Debate Now The case for expanding the Supreme Court

[Rumpole]

youre leaving out that a true democracy exists and since a constitutional republic is as far as you can get from that its just gaslighting and dishonest to claim we are a democracy,,

That argument is thoroughly eviscerated here:

Dems, don't let Repubs bamboozle you, America IS a democracy.

{Caveat: those who are weaned on soundbites, one liners and snarky quips, who have subsequent short attention spans, ignore this post] This trope has been floundering around the conservative/libertarian circles on the right for some time now, and now Trump has joined the *RNAD regurgitators...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[progressive hunter]

That's why your government and Court are dysfunctional. Proper representation is the key to fixing your courts and government.

they are disfunctional because liberals are there trying to change things in violation of the constitution,,

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's why your government and Court are dysfunctional. Proper representation is the key to fixing your courts and government.

the constitution states that for the senate it is to REPRESENT the States not the Population you idiot.

 

[progressive hunter]

That argument is thoroughly eviscerated here:

Dems, don't let Repubs bamboozle you, America IS a democracy.

{Caveat: those who are weaned on soundbites, one liners and snarky quips, who have subsequent short attention spans, ignore this post] This trope has been floundering around the conservative/libertarian circles on the right for some time now, and now Trump has joined the *RNAD regurgitators...

www.usmessageboard.com

figures,, you guys are easily led around by the nose,,

 

[Billo_Really]

View attachment 791684

I thought there was no flaming?

 

[Rumpole]

we arent a representative democracy,, we are a constitutional republic,,,

We are both. So, That is categorically false, your argument is eviscerated here:

Dems, don't let Repubs bamboozle you, America IS a democracy.

 

[progressive hunter]

We are both. So, That is categorically false, your argument is eviscerated here:

Dems, don't let Repubs bamboozle you, America IS a democracy.

no we are not,,

 

[cnm]

thats a scale that puts our constitutional republic on the opposite side of a true democracys,,

I have not give a dictionary definition of 'true democracy'. That's usually a rightard term.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We are both. So, That is categorically false, your argument is eviscerated here:

Dems, don't let Repubs bamboozle you, America IS a democracy.

I see you ignored my reply to your foolish points after I again explained they are wrong YOU claimed that states passed laws that violate voter rights I notice you can not post facts and figures to back that claim up.

 

[cnm]

the constitution states that for the senate it is to REPRESENT the States not the Population you idiot.

That's why your government and Court are dysfunctional. Proper representation is the key to fixing your Court and government.

 

[progressive hunter]

I have not give a dictionary definition of 'true democracy'. That's usually a rightard term.

what you did was give a broad definition and claim its our system when its not,,,

in otherwords you lied by omission,,

 

[Oddball]

I thought there was no flaming?

There is certainly no sniveling, which is what you are doing.

 

[progressive hunter]

That's why your government and Court are dysfunctional. Proper representation is the key to fixing your Court and government.

courts are not for representation,, they are for application of the law,,
and SCOTUS is only working with the constitution in our constitutional republic and because of that only constitutional conservatives should be on SCOTUS,,

 

[Billo_Really]

There is certainly no sniveling, which is what you are doing.

I just commented on my understanding of the rules. You violated them; I did not.

 

[Oddball]

We are both. So, That is categorically false, your argument is eviscerated here:

Dems, don't let Repubs bamboozle you, America IS a democracy.

Little more nauseating than patting oneself on the back and awarding himself victory.

 

[Oddball]

I just commented on my understanding of the rules. You violated them; I did not.

No, you're whining...The court re-balanced via lawful means and you just don't like the result.

boooohoooo

 

[Rumpole]

they are disfunctional because liberals are there trying to change things in violation of the constitution,,

Oh please,

That's rich given that state Republican legislatures have enacted a number of laws that were ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. To wit:


North Carolina v. Covington (2017): The Supreme Court struck down 28 state legislative districts in North Carolina, ruling that they were racially gerrymandered and therefore unconstitutional. The North Carolina General Assembly, which was Republican-controlled, had approved these district maps. The Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that the districts had been drawn to concentrate black voters, thereby diminishing their voting power elsewhere in the state.

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016): The Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that imposed strict regulations on abortion clinics, ruling that the regulations placed an "undue burden" on women seeking access to abortion. The law had been enacted by a Republican-controlled state legislature.

Murphy v. NCAA (2018): The Supreme Court struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), a federal law that had effectively outlawed sports betting in most states. Although PASPA was a federal law, this ruling had significant implications for state laws. Following the Court's decision, several Republican-led states that had previously enacted laws to prohibit sports betting moved to legalize it.

I'm sure I can find more, if I search.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Rules:
1. No, flaming, name calling, disingenuous, snarky retorts, ad hominem attacks, no 'kill the source/messenger' replies (critique only the text).
2. If you make a claim of fact, offer a thoughtful path of reasoning/logic, AND, if possible, links to authoritative sources that supplement (they don't have to actually prove, but proof is always preferred) your position. If you can't do this, then preface it with 'imo' (in my opinion).
3. Absolutely NO thought-terminating clichés (example; 'fake news', is the main one, but there are others).

