What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Democrats to propose legislation expanding the Supreme Court

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
161,894
Reaction score
24,009
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
What veto, do you even know how many votes it would take in the Senate to change the lineup of the Supreme Court? Do you know that the number of justices we have now has been changed several times over the history of the US? One reason it is increased is for caseload, the number we have now was set in 1869.

What you didn't say is that even if the number in SCOTUS was increased there would still be a back load, because all Justices must sit to hear the case brought before SCOTUS. It is purely a political ploy....
There is no way that Schumer could get this passed because there will not be a reconciliation vote on this. It's too important and would require a 2/3rds Senate vote.....
Then all other changes must have been political also since we are dealing with politics I don't see how it can never be included as political.

Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status. The branch of social science that studies politics is referred to as political science.
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
161,894
Reaction score
24,009
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
What veto, do you even know how many votes it would take in the Senate to change the lineup of the Supreme Court? Do you know that the number of justices we have now has been changed several times over the history of the US? One reason it is increased is for caseload, the number we have now was set in 1869.
Are you claiming Veggie Joe would sign a bill to implement a "bonehead idea"? You may be right.............he has done it before.
Why was it not a bonehead idea before 1869?
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,551
Reaction score
851
Points
893
Biden won't veto if McConnell does not give the Dems the infrastructure bill they want in full.
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
25,335
Reaction score
21,144
Points
2,415
What veto, do you even know how many votes it would take in the Senate to change the lineup of the Supreme Court? Do you know that the number of justices we have now has been changed several times over the history of the US? One reason it is increased is for caseload, the number we have now was set in 1869.
Are you claiming Veggie Joe would sign a bill to implement a "bonehead idea"? You may be right.............he has done it before.
Why was it not a bonehead idea before 1869?
Ask Veggie Joe.
 

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
40,560
Reaction score
14,328
Points
2,260
Location
Boston, MA
Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?

foxnews.com
No, we don't. We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
You want get rid of a man who is a Republican who was lawfully appointed to the Supreme because President Trump deemed him to be the best candidate for a job in the Supreme Court? Sorry the Constitution was obeyed to the letter on this SCOTUS personnel decision.
Crepitus is a stupid leftist. Who cares what the troll wants. He is 53 and acts 12. Sadly.
Just playing to my audience.
No. You’re just an immature jackass.
It's nice to have fans.
Keep telling yourself that. I live rent free in your empty leftist, court packing, free speech hating head.
 

TroglocratsRdumb

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2017
Messages
19,378
Reaction score
10,713
Points
1,265
When the Dirty Democrats have to Pack the Court, it is an admission that they have failed.
It is an admission that they cannot win fairly.
It is admission that they cannot govern inside the bounds of the constitution.
It is an admission that they are totally corrupt and completely lawless.
When Corrupt Extremist get in control they always change the rules to stay in power permanently.(note venezuela)
Schumer is a dangerously corrupt extremist.


schumerposkjashdkasdakhdaqd.jpg
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
68,617
Reaction score
18,766
Points
2,220
Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.

Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.

Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”

“What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.

It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either. Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
I only disagree with him on term limits. Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
There is a reason they are appointed for life.
So staff can do their work when they reach the Joe Biden mental capacity?

There is a reason people retire. Except politicians cant let go of the political power they hold.

Turn them loose at 80
No. They know when they need to retire.
Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.

Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.

Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”

“What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.

It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either. Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
I only disagree with him on term limits. Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
There is a reason they are appointed for life.
So staff can do their work when they reach the Joe Biden mental capacity?

There is a reason people retire. Except politicians cant let go of the political power they hold.

Turn them loose at 80
No. They know when they need to retire. They have historically made that decision when appropriate. This is being used as a weapon to politicize the court.
As if it wasn't already.

You knew better. You played that game anyway. Right?
What game is that?

The politicizing the court game.

The game where you have an irrational melt down over nominees.
Show me where I did that. I'm usually the one being mocked for saying the justices try to be nonpartisan.

