Democrats to propose legislation expanding the Supreme Court

[Crepitus]

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.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

Well, the Supreme Court is chosen in a ridiculous manner.

It shouldn't be political at all.

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.

Yes, the only way to get real change is for the people to support Proportional Representation first. Without it, nothing will change. And even PR is an almost impossible one.

I never heard of it.

And isn't that the problem? No one has ever heard of PR.

It's simple. Everyone gets one vote, their vote is equal to everyone else's vote in the country.

So no EC? I've certainly heard of that.

Well, the EC is pointless in the modern era.

With the presidency you might have something like the French have, a run off system. Everyone votes for whoever they like in the first round and then between the two who got the most votes in a second round.

Or you could have an Alternative Voting system where people vote for multiple candidates. If their first candidate is out, then their second vote is counted, or their third or fourth.

Or the US could do away with a President in the current system and have the leader of the House as the head of the executive.

Personally I think there should be an executive with multiple members who deal with different issues. People can vote on different issues by electing different members of the executive.

The Founding Fathers considered an Executive Committee but decided against it because of the inevitable disagreements that would ensue, making action more difficult. They wanted an overall manager, not ruler. The Executive has grown enormously in its power from what the FF envisioned.

I'm with you on ranked choice voting. It would allow the stranglehold on politics by the two major parties to be broken.

Yes, the put in the amendment process because they knew the system would become outdated.

What they didn't count on was that the people wouldn't bother to change it much.

 

[Kilroy2]

It is funny that Mitch the republican blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election. 4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee. Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?

now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.

Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members. Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.

 

[Mac-7]

No term limits on SCOTUS either.

Term limits does not favor either political party

the absolute power that black robes have is corrupting and should be limited

 

[Mac-7]

with you on ranked choice voting. It would allow the stranglehold on politics by the two major parties to be broken.

I dont think you understand what you are in favor of

it only affects races where no candidate wins a majority

 

[Mac-7]

What they didn't count on was that the people wouldn't bother to change it much.

And the progressive/neo marxist answer to that situation is to pack the courts with libs who will make amendments from the bench

 

[OldLady]

with you on ranked choice voting. It would allow the stranglehold on politics by the two major parties to be broken.

I dont think you understand what you are in favor of

it only affects races where no candidate wins a majority

Pretty sure I know how it works. I live in Maine, remember? The reason it would encourage more third party voting is that it eliminates the 'wasted vote' argument. Who knows? Independents might win (actually, we usually do have a strong Independent running, which is why we chose to use ranked choice voting). When no one gets even half the votes, it leaves a lot of Mainers unrepresented. Now people can at least have a second choice where their vote should go.

 

[San Souci]

Here's a head scratcher for the judge, how is the Dems gonna pack the court without the votes to expand it in Congress?

By ending the filibuster making a simple majority all that is needed.

Put the bong down and pay attention once in awhile.

There can be no simple majority if no quorum. If 50 Repubs refuse quorum ,there is no vote. Romney and Murkowski hated Trump ,but I don't think they have any love for Schumer and Pelosi either.

 

[San Souci]

It is funny that Mitch the republican blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election. 4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee. Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?

now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.

Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members. Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.

There are STILL 9. Do the math ,Nimrod.

 

[Kilroy2]

It is funny that Mitch the republican blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election. 4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee. Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?

now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.

Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members. Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.

There are STILL 9. Do the math ,Nimrod.

Thank you for proving a point.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What they didn't count on was that the people wouldn't bother to change it much.

And the progressive/neo marxist answer to that situation is to pack the courts with libs who will make amendments from the bench

Well, I'm sure the right would do it too.

 

[Mac-7]

with you on ranked choice voting. It would allow the stranglehold on politics by the two major parties to be broken.

