Encyclopedia of Opinion
Question
Who should win the Georgia Senate runoffs?
Position‹2 of 2
One or both Republicans should win
Argument‹3 of 3

Prohibit liberal Supreme Court Justices

A new faction in the Democratic Party has pushed for packing the Supreme Court with more liberal Justices. a Republican Senate is needed to ensure that that does not happen.

The argument

After the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, Democrats have started to suggest that court-packing is on their legislative agenda. A Republican-controlled Senate would stop that. Radical Democrats have started to come out in favor of adding more Justices to the Supreme Court, like former Representative Joe Kennedy from Massachusetts and Democratic rising star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.Democrats would surely nominate liberal Justices and tip the balance of the Court their way if given the option. The only way to stop that from happening is to ensure they never get the chance. Republicans have completely denounced the idea of court-packing by Democrats, and would vote strongly against any measure by the left to put more Justices on the Court. Georgia needs to elect one or both Republicans to the Senate during its runoff election to ensure Democrats are not able to pack the Court with more liberal justices.

Premises

[P1]Democrats have begun to favour adding justices to the Supreme Court, which would let them nominate liberal justices and tip its balance their way. [P2] A Republican-controlled Senate, which has denounced court-packing, is the only thing that could stop them. [P3] Electing one or both Republicans in Georgia's runoffs is therefore necessary to keep Democrats from packing the Court. [C] Therefore, to prohibit liberal Supreme Court justices from being added, one or both Republicans should win the Georgia Senate runoffs.

Counter-arguments

Mitch McConnell has shown that he is unafraid to hold up Supreme Court nominations, but the Republican stonewall needs to end. Republicans have packed the court for decades, so it's laughable to hear them demean Democrats for playing the very same game. No longer can the country tolerate a majority leader who refuses to accept Supreme Court nominations from a sitting President. If there is a vacant Supreme Court seat during a Biden Presidency, Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans need to confirm them.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Statements by individual members are not a party position, and the premise generalises from two of them. When the question was tested the proposal did not advance: a bill to expand the Court was introduced in 2021 and never brought to a vote, and the commission established by the incoming president declined to recommend expansion. [Rejecting P2] "The only way to stop that" misdescribes the institutional obstacles. Expanding the Court requires legislation through both chambers and a presidential signature, and in the Senate it would have required either sixty votes or the elimination of the legislative filibuster, which several members of the majority publicly refused to support. [Rejecting P3] The prediction was falsified by the event. Both Georgia seats went to the Democratic candidates in January 2021, giving the party control of the Senate, and no justices were added during that Congress — which is evidence that the runoffs were not the mechanism the premise claimed they were. The counter also disputes the framing, arguing that the confirmation practices of the preceding years are part of what the term is taken to describe.