So, the source article for this discussion is:

To Save Democracy, We Must Expand the Court​

To Save Democracy, We Must Expand the Court

Read the latest by Christopher Kang.

www.democracydocket.com

Summary:
So, the key takeaway from the text is a concern over the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court impacting American democracy over the past decade. Some significant actions by the Court include approving voter suppression, allowing unlimited campaign spending, and sanctioning partisan gerrymandering. Essentially, the worry is that even when Democrats win elections, their policymaking ability is being hindered by the conservative Court.

The text mentions that the current Court's conservative composition is itself a product of some anti-democratic strategies. Many of the conservative justices were appointed by Republican presidents who initially took office without winning the popular vote. Moreover, the Senate, when under Republican control, blocked a nomination from President Obama.

It's feared that this could result in a cycle where the conservative Supreme Court continues to make it easier for Republicans to maintain power even with diminishing levels of support, while the Republicans, in turn, protect their Supreme Court majority.

The proposed solution? Expanding the Supreme Court, which is a move Congress has the power to make according to the U.S. Constitution. If President Biden were allowed to nominate four more justices, it could balance the Court and potentially ensure that it respects democracy and the rule of law. Expanding the Court could also increase its diversity and functionality.

There is growing support for this idea among Congress and the progressive movement, with a bill - the Judiciary Act of 2021 - gaining more than 60 co-sponsors. Public polls indicate more Americans support the expansion than oppose it, (though I did find polls that concluded the opposite, but I think when the case is presented as it could be, more people would support the idea).

Still, some are hesitant, worrying about possible repercussions, like Republicans expanding the Court further when they are in power. Others suggest term limits as a preferred reform measure. However, the authors argue that term limits could be challenged as unconstitutional, and they see the immediate solution to be expansion.

In a nutshell, they are arguing that the only way to protect American democracy from what they see as anti-democracy forces on the Supreme Court is through expansion, and they're calling for urgent support to pass the Judiciary Act.

Not mentioned in the article, but my idea:

We got 9 justices at a stage in American history when the population was much smaller. Now the case load for the SC is much greater owing to a much bigger population, and this has resulted in an ever increasing 'shadow docket' which, imo, is not a good thing (google it or click on the link). We could create a two tiered court (9 plus 9) to handle the increased case load, and the Chief justice, on the big issues, would let both tiers rule on it, so it would only be for a much smaller number of cases, the really salient cases, that both tiers would rule on. Also, we need a way to allow both parties to equally nominate justices, and not let just one side appoint them. Also, 'advise and consent' should equal a hearing, at the minimum. What McConnel did against Garland, in my opinion, was not in the spirit of the constitution's meaning insofar a the senate shall 'advise and consent'. We need legislation to further articulate what that means.

Also, Republicans like to accuse dems of 'stacking the court'. My view is that Republicans, with a 6/3 conservative court, have, indeed, 'stacked' the court 6/3 in favor of conservatives. My view is that expanding it, not letting one side dominate the nominations, would serve to UNSTACK the court, and 'balance' it out. (This is semantics, of course, as to what 'stacking the court' means).

Let's discuss.

cheers.
Rumpole

/——/ I stopped reading at your first mistake. We’re a Republic, not a democracy. Nuff said.

 

[progressive hunter]

Oh please,

That's rich given that state Republican legislatures have enacted a number of laws that were ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. To wit:


Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015): In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by voters in a ballot initiative to end partisan gerrymandering. The Republican-controlled Arizona legislature had sued, claiming that the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause granted them, not the voters, the exclusive right to draw congressional districts. The Supreme Court ruled against them, upholding the right of Arizona voters to establish independent redistricting commissions.

North Carolina v. Covington (2017): The Supreme Court struck down 28 state legislative districts in North Carolina, ruling that they were racially gerrymandered and therefore unconstitutional. The North Carolina General Assembly, which was Republican-controlled, had approved these district maps. The Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that the districts had been drawn to concentrate black voters, thereby diminishing their voting power elsewhere in the state.

Shelby County v. Holder (2013): While this was not a case of a state law being ruled unconstitutional, it had significant implications for state laws. The Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The provision required certain states with a history of racial discrimination (many of which were Republican-led at the time of the decision) to obtain federal preclearance before changing their voting laws. While some view this decision as a setback for voting rights, others argue it was a necessary adjustment due to changes in the country since 1965.

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016): The Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that imposed strict regulations on abortion clinics, ruling that the regulations placed an "undue burden" on women seeking access to abortion. The law had been enacted by a Republican-controlled state legislature.

Murphy v. NCAA (2018): The Supreme Court struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), a federal law that had effectively outlawed sports betting in most states. Although PASPA was a federal law, this ruling had significant implications for state laws. Following the Court's decision, several Republican-led states that had previously enacted laws to prohibit sports betting moved to legalize it.

I'm sure I can find more, if I search.

a liberal in good conscience cant serve on any court let alone SCOTUS,, their political goals are in opposition of the constitution and cant take the oath to protect and defend it,,

 

[Billo_Really]

No, you're whining...The court re-balanced via lawful means and you just don't like the result.

boooohoooo

McConnell deliberately holding up confirmation of Merrick Garland was within the rules? Slamming through that lying whore bitch Garrett, was within the rules? Well, fuck that! We need to stack the court with liberals to even thongs out. Because this is a liberal country!