> Do you really think that if you packed the court, there is anything you could do to prevent the other party from doing the same thing the next time they're in power?

I don't think it's 100% possible to stop a determined political movement in the US from doing A Holocaust, but I think it's worth at least trying to make it tough.

▲

SauntSolaire 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And that's a good reason not to do a Holocaust of your own, seeing as you likely don't want to kick start a chain of Holocausts.

▲

AnthonyMouse 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

We can distinguish between packing the court in response to the other party doing it and doing A Holocaust, right?

▲

ceejayoz 6 hours ago | parent [-]

The point is your objection also applies to A Holocaust.

We can't 100% prevent anything; the Constitution could get amended to permit mass summary executions, with enough votes and public support. That doesn't mean it's not worth trying to make that tougher to accomplish.

▲

AnthonyMouse 5 hours ago | parent [-]

The way you make that tougher to accomplish is by adding more checks and balances or repealing laws granting excessive authority to the executive. Packing the court would de facto remove an important one. The thing that would help that is a constitutional amendment prohibiting court packing.

▲

ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> But the way you make that tougher to accomplish is by adding more checks and balances or repealing laws granting excessive authority to the executive.

That is what I describe as the "package" of reforms, yes.

> The thing that would help that is a constitutional amendment prohibiting court packing.

Good idea! Pack the court, and in that law, include a trigger provision that repeals it as soon as said amendment is passed.

(This has similarly been proposed in gerrymandering.)

▲

AnthonyMouse 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> Good idea! Pack the court, and in that law, include a trigger provision that repeals it as soon as said amendment is passed.

Except then the other party just packs the court again instead of passing the amendment, whereas if you already have the votes to pass the amendment then you would just do that without packing the court.

▲

ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent [-]

The idea is to establish a "we can keep the everyone-loses war going, or we can fix it for both of us". It's hardly unprecedented; you're seeing it right now with the decision to reopen the government except DHS.

▲

AnthonyMouse 5 hours ago | parent [-]

The real way you do this is by thinking ahead for five minutes. We consistently have the problem that everybody realizes checks and balances are important when the other party is in power but that's when they don't have the ability to institute them, and then they forget all about it the next time they're in power.

The easiest time to reduce executive power is when your party is in the executive branch to sign the bill.

▲

ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> The easiest time to reduce executive power is when your party is in the executive branch to sign the bill.

This has the exact same problem you're complaining my proposal has; it can be undone, quite easily. Probably more easily.

	▲	AnthonyMouse 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Except that court packing is a purely partisan play where they gain nothing from not reciprocating in kind, whereas they benefit symmetrically from a reduction in executive power for the same reason as you -- it helps them the next time they're in the minority. And the symmetrical move wouldn't be to re-grant those powers to the executive, it would be to further limit the executive from unilaterally doing some things the other party doesn't think it should be doing. The best case scenario would be to somehow get both parties actually targeting the other's corruption instead of just trying to get the votes needed to be the ones sticking the money in their own pockets.