Democrats to propose legislation expanding the Supreme Court

Donald H

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
2,035
Reaction score
570
Points
63
The Scotus reflects the corrupt mindset of America and so is not very far from what the people prefer.
First America must reform to something more close to normal for the 21st. century and then the Scotus can be overhauled to suit.

America is out of sync on guns, abortion rights, religious superstitious beliefs, and a lot of other issues that has brought it down to 15th. on quality of life. The Jan. 6th. riots at the Capitol was the first demonstration of discontent among the working class. Even though Trump led it and encouraged it for nothing but his own personal gain.


The link above contains the parameters which must be addressed for America to catch up to the world's leading democracies.

Biden better deliver big and deliver fast!

If he fails then fascism will be the people's only answer to the reform they are beginning to demand.
 

Polishprince

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
29,510
Reaction score
15,533
Points
1,415
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.


If the Democrats thought this was really a great idea, they should have proposed it last year.

Its obviously just a political power move, which can backfire on them. If they move it to 13, the R's will move it to 25 next time they have control.
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,516
Reaction score
826
Points
893
Completely disagree with expanding the Supreme Court beyond the nine justices.

There's really no clear, non-political reason to do so. When the number was expanded to 9 from 7, it was because they had a three-year backlog in cases. In that same piece of legislation, Congress also added more circuit judges, primarily in the South, to handle an expanded workload. THAT is a valid reason.

There was no clear non-political reason to deny Obama his right to fill a vacancy either.

Well, I appreciate your honest admission that your position is "If we don't get what we want, we get to do whatever we want, whenever we want!! We are always entitled to get our way!!!"

And who ever said that confirmation of nominees has to be non-political? Lame attempt at conflating two very different things. Aren't you ashamed of how stupid "This involves the court, and that involves the court, so that makes them the EXACT SAME THING!" makes you sound?
[/QUOTE}You just described how McConnell ran the Senate as Majority Leader.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
91,268
Reaction score
23,440
Points
2,180
Location
in between
Well, I appreciate your honest admission that your position is "If we don't get what we want, we get to do whatever we want, whenever we want!! We are always entitled to get our way!!!"

Do you normally lie this blatantly or do you have an issue with reading comprehension. I said (and have said) I don't support changing the court size.

And who ever said that confirmation of nominees has to be non-political? Lame attempt at conflating two very different things. Aren't you ashamed of how stupid "This involves the court, and that involves the court, so that makes them the EXACT SAME THING!" makes you sound?

Oh my...shifting a few goal posts. Let's see if we can clarify this. No one said CONFIRMATION wasn't political. Of course it is. However, a president has never been prevented from filling the vacancy for purely political purposes before. Keep pretending otherwise, it suits you.
 
Last edited:

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
91,268
Reaction score
23,440
Points
2,180
Location
in between
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.


If the Democrats thought this was really a great idea, they should have proposed it last year.

Its obviously just a political power move, which can backfire on them. If they move it to 13, the R's will move it to 25 next time they have control.

Exactly. And the non-political tradition of the court will be shredded.
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,516
Reaction score
826
Points
893
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.


If the Democrats thought this was really a great idea, they should have proposed it last year.

Its obviously just a political power move, which can backfire on them. If they move it to 13, the R's will move it to 25 next time they have control.

Exactly. And the non-political tradition of the court will be shredded.
I don't think it really has one after the election of 2000 and Citizens United.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
91,268
Reaction score
23,440
Points
2,180
Location
in between
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.


If the Democrats thought this was really a great idea, they should have proposed it last year.

Its obviously just a political power move, which can backfire on them. If they move it to 13, the R's will move it to 25 next time they have control.

Exactly. And the non-political tradition of the court will be shredded.
I don't think it really has one after the election of 2000 and Citizens United.

Citizens United...such a bad decision :(
 

ThisIsMe

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,635
Reaction score
888
Points
210
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.


View attachment 480143
No, its an admission that the whole system is screwed up. What can 13 justices do that 9 cannot? Nothing. The entire purpose is to get more liberal justices so they can make decisions that benefit democrats and the Biden administration.

That is the complete wrong reason to appoint justices. It show you that justice is not blind, its very much partisan, and cases brought before them will not be ruled on with impartiality, but with an agenda in mind.

The Supreme Court is just an extension of the legislative branch.
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,516
Reaction score
826
Points
893
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.


View attachment 480143
No, its an admission that the whole system is screwed up. What can 13 justices do that 9 cannot? Nothing. The entire purpose is to get more liberal justices so they can make decisions that benefit democrats and the Biden administration.

That is the complete wrong reason to appoint justices. It show you that justice is not blind, its very much partisan, and cases brought before them will not be ruled on with impartiality, but with an agenda in mind.

The Supreme Court is just an extension of the legislative branch.
ThisisMe, I agree that it is a power grab, exactly as was the coordinate power grab of the Trump appointees to SCOTUS.

It is an abuse of power, even if both sides efforts were legal.
 

ThisIsMe

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,635
Reaction score
888
Points
210
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.


View attachment 480143
No, its an admission that the whole system is screwed up. What can 13 justices do that 9 cannot? Nothing. The entire purpose is to get more liberal justices so they can make decisions that benefit democrats and the Biden administration.

That is the complete wrong reason to appoint justices. It show you that justice is not blind, its very much partisan, and cases brought before them will not be ruled on with impartiality, but with an agenda in mind.

