Against Packing the Court

[Shelzin]

The voters were warned in 2016 that a Trump administration would result in a Supreme Court where the people could no longer seek relief from state and local governments violating their rights and protected liberties.

It’s too late now; the people have only themselves to blame, the consequence of their willful ignorance and stupidity.

Democrats were warned not to change the votes needed to accept a judge shouldn't be changed to a simple majority when they couldn't get one of their judges in. Shoe is on the other foot sooner or later.

They should change it back, but... *shrugs*

 

[candycorn]

The Biden/Harris administration--if there is one--shouldn't pack the court; i.e. add more justices. Its a dumb idea that violates the norms Americans have come to accept.

There are norms that need to be exploded and I'll get into that in a moment but as far as the court goes, adding justices does not in any measurable way increase the knowledge base of the court, it does not and will not result in better decisions, more decisions, or even what one could reliably call "correct decisions". Now, as a liberal, I'm certain that there will be court rulings that I disagree with. I imagine that there are many--in fact I know there are--decisions that conservatives are not going to agree with either.

In fact, the next administration, Biden I or Trump II should lead the way in trying to get a constitutional amendment to permanently limit the number of justices to 9 judges. I think it should also put hard and fast requirements that every nominee to the Federal Courts gets an up or down vote by the Senate and a term limit for SCOTUS judges.

But at the very least, limit the number to 9 judges. No more, no less and a vote has to happen within 90 days of a replacement being nominated.

How about the left just stop demanding it and Biden come out and say..."The Biden/Harris administration--if there is one--shouldn't pack the court; i.e. add more justices. Its a dumb idea that violates the norms Americans have come to accept."

Crisis averted...no Constitutional Amendment necessary.

I'll tell you why...because if Biden says that...he loses the progressive vote.

You can just say "the progressive wing of the Democrat party is unhinged...off the rails...they've lost the plot...but our candidate must pander to these nutjobs because the crazies are thisclose to running the Democrat party".

You can say it...we all know it's true.

The fact of the matter is...as difficult as it may be for either of us to admit...you are now closer to the center of MY party than you are to the center of yours.

Then the issue comes up in 8 years or whenever.

I'm a progressive and I'd still vote for Biden if he came out against the court packing.

 

[Shelzin]

Partisan balance? No thanks. There are more than 2 sides to any given issue.

Twice in the same thread!

 

[candycorn]

Partisan balance? No thanks. There are more than 2 sides to any given issue.

Twice in the same thread!

Amazing what happens when you actually read my posts and not what others are characterizing my post as.

 

[MarathonMike]

There is no logical reason to add more justices to the Supreme Court. There are lots of bad political reasons to pack the court, so yes permanently limit the number to 9.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The voters were warned in 2016 that a Trump administration would result in a Supreme Court where the people could no longer seek relief from state and local governments violating their rights and protected liberties.

It’s too late now; the people have only themselves to blame, the consequence of their willful ignorance and stupidity.

The voters were warned in 2016 that a Trump administration would result in a Supreme Court where the people could no longer seek relief from state and local governments violating their rights and protected liberties.

It’s too late now; the people have only themselves to blame, the consequence of their willful ignorance and stupidity.

Actually that is exactly what the strict constructionalist justices Trump appointed will do. That’s just the opposite of the way political justices like RBG and her two unfailingly liberal buddies rule.

 

[Oldestyle]

As long as it is done to restore an ideological balance to the court that more closely matches that of the country I see no problem with it. Should we abide a partisan court that will hand down one unpopular ruling after another just to satisfy an ever shrinking conservative demographic? We should at least put the conservative court on notice that if they do another citizen's united decision that strikes directly at the heart of democracy or curtails in any way rights Americans currently have then steps will be taken.

What unpopular rulings has the Supreme Court handed down, Occupied? The truth is...John Roberts is a moderate judge...so is Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. The only real radical elements on the court have been appointed by Democrats. Yet people like you will come on here and claim that the Court is dangerously conservative with ZERO proof that it has been!

 

[occupied]

As long as it is done to restore an ideological balance to the court that more closely matches that of the country I see no problem with it. Should we abide a partisan court that will hand down one unpopular ruling after another just to satisfy an ever shrinking conservative demographic? We should at least put the conservative court on notice that if they do another citizen's united decision that strikes directly at the heart of democracy or curtails in any way rights Americans currently have then steps will be taken.

Partisan balance? No thanks. There are more than 2 sides to any given issue.

