1. If in two years Trump is President, and as a result the US is no longer a functioning liberal democracy at the federal level, and moreover multiple other former liberal democracies (Taiwan, Ukraine, perhaps the Baltics and/or Poland) have fallen under the tyrant's heel with his acquiescence, will you still think this was the right verdict for democracy?
2. What do you think is the probability of that outcome?
If Trump had won in 2020 and a bunch of liberals directed by Joe Biden had broken into the Capitol to try to violently stop his election from certified by Congress, would the Court have made the same decision today? Of course not. There would've been at least six justices saying the state (probably not Colorado - probably it would be Texas or Florida) was right to bar Biden from running.
Maybe the decision today was good for democracy, but the majority on the Court made the decision for purely partisan reasons.
I know this is a stale thread, but the idea that people who want to pack the court also want a strong court kept tickling my brain, I was sure I read solid people arguing the opposite.
I did not take the time to search, but I'm pretty sure Jamelle Bouie has written along the same lines.
If you have rarely or never met a person who holds both views in person, that is a strange argument. Both views are persuasively argued together by prominent writers. When I read your comment I did a double take, I hold both views and I have met myself! You have now, in a limited way, met me.
If you want to point out that many liberals are nostalgic for an activist liberal court and have not fully faced the logical consequences I would agree, and point out that the project of being a thought leader is to persuade people over time.
Noah, I'm in the weird position of agreeing with you about the decision, but disagreeing with the decision. I'm glad, even relieved, that the Supreme Court issued its 9 to 0 ruling, mostly for the same reasons you approve of it. But I also think states should have wide latitude in determining who can be on their ballots, as long as the process is facially fair and really is a process (and not an arbitrary decision).
And to note Nicholas Weininger's question above: I've thought about similar hypotheticals, or at least I hope they're hypotheticals. I suppose that in the case he presents, I would regret the court's decision. My main proviso is that if a second Trump presidency really does happen and really destroys liberal democracy in the US, that will have been something long in coming and not contingent merely on Trump winning election again. The roots would be deeper than merely the accident of an election. I'm not sure how valuable that proviso is. Long term trends matter, but contingency and personalities matter, too.
I guess now I hope that 1) Trump loses and loses decisively or 2) another Trump presidency won't be as bad as I fear.
“ The refusal to see that fact has always been the manifest contradiction at the heart of liberal court-packing fantasies, which imagine that you could destroy the legitimacy of an institution and then still use it to reshape the law and society for their own ideological purposes.”
I think this is a misreading of what liberals want out of court packing. They don’t want to use the court to reshape society for their purposes (what would that even look like? You can’t create a single payer system or build green energy infrastructure with the judicial branch.) They just (correctly) think that their policy goals are significantly more likely to be achieved with a court that has lost its legitimacy and switches back and forth between leaning left and leaning right, than a court that will have a significant rightward lean for the foreseeable future.
Two questions:
1. If in two years Trump is President, and as a result the US is no longer a functioning liberal democracy at the federal level, and moreover multiple other former liberal democracies (Taiwan, Ukraine, perhaps the Baltics and/or Poland) have fallen under the tyrant's heel with his acquiescence, will you still think this was the right verdict for democracy?
2. What do you think is the probability of that outcome?
If Trump had won in 2020 and a bunch of liberals directed by Joe Biden had broken into the Capitol to try to violently stop his election from certified by Congress, would the Court have made the same decision today? Of course not. There would've been at least six justices saying the state (probably not Colorado - probably it would be Texas or Florida) was right to bar Biden from running.
Maybe the decision today was good for democracy, but the majority on the Court made the decision for purely partisan reasons.
I know this is a stale thread, but the idea that people who want to pack the court also want a strong court kept tickling my brain, I was sure I read solid people arguing the opposite.
Check Ian Milhiser
https://www.vox.com/23186373/supreme-court-packing-roe-wade-voting-rights-jurisdiction-stripping
I did not take the time to search, but I'm pretty sure Jamelle Bouie has written along the same lines.
If you have rarely or never met a person who holds both views in person, that is a strange argument. Both views are persuasively argued together by prominent writers. When I read your comment I did a double take, I hold both views and I have met myself! You have now, in a limited way, met me.
If you want to point out that many liberals are nostalgic for an activist liberal court and have not fully faced the logical consequences I would agree, and point out that the project of being a thought leader is to persuade people over time.
What if you want to pack the court and you want a weaker court? No contradiction.
Noah, I'm in the weird position of agreeing with you about the decision, but disagreeing with the decision. I'm glad, even relieved, that the Supreme Court issued its 9 to 0 ruling, mostly for the same reasons you approve of it. But I also think states should have wide latitude in determining who can be on their ballots, as long as the process is facially fair and really is a process (and not an arbitrary decision).
And to note Nicholas Weininger's question above: I've thought about similar hypotheticals, or at least I hope they're hypotheticals. I suppose that in the case he presents, I would regret the court's decision. My main proviso is that if a second Trump presidency really does happen and really destroys liberal democracy in the US, that will have been something long in coming and not contingent merely on Trump winning election again. The roots would be deeper than merely the accident of an election. I'm not sure how valuable that proviso is. Long term trends matter, but contingency and personalities matter, too.
I guess now I hope that 1) Trump loses and loses decisively or 2) another Trump presidency won't be as bad as I fear.
“ The refusal to see that fact has always been the manifest contradiction at the heart of liberal court-packing fantasies, which imagine that you could destroy the legitimacy of an institution and then still use it to reshape the law and society for their own ideological purposes.”
I think this is a misreading of what liberals want out of court packing. They don’t want to use the court to reshape society for their purposes (what would that even look like? You can’t create a single payer system or build green energy infrastructure with the judicial branch.) They just (correctly) think that their policy goals are significantly more likely to be achieved with a court that has lost its legitimacy and switches back and forth between leaning left and leaning right, than a court that will have a significant rightward lean for the foreseeable future.