over 7,000! Even as it stands now, the House should be about 579 members for balanced representation.

especially after the Supreme Court ruling. So making all territories State helps to counter balance that. The is nothing in the constitution that says a State has to have a minimum population to be a State. When Rhode Island became a State in 1790 their population was only 68,000. When Alaska became a State in 1959 the population was only 224,000, but only 153,000 were the civilian population. Making all inhabited U.S. territories States actually gives California more power, because it counter balances the electoral college and helps to offset States like Wyoming getting as many Senators as California with States 10x smaller the Wyoming having just as many Senators.

You really believe that?
For the record, there is no guarantee any of the territories except DC would elect Democrats. In fact, the current non-voting delegates to the U.S. House of Representatives from the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam and Puerto Rico are all Republicans.

Adding those 4 territories could easily add 8 Republican Senators.

The U.S. Virgin Islands with a population of over 70% African American is voting to elect republicans in State wide or federal elections unless it's a very progressive republican.


Puerto Rico is represented by Pablo José Hernández Rivera who is in fact a Democrat

I'll will grant the Northern Mariana Island might be the most conservative of the bunch

Did say it was guarantee or that it would hold forever and D.C. wouldn't be guaranteed to hold forever, but the odds are they would elect Democrats for the Senate more times then not.

Sorry that information was incorrect. She was the previous non-voting member of the House through the beginning of 2025. However, she is a member of the New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico (PNP) which is more aligned with the Republican Party than Democrats. She was in fact chair of the Puerto Rico Republican Party. And she is now the head of Puerto Rican Government - as effectively a Republican.

You completely fail to explain how adding miniscule population states gives more power to California. How in the world would having 4 Senators from states with populations under 50,000 gives more power to California with a population of over 38 million? It's bad enough that California has the same number of Senators as Wyoming and only 52 Representives with 67 times the population . And you think California would gain power by adding states for which California has over 800 times their population? It makes no sense.

DC should be a state. Puerto Rico should be a state if they want to be (which has never been proven they do). It would be beyond counterproductive to add the other territories as states. There are over 800 cities in the US with populations greater than the smallest territories. Should they all be made states as well? If not, then why should those territories? The idea is absolutely insane.

By the Congress and Senate voting on them. And how are laws upheld by the Supreme Court upholding them and who has the final say on that? The U.S. Senate. California's population doesn't do any good nationally if what their voters want is drowned out by smaller less diverse States like Wyoming. They say all politics are local that's somewhat true, but it turns out all politics are national too. The congressional representative or Senator In a State you don't live in and can't vote for might be the deciding vote on rather you get to keep your healthcare and many other things and Senators from a State you don't live in even have more power in addition to possibly being the deciding vote on rather you get to keep your healthcare they also get to vote to confirm Supreme Court Justices that might overturn laws. Within the framework of the electoral college the electorate must be expanded nationally to a more diverse electorate to give the voters of California a better chance to get their agenda passed.


As far as adding Cities as States that's not really constitutionally permissible without States allowing those localities to secede from the State and no State is going to ever allow that again. Hasn't happened properly sense about the late 1700s and West Virginia during the civil war and so they did not need the permission of the confederate State of Virginia to secede. However adding inhabited U.S. territories as States is constitutionally permissible although their citizens would have to vote on it and the Congress would have to vote on it and would have to be signed by the President.

is to add far smaller, even less diverse states. Gotcha. Andyou are perfectly fine with rvoters in American Samoa and Northern Mariana Islands having 800 times the voting power of residents of California. Insanity. I'm done.

(Wyoming is 81.4% white, American Samoa is 92.6% Native Pacific Islander meaning American Samoa is less diverse than Wyoming.)

because the demographics in those territories are minorities nationally.

of voters in California. Insanity. I'm done.

Additionally, each subsequent President should be allowed one (and only one) nomination to the Court. This probably will result in more than 13 Justices over time.

There are many reforms needed for the USSC. One I'd like to see soon is making bribery illegal. The idea that it's not bribery until after a SC ruling is ludicrous and outrageous.

The report used to be accessible at the whitehouse.gov site, but any of those links I've found are now dead ( BTW, my spellcheck helpfully replaced the "whitehouse" I typed with "shithouse" ). Chapter 2 of the report covers the membership and size of the court, with arguments for and against expansion.

Full report (pdf):
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/documents_with_attached_files/376063/168144.pdf

Cover letter (pasted below) and more from The American Presidency Project (UC Santa Barbara):
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/final-report-the-presidential-commission-the-supreme-court-the-united-states

If the Republican brand is lower than dog shit, and the Democrat's is up, do it. If it would cause us to lose the lose the House in 30, don't do it.

Well.....

Versus expand court.

They're shameless. If we go to 13, next time they're in power (which will happen eventually, because people are stupid) they'll just expand it again.

Term limits are better to prevent a long term lock in of court control.

However, how did the SCOTUS get so unbalanced in the first place? We elected Donald J. Trump in 2016. That's how.

There were plenty of people, including myself, who warned over and over again about what could happen to the SCOTUS if he were election. Sadly, enough people "just didn't like Hillary," so he did get elected and, predictably, screwed up the SCOTUS as predicted.

If we would carefully think ahead and vote overwhelmingly to prevent people like Trump from being elected, we wouldn't be in this situation.

Will we learn? Probably not. We never seem to. More's the pity, isn't it?

Big mistake on Obama's watch.

I may vote for a Democrat who does not campaign on this issue in order to save the country
but I will NOT send any candidate for president a dime of my money unless they promise to do just that.

The reason is that, if they don't, every piece of legislation they pass will be challenged and shot down by the radicals currently on the court and in the elections that follow Dems will be blamed for not getting anything done.

They also need to campaign on getting money out of politics. Politicians care much more about their large money donors than they do about their voters. We need to get back to making sure the voters are the donors.

Dems need to fight and I will not support any who won't and I won't send money again to unproven candidates thanks to Fetterman

AIPAC installs Demicans. Get a clue, morans.

Maybe 14, to have a floater if there's several major cases coming out of a particular circuit.
Makes sense.
But political interests require a tightly controlled Supreme Court.

That would serve us better than increasing up to 13 justices, which would only result in republicans adding another 10 justices. Then we'd have to add another 20. It would quickly get ridiculous.

We have term limits for president. This is not an unreasonable concept.

polarized country anytime soon if ever, because that would require a constitutional amendment. Not getting 2/3rds of the congress to vote for that and your not getting 3/4ths of the States to ratify it. The Supreme Court is entirely transactional now so there will not be enough support to give them term limits, because one side is already getting everything they want. Repealing the legislative filibuster and repealing the 1869 law limiting the number of Justices to 9 and then adding more seats to the court is far more doable.

A few years back I would’ve said no but the GOP has done nothing but play dirty to gain power for the past 10 years if you don’t do it they will continue to. First they stole the SC in 2016, then packed it in 2020, then the extreme court went to work overturning 60 years of precedent to take the country back to the 60s. As if that wasn’t enough thy started to try to redistricting Texas to gain some seats and when the Dems responded in kind they started to ask all red states to do it.

He's still making up an excuse.