Not in American politics. The court is already irretrievably politicized. They have more power than anyone else to define the rights of Americans. A half dozen well placed decisions and real democracy will die. It's far too a fragile thing to trust in the hands of plutocrats and religious bigots.

 

[AZrailwhale]

As long as it is done to restore an ideological balance to the court that more closely matches that of the country I see no problem with it. Should we abide a partisan court that will hand down one unpopular ruling after another just to satisfy an ever shrinking conservative demographic? We should at least put the conservative court on notice that if they do another citizen's united decision that strikes directly at the heart of democracy or curtails in any way rights Americans currently have then steps will be taken.

We should only abide a strict constructions list court that ONLY takes the Written constitution into consideration when making rulings from the bench.

 

[Shelzin]

Amazing what happens when you actually read my posts and not what others are characterizing my post as.

OH no... I try very hard to treat posts/posters on their own merits... I'm not always successful, but I do try. I don't give two shits who agrees/disagrees with you anymore than if they do with me.

But history isn't made to be forgotten. We agree on this one.

 

[Missourian]

Then the issue comes up in 8 years or whenever.

Then it comes up.

Whichever side is batshit crazy enough to support it should lose the election.

I'm good with that.

 

[candycorn]

As long as it is done to restore an ideological balance to the court that more closely matches that of the country I see no problem with it. Should we abide a partisan court that will hand down one unpopular ruling after another just to satisfy an ever shrinking conservative demographic? We should at least put the conservative court on notice that if they do another citizen's united decision that strikes directly at the heart of democracy or curtails in any way rights Americans currently have then steps will be taken.

Partisan balance? No thanks. There are more than 2 sides to any given issue.

Not in American politics. The court is already irretrievably politicized. They have more power than anyone else to define the rights of Americans. A half dozen well placed decisions and real democracy will die. It's far too a fragile thing to trust in the hands of plutocrats and religious bigots.

And that could happen regardless of who the justices are. Society is always on a knife's edge in that regard. Plessy happened...did the nation fall apart?

 

[candycorn]

Then the issue comes up in 8 years or whenever.

Then it comes up.

Whichever side is batshit crazy enough to support it should lose the election.

I'm good with that.

And if both sides are for it?

What then?

 

[occupied]

As long as it is done to restore an ideological balance to the court that more closely matches that of the country I see no problem with it. Should we abide a partisan court that will hand down one unpopular ruling after another just to satisfy an ever shrinking conservative demographic? We should at least put the conservative court on notice that if they do another citizen's united decision that strikes directly at the heart of democracy or curtails in any way rights Americans currently have then steps will be taken.

What unpopular rulings has the Supreme Court handed down, Occupied? The truth is...John Roberts is a moderate judge...so is Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. The only real radical elements on the court have been appointed by Democrats. Yet people like you will come on here and claim that the Court is dangerously conservative with ZERO proof that it has been!

Constitutional challenges to "settled law" is already a republican tactic and they get a win every so often such as citizen's united and the gutting of the voting rights act. With a solid conservative court that will only increase with more wins that are designed to protect the elites from the rabble.

 

[Muhammed]

The Biden/Harris administration--if there is one--shouldn't pack the court; i.e. add more justices. Its a dumb idea that violates the norms Americans have come to accept.

There are norms that need to be exploded and I'll get into that in a moment but as far as the court goes, adding justices does not in any measurable way increase the knowledge base of the court, it does not and will not result in better decisions, more decisions, or even what one could reliably call "correct decisions". Now, as a liberal, I'm certain that there will be court rulings that I disagree with. I imagine that there are many--in fact I know there are--decisions that conservatives are not going to agree with either.

In fact, the next administration, Biden I or Trump II should lead the way in trying to get a constitutional amendment to permanently limit the number of justices to 9 judges. I think it should also put hard and fast requirements that every nominee to the Federal Courts gets an up or down vote by the Senate and a term limit for SCOTUS judges.

But at the very least, limit the number to 9 judges. No more, no less and a vote has to happen within 90 days of a replacement being nominated.

The issue isn't what I think one way or the other about it, as I'm not running for President on the Democratic ticket.

The issue is what Joe Biden thinks about packing the court, and he refuses to answer. Why will he not elaborate on that subject?

When he refuses to answer he means of course he and the Dems will pack the courts if they get the chance, but he doesn't want give Trump and the GOP an excuse to do it if they get the chance.