The Supreme Court is just an extension of the legislative branch.
ThisisMe, I agree that it is a power grab, exactly as was the coordinate power grab of the Trump appointees to SCOTUS.

It is an abuse of power, even if both sides efforts were legal.
I don't see trumps appointments as a power grab. If you want to blame mconnel for merrick garland, I get that, but trump had seats come open, and he filled them, like any president would do.

That doesn't change my belief that the system is messed up though. Appointing justices based on their politics is just wrong, no matter who does it.
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,516
Reaction score
826
Points
893
The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
 

ThisIsMe

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,635
Reaction score
888
Points
210
The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret? I don't agree. A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,516
Reaction score
826
Points
893
The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret? I don't agree. A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
91,268
Reaction score
23,440
Points
2,180
Location
in between
Republicans deserve to have a packed court after their stunt with Garland. The American people however do not. Really bad idea, I agree with Breyer on this, I hope this does not gain much traction. :(
Save the tears about Garland, when you have spilt control of the Senate and WH in a Presidential election year that is what happens.

She has no tears about Garland. She believes that Democrats deserve to do whatever they want, just because they want to. Garland is just a fig leaf so that she can tell herself that she's not the selfish piece of garbage she knows she sounds like.

The lame excuses about "We deserve to act unilaterally because you refused to give us what we wanted" only ever go one way with her.

do-you-need-a-tissue.jpg
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
51,436
Reaction score
13,268
Points
2,180
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Well, I appreciate your honest admission that your position is "If we don't get what we want, we get to do whatever we want, whenever we want!! We are always entitled to get our way!!!"

Do you normally lie this blatantly or do you have an issue with reading comprehension. I said (and have said) I don't support changing the court size.

And who ever said that confirmation of nominees has to be non-political? Lame attempt at conflating two very different things. Aren't you ashamed of how stupid "This involves the court, and that involves the court, so that makes them the EXACT SAME THING!" makes you sound?

Oh my...shifting a few goal posts. Let's see if we can clarify this. No one said CONFIRMATION wasn't political. Of course it is. However, a president has never been prevented from filling the vacancy for purely political purposes before. Keep pretending otherwise, it suits you.

I never lie, and I don't dignify lowlife parrot drones who presume to the authority to accuse me of anything.

And no, I didn't read your post, because you don't deserve to be read as though you were a thinking person.

Try harder to be worthy of my notice, and perhaps I'll be generous enough to let you speak to me. Get back to memorizing your talking points, or you won't have anything to say.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
51,436
Reaction score
13,268
Points
2,180
Location
Phoenix, AZ
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.


View attachment 480143
No, its an admission that the whole system is screwed up. What can 13 justices do that 9 cannot? Nothing. The entire purpose is to get more liberal justices so they can make decisions that benefit democrats and the Biden administration.

That is the complete wrong reason to appoint justices. It show you that justice is not blind, its very much partisan, and cases brought before them will not be ruled on with impartiality, but with an agenda in mind.

The Supreme Court is just an extension of the legislative branch.

Leftists don't care about legitimacy, nor do they care about the public perception of the courts, or anything else. Their goal is a world in which they simply tell people what they must pretend to believe, because only the leftist elite have any power and everyone else is just a serf. So what do they care about what people think?

Look at what they've done ever since they got their Trojan Houseplant into office. They don't even care about looking like they care about what people think. They really believe they can just order people to mouth their party line, and silence anyone who speaks out.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
51,436
Reaction score
13,268
Points
2,180
Location
Phoenix, AZ
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.


View attachment 480143
No, its an admission that the whole system is screwed up. What can 13 justices do that 9 cannot? Nothing. The entire purpose is to get more liberal justices so they can make decisions that benefit democrats and the Biden administration.

That is the complete wrong reason to appoint justices. It show you that justice is not blind, its very much partisan, and cases brought before them will not be ruled on with impartiality, but with an agenda in mind.

The Supreme Court is just an extension of the legislative branch.
ThisisMe, I agree that it is a power grab, exactly as was the coordinate power grab of the Trump appointees to SCOTUS.

It is an abuse of power, even if both sides efforts were legal.

What I just heard: "It's a power grab for Republicans to ever exercise any of the legitimate political power they're given, and that justifies Democrats doing whatever they want."
 

ThisIsMe

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,635
Reaction score
888
Points
210
The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret? I don't agree. A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
How was it an abuse of power? Was a seat not vacant? Would any other president not have done the exact same thing? Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?

Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.

What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus, THATS a power grab.
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,516
Reaction score
826
Points
893
The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret? I don't agree. A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
How was it an abuse of power? Was a seat not vacant? Would any other president not have done the exact same thing? Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?

Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.

What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus, THATS a power grab.
If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
51,436
Reaction score
13,268
Points
2,180
Location
Phoenix, AZ
The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret? I don't agree. A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
How was it an abuse of power? Was a seat not vacant? Would any other president not have done the exact same thing? Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?

Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.

What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus, THATS a power grab.
If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.

Yes, you actually CAN have it both ways, when one way is simply following the procedure in place, and the other way is radically changing the system.

I get that you somehow think the operating formula here is, "Which party gets to appoint more Justices?" but it's actually not.

So by all means, keep whining to us about how appointing a Justice to an open seat is exactly the same as restructuring the court. It certainly doesn't matter to us if you make a laughable partisan fool out of yourself if it doesn't matter to you.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top