This may come as a surprise to some people, but the U.S. Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court.
So if nine justices is not writ in stone, the embattled President Obama should deal with this hostile conservative/reactionary court by adding three members.
(Via AoSHQ) Leaving aside the fact that author Stan Isaacs apparently felt the need to educate his readers about something which would be familiar to anybody with even a basic working knowledge of 20th century American history*, I'm wondering whether Isaacs can actually count. The President can declare as many Supreme Court justices as he likes; getting them confirmed requires Senate approval.
And if it was OK for then-Senator Obama to filibuster Alito for ideological reasons, then it's certainly OK for us to return the favor. And the GOP has the votes. And the GOP base will descend like an asteroid from orbit on any GOP Senator that even looks like he or she will not support a filibuster against packing the US Supreme Court. And then the GOP will rake the Democrats over the coals about it in the November elections.
So, really. Feel free to try this.
PS: My initial reaction to the size of the Supreme Court is that it's not outside the realm of possibility that we'd be better off if the number was reduced to, say, seven. I'm not wedded to that opinion; I've never really thought about it before.
*Insert the standard rant on the American public school system here.
Crossposted to Moe Lane.