 

[occupied]

As long as it is done to restore an ideological balance to the court that more closely matches that of the country I see no problem with it. Should we abide a partisan court that will hand down one unpopular ruling after another just to satisfy an ever shrinking conservative demographic? We should at least put the conservative court on notice that if they do another citizen's united decision that strikes directly at the heart of democracy or curtails in any way rights Americans currently have then steps will be taken.

We should only abide a strict constructions list court that ONLY takes the Written constitution into consideration when making rulings from the bench.

That turns the constitution into a cage rather than a framework to support a free society that is going to change in unforeseen ways over time.

 

[candycorn]

The Biden/Harris administration--if there is one--shouldn't pack the court; i.e. add more justices. Its a dumb idea that violates the norms Americans have come to accept.

There are norms that need to be exploded and I'll get into that in a moment but as far as the court goes, adding justices does not in any measurable way increase the knowledge base of the court, it does not and will not result in better decisions, more decisions, or even what one could reliably call "correct decisions". Now, as a liberal, I'm certain that there will be court rulings that I disagree with. I imagine that there are many--in fact I know there are--decisions that conservatives are not going to agree with either.

In fact, the next administration, Biden I or Trump II should lead the way in trying to get a constitutional amendment to permanently limit the number of justices to 9 judges. I think it should also put hard and fast requirements that every nominee to the Federal Courts gets an up or down vote by the Senate and a term limit for SCOTUS judges.

But at the very least, limit the number to 9 judges. No more, no less and a vote has to happen within 90 days of a replacement being nominated.

The issue isn't what I think one way or the other about it, as I'm not running for President on the Democratic ticket.

The issue is what Joe Biden thinks about packing the court, and he refuses to answer. Why will he not elaborate on that subject?

When he refuses to answer he means of course he and the Dems will pack the courts if they get the chance, but he doesn't want give Trump and the GOP an excuse to do it if they get the chance.

That is the incredible dumbness of the idea....

Lets say you add 20 judges to the court...the next chance they get, the R's add 20... The whole idea is stupid.

 

[Missourian]

And if both sides are for it?

What then?

Then they do it. It's one of the checks and balances. Why tie the futures hands when present day convention is doing the job just fine. Who knows what crisis the future holds.

Rogue judiciary...civil war...life extension...virtual consciousness upload.

I say let's burn that bridge when we get to it. Today...IMO...we aren't there yet.

 

[candycorn]

And if both sides are for it?

What then?

Then they do it. It's one of the checks and balances. Why tie the futures hands when present day convention is doing the job just fine. Who knows what crisis the future holds.

Rogue judiciary...civil war...life extension...virtual consciousness upload.

I say let's burn that bridge when we get to it. Today...IMO...we aren't there yet.

Please tell us any scenario in which we would need more than nine supreme court justices.

Forget all of the other stuff about age limits, term limits, forcing Senate action etc... Are you actually against an amendment limiting the number of justices to nine? It would permanently end this ridiculous possibility once and for all.

Also, what "check and balance" exists when apparently there can be enough justices appointed to ram through any legislation the Congress and President agree to without the hindrance of a Supreme Court ruling the legislation unconstitutional?

 

[JGalt]

The Biden/Harris administration--if there is one--shouldn't pack the court; i.e. add more justices. Its a dumb idea that violates the norms Americans have come to accept.

There are norms that need to be exploded and I'll get into that in a moment but as far as the court goes, adding justices does not in any measurable way increase the knowledge base of the court, it does not and will not result in better decisions, more decisions, or even what one could reliably call "correct decisions". Now, as a liberal, I'm certain that there will be court rulings that I disagree with. I imagine that there are many--in fact I know there are--decisions that conservatives are not going to agree with either.

In fact, the next administration, Biden I or Trump II should lead the way in trying to get a constitutional amendment to permanently limit the number of justices to 9 judges. I think it should also put hard and fast requirements that every nominee to the Federal Courts gets an up or down vote by the Senate and a term limit for SCOTUS judges.

But at the very least, limit the number to 9 judges. No more, no less and a vote has to happen within 90 days of a replacement being nominated.

The issue isn't what I think one way or the other about it, as I'm not running for President on the Democratic ticket.

The issue is what Joe Biden thinks about packing the court, and he refuses to answer. Why will he not elaborate on that subject?

When he refuses to answer he means of course he and the Dems will pack the courts if they get the chance, but he doesn't want give Trump and the GOP an excuse to do it if they get the chance.

Well that should be a good indication of just how weak and incompetent of a president he would make. Joe Biden won't even be honest with and straightforward with his own voters.