I dont think you understand what you are in favor of

it only affects races where no candidate wins a majority

Pretty sure I know how it works. I live in Maine, remember? The reason it would encourage more third party voting is that it eliminates the 'wasted vote' argument. Who knows? Independents might win (actually, we usually do have a strong Independent running, which is why we chose to use ranked choice voting). When no one gets even half the votes, it leaves a lot of Mainers unrepresented. Now people can at least have a second choice where their vote should go.

How is that better than a simple runoff between the top two candidates?

 

[Mac-7]

I'm sure the right would do it too.

We never have

the two most recent efforts to pack an expanded court were democrats FDR and biden

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm sure the right would do it too.

We never have

the two most recent efforts to pack an expanded court were democrats FDR and biden

Well, the left hasn't done it.

FDR was on the conservative side. However the Supreme Court remained at 9 justices. So he didn't pack it anyway.

But both sides know what would happen if the other started doing it.

1870 was the last time a new Justice didn't replace anyone.

 

[San Souci]

It is funny that Mitch the republican blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election. 4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee. Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?

now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.

Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members. Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.

There are STILL 9. Do the math ,Nimrod.

Thank you for proving a point.

What point? That the President picks REPLACEMENTS with the SENATES Approval?--Simple question for your simple mind. Did Trump try to INCREASE the number of Justices to suit his agenda? He could have ,ya know.

 

[OldLady]

with you on ranked choice voting. It would allow the stranglehold on politics by the two major parties to be broken.

I dont think you understand what you are in favor of

it only affects races where no candidate wins a majority

Pretty sure I know how it works. I live in Maine, remember? The reason it would encourage more third party voting is that it eliminates the 'wasted vote' argument. Who knows? Independents might win (actually, we usually do have a strong Independent running, which is why we chose to use ranked choice voting). When no one gets even half the votes, it leaves a lot of Mainers unrepresented. Now people can at least have a second choice where their vote should go.

How is that better than a simple runoff between the top two candidates?

People don't have to go back to the polls. And it allows for multiple candidates to be counted.

 

[San Souci]

with you on ranked choice voting. It would allow the stranglehold on politics by the two major parties to be broken.

I dont think you understand what you are in favor of

it only affects races where no candidate wins a majority

Pretty sure I know how it works. I live in Maine, remember? The reason it would encourage more third party voting is that it eliminates the 'wasted vote' argument. Who knows? Independents might win (actually, we usually do have a strong Independent running, which is why we chose to use ranked choice voting). When no one gets even half the votes, it leaves a lot of Mainers unrepresented. Now people can at least have a second choice where their vote should go.

How is that better than a simple runoff between the top two candidates?

People don't have to go back to the polls. And it allows for multiple candidates to be counted.

This ain't Parliament. Winner should take all.

 

[OldLady]

with you on ranked choice voting. It would allow the stranglehold on politics by the two major parties to be broken.

I dont think you understand what you are in favor of

it only affects races where no candidate wins a majority

Pretty sure I know how it works. I live in Maine, remember? The reason it would encourage more third party voting is that it eliminates the 'wasted vote' argument. Who knows? Independents might win (actually, we usually do have a strong Independent running, which is why we chose to use ranked choice voting). When no one gets even half the votes, it leaves a lot of Mainers unrepresented. Now people can at least have a second choice where their vote should go.

How is that better than a simple runoff between the top two candidates?

People don't have to go back to the polls. And it allows for multiple candidates to be counted.

This ain't Parliament. Winner should take all.

I think in order to get some things fixed in DC, we need to be more welcoming to ideas and voices outside the established Dem/ Repub monopoly on politics. As long as it's plurality takes all, that will never change. All votes should count.

 

[Mac-7]

FDR was on the conservative side. However the Supreme Court remained at 9 justices. So he didn't pack it anyway.

FDR was the flaming liberal democrat of his day and he wanted pack the court was was unable to do so

whether biden has better luck remains to be seen

 

[Mac-7]

And it allows for multiple candidates to be counted.

You means it gives the environmental wacko, dope legalization, lbqwxyz/north American man boy love association candidates a chance to win