Just a general idea about political positions being made clear, why doesn't a GOP member put forward a Bill to have no increase to the S.C?

[shockedcanadian]

Wouldn't this be a valid approach to essentially expose what each Party believes?

I did a quick search and did see Rubio presented something, not sure if it went through, it was in March. Now would be a time to do this of they are interested in winning in 2020 and illustrate where people stand.

Packing the Supreme Court explained - National Constitution Center

Senator Marco Rubio plans to propose a new constitutional amendment to permanently limit the Supreme Court to nine Justices. While Rubio faces a difficult task, the effort does raise some questions.

 

[Thunk]

It wouldn't pass the democrat controlled house...Time is better spent confirming ACB.

 

[miketx]

Personally I think we have enough laws. Every law they come up with only leads to more bullshit laws being passed to counter the bullshit law they just passed. Disband the legislature and when and if a law is needed, figure out something else. Or let kindergarten kids figure it out.

 

[The Original Tree]

It wouldn't pass the democrat controlled house...Time is better spent confirming ACB.

Why don't we reduce them to just 3? All the SCOTUS should really be doing is giving a thumbs up or thumbs down on whether a case agrees with the law, or whether a law agrees with The Constitution. They should be under a strict mandate to do only that.

Either way, I don't care. Stick with the 9 but enough of this bullshit with Democrats wanting to put political judicial activists on the SCOTUS.

 

[Thunk]

All the SCOTUS should really be doing is giving a thumbs up or thumbs down on whether a case agrees with the law, or whether a law agrees with The Constitution.

That's called a "constitutionalist" and that is what republicans nominate...but democrats will fight you tooth & nail on that point!

Democrats say the constitution is a "living" document (which means it means whatever they want it to mean when ever they want it to mean it).

 

[The Original Tree]

All the SCOTUS should really be doing is giving a thumbs up or thumbs down on whether a case agrees with the law, or whether a law agrees with The Constitution.

That's called a "constitutionalist" and that is what republicans nominate...but democrats will fight you tooth & nail on that point!

Democrats say the constitution is a "living" document (which means it means whatever they want it to mean when ever they want it to mean it).

Fundamentally Changing America means to Destroy it's Foundations and then put it under the yoke of the coming 666 New World Order.

This is why Democrats want activist judges because they want to destroy our foundation one foundational block at a time and do it through the courts.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's called a "constitutionalist" and that is what republicans nominate...but democrats will fight you tooth & nail on that point!

Democrats say the constitution is a "living" document (which means it means whatever they want it to mean when ever they want it to mean it).

If it was a living document, then what would be the point of having any Constitution at all?

The founders realized we would not be living in log cabins, driving horse and buggy, armed with muskets for the rest of eternity. They knew things would change. If they wanted a living document, they would have never included an amendment process in order to make change.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wouldn't this be a valid approach to essentially expose what each Party believes?

I did a quick search and did see Rubio presented something, not sure if it went through, it was in March. Now would be a time to do this of they are interested in winning in 2020 and illustrate where people stand.

Packing the Supreme Court explained - National Constitution Center

Senator Marco Rubio plans to propose a new constitutional amendment to permanently limit the Supreme Court to nine Justices. While Rubio faces a difficult task, the effort does raise some questions.

It's all political theater. The House would never allow a vote on it so nobody would know their position anyway. However if the Republicans gain control of the House, and do have a vote on it, they would have no choice but to vote on it or vote present.

 

[whitehall]

Constitutional amendments are so difficult to enact that it's a waste of time to attempt it.

 

[Thunk]

Constitutional amendments are so difficult to enact that it's a waste of time to attempt it.

You are correct...unless it's something that 90% of us agree on.

You need to have a constitutional convention and then the amendment needs to be ratified by two-thirds of the states.

Not an easy thing to do.

 

[busybee01]

All the SCOTUS should really be doing is giving a thumbs up or thumbs down on whether a case agrees with the law, or whether a law agrees with The Constitution.

That's called a "constitutionalist" and that is what republicans nominate...but democrats will fight you tooth & nail on that point!

Democrats say the constitution is a "living" document (which means it means whatever they want it to mean when ever they want it to mean it).

Here is the problem with the idea of original intent. There is no way you can determine the intent of the founders because there is no reference point. The founding fathers never envisioned many of the situations we find ourselves in today. Also the founding fathers meant for checks and balances on the power of the President. Yet the Supreme Court has given Trump more power. Will they be as accommodating to a President Biden?

 

[Thunk]

The founding fathers never envisioned many of the situations we find ourselves in today.

Yes they did! Read the constitution.

The founding fathers saw the greatest advancement in arms-tech-history the world has ever known...They saw us go from the musket ball to the mini ball and rifled barrels.

That's the same tech that is preferred still today.

To say the founding fathers didn't for-see advancement in guns...that is just jibberish...I call BS.

The founding fathers knew it as the "Kentuky Long Rifle".

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Wouldn't this be a valid approach to essentially expose what each Party believes?

I did a quick search and did see Rubio presented something, not sure if it went through, it was in March. Now would be a time to do this of they are interested in winning in 2020 and illustrate where people stand.

Packing the Supreme Court explained - National Constitution Center

Senator Marco Rubio plans to propose a new constitutional amendment to permanently limit the Supreme Court to nine Justices. While Rubio faces a difficult task, the effort does raise some questions.

Doa in the house

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Here is the problem with the idea of original intent. There is no way you can determine the intent of the founders because there is no reference point. The founding fathers never envisioned many of the situations we find ourselves in today. Also the founding fathers meant for checks and balances on the power of the President. Yet the Supreme Court has given Trump more power. Will they be as accommodating to a President Biden?

So how did they give Trump anymore power? The SC doesn't do that. They simply determine if the laws or policies violate the US Constitution.