Sure. Let me drop everything and go through your posts so that I can identify where you have accused Kavanaugh of being heavily partisan in a rant indicating he was incapable of being non-partisan.........as if Kavanaugh happened in a vacuum. Ima jump right on that.
I did accuse him of that. I was in no way hysterical about it though, and until he went on that crying jag, I didn't see any reason not to nominate him, and that's the truth.

This has been a pretty good thread so far. Why ruin it by getting personal and not even accurate about it? You are better than that.
No. You don't.
Go hump someone else's leg, bitch. Guess I made a mistake respecting you as an intelligent poster. Lights out.
Fuck off.
I don't deserve that. You don't even bother reading what I wrote; you just accuse me of stuff that has nothing to do with me.

If there was a way to have the appointments made by an apolitical group of judges and Constitutional scholars far removed from the power maneuvering in Washington by the two major parties, I would support it. In order not to need an Amendment, if there could be an agreement by all that the President would appoint someone from this group's list, it could work. But the parties are too power hungry, I'm afraid.

Politicizing the court is the last thing I want to see!.
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
68,617
Reaction score
18,766
Points
2,220
No, we don't. We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.

What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?

Fuck you.

Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
He/she is just another RWNJ brainwashing victim.
What in hell just happened to this thread? All of a sudden it's like the Crazytown bus arrived!
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
49,506
Reaction score
10,333
Points
2,070
Location
PNW
Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.

Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.

Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”

“What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.

It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either. Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
I only disagree with him on term limits. Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
There is a reason they are appointed for life.
Yes, and requiring them to retire at a reasonable age, say 78, doesn't interfere with those reasons.
If there minds are still sharp and there health is good, I see no reason for them to retire. Ginsberg was sick and battled a terminal disease, she should have retired however she was motivated to stay for the wrong reasons.
Fine, term limits aren't something I care about, but I can understand the reasoning, I guess. A lot of the right are bitterly complaining that President Biden is senile, that RBG was senile, that others do their work, so I guess it's an issue for some people.

Ginsberg was alert however her health took it's toll and Biden is fine, he reminds me of a grandpa with silly grandpa jokes. Maybe have a panel, I'm not sure how it could work however I am not for changing things up I would be more in favor of Congress having term limits and forced retirement than the Supreme Court.
 

sartre play

Gold Member
Joined
May 4, 2015
Messages
5,535
Reaction score
1,087
Points
140
Have we lost our ability to think outside of the propaganda put out by our party of choice? So few people seem to grasp that both party's fight for power, not for "Domestic tranquility" or to" promote the general welfare". Do you ever see /hear voices that support any thing that is proposed by the opposing party? Hear any of them say lets work together & find a middle ground that works for the many?
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
138,580
Reaction score
29,540
Points
2,180

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
68,617
Reaction score
18,766
Points
2,220
Have we lost our ability to think outside of the propaganda put out by our party of choice? So few people seem to grasp that both party's fight for power, not for "Domestic tranquility" or to" promote the general welfare". Do you ever see /hear voices that support any thing that is proposed by the opposing party? Hear any of them say lets work together & find a middle ground that works for the many?
This appeal to compromise is pretty new. It will take a number of years to unvote the ones who are all out for power. Instead of going after Susan Collins, the Dems should have been focusing on getting rid of Mitch McConnell. Stupid.
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
68,617
Reaction score
18,766
Points
2,220
Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.

Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.

Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”

“What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.

It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either. Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
I only disagree with him on term limits. Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
There is a reason they are appointed for life.
So staff can do their work when they reach the Joe Biden mental capacity?

There is a reason people retire. Except politicians cant let go of the political power they hold.

Turn them loose at 80
No. They know when they need to retire.
Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.

Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.

Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”

“What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.

It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either. Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
I only disagree with him on term limits. Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
There is a reason they are appointed for life.
So staff can do their work when they reach the Joe Biden mental capacity?

There is a reason people retire. Except politicians cant let go of the political power they hold.

Turn them loose at 80
No. They know when they need to retire. They have historically made that decision when appropriate. This is being used as a weapon to politicize the court.
As if it wasn't already.

You knew better. You played that game anyway. Right?
What game is that?

The politicizing the court game.

The game where you have an irrational melt down over nominees.
Show me where I did that. I'm usually the one being mocked for saying the justices try to be nonpartisan.

Sure. Let me drop everything and go through your posts so that I can identify where you have accused Kavanaugh of being heavily partisan in a rant indicating he was incapable of being non-partisan.........as if Kavanaugh happened in a vacuum. Ima jump right on that.
I did accuse him of that. I was in no way hysterical about it though, and until he went on that crying jag, I didn't see any reason not to nominate him, and that's the truth.

This has been a pretty good thread so far. Why ruin it by getting personal and not even accurate about it? You are better than that.
No. You don't.
Go hump someone else's leg, bitch. Guess I made a mistake respecting you as an intelligent poster. Lights out.
Fuck off.
I don't deserve that. You don't even bother reading what I wrote; you just accuse me of stuff that has nothing to do with me.

If there was a way to have the appointments made by an apolitical group of judges and Constitutional scholars far removed from the power maneuvering in Washington by the two major parties, I would support it. In order not to need an Amendment, if there could be an agreement by all that the President would appoint someone from this group's list, it could work. But the parties are too power hungry, I'm afraid.

Politicizing the court is the last thing I want to see!.
What's so funny, Meister?
 

22lcidw

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
19,296
Reaction score
6,707
Points
345
I can see why that upsets the control freaks on the far right

You Nazis want to seize power through any and all means.

Your Reich is determined to spark a full blown shooting war so that you can invite your Chinese overlords in to "restore order."
You are the nazi fascists, Uncensored 2008, and we won by fair, democratic means, and then we defeated you at the Battle for the Capitol on January 6.
It is you who are killing people in large numbers. Including yourselves. You must go to not white areas, but red areas to see how much you have advanced by your rules and laws in your riots. Then you will know if there is capitulation or not.
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
49,506
Reaction score
10,333
Points
2,070
Location
PNW
I can see why that upsets the control freaks on the far right

You Nazis want to seize power through any and all means.

Your Reich is determined to spark a full blown shooting war so that you can invite your Chinese overlords in to "restore order."
You are the nazi fascists, Uncensored 2008, and we won by fair, democratic means, and then we defeated you at the Battle for the Capitol on January 6.
You didn't do a damn thing, you sat and watched.
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,551
Reaction score
851
Points
893
I can see why that upsets the control freaks on the far right

You Nazis want to seize power through any and all means.

Your Reich is determined to spark a full blown shooting war so that you can invite your Chinese overlords in to "restore order."
You are the nazi fascists, Uncensored 2008, and we won by fair, democratic means, and then we defeated you at the Battle for the Capitol on January 6.
It is you who are killing people in large numbers. Including yourselves. You must go to not white areas, but red areas to see how much you have advanced by your rules and laws in your riots. Then you will know if there is capitulation or not.
You sound confused. Nothing of the sort is happening that way.
 

task0778

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
7,183
Reaction score
5,066
Points
2,065
Location
Texas hill country
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter in deciding what is constitutional and what isn't, and thus far I think they have been fairly even-handed about it. And just because they declare a given policy to be unconstitutional does not mean the President and the Congress can't change that policy to be lawful. There were things that Trump and Obama wanted to do that were disallowed; whichever side you're on shouldn't translate to mean you get to do whatever you want.

The problem as I see it today is that the Democrats want to change the Senate rules to abolish the filibuster so they can pass through everything they want with a simple majority, 50-50 plus the Harris tiebreaker. They don't want to compromise, they want everything. Frankly, we shouldn't be making legislating important stuff with the barest possible majority, one of which is packing the court. Which allows them a better chance to avoid their policies from being struck down by the SCOTUS. We are talking one-party rule here, and that is a straight line road to a totalitarian gov't. Today we have Manchin and Sinema standing in the way, but what if they pick up a few seats in 2022 or at a later date and the Democrats don't need either of those votes any more?

AS it is now, I don't see the legislation to increase the number of SCOTUS justices as passing in the Senate, and it'll be interesting to see if it even passes the House cuz of their slim majority. It only takes a few people to vote NO. But the progressives are not going to quit, of that I am convinced. I think this is a distinct possibility at some point down the road, and the America that we knew and grew up in will be changed and not for the better.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$20.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top