Packing the Court

[Ray From Cleveland]

I really have to respect Roberts. He's not playing Politics at all. He may have been put in that job by a Republican but he doesn't play the part that the party of the rumpers demand he does. And from the looks of things, he tries to impress that on the other Justices.

Then you have to respect Kavanaugh too. It was estimated that so far, he went 50/50 in his decisions.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The courts are suppose to be non political and only rule on the constitutional and law, not politics. Once upon a time, the Courts weren't that way, they were like Rump wants today. And some really stupid rulings came out of it that took us decades to clear out. We don't need to go back to the old Joe-Bob Judges.

Justices will always have a bias. It's something you can't stop. They have in the past and they will in the future. Why do you think so many decisions come down to 5-4?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Even if he had used the word "investigate" it should not have been a problem. The democrats want us to believe that "look into it" or investigate means to create false information (about Biden)_to interfere with the election.

If there is probable cause that Biden really did commit a crime, then there should not be an issue with Trump asking someone (foreign or domestic) to look into it.

There is no issue with Trump doing that. They falsely impeached him for a quid pro quo, similar to what Biden did, but Trump never once even hinted about threatening aid.

When the deep state rat (Vindman) ran and told them that Trump was looking into Biden, they had to act quickly. So they created this phony impeachment to stop Zelensky from telling Trump anything. He knows his money comes from both Congress and the President, and he wasn't about to get in the middle of a pissing contest.

It worked. Zelensky didn't tell him anything apparently. If he did, he kept it very quiet and Trump quietly passed the information to Barr.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I really have to respect Roberts. He's not playing Politics at all. He may have been put in that job by a Republican but he doesn't play the part that the party of the rumpers demand he does. And from the looks of things, he tries to impress that on the other Justices.

Then you have to respect Kavanaugh too. It was estimated that so far, he went 50/50 in his decisions.

Actually, he has surprised the hell out of me. Guess they sent him to Alkie Rehab just before sending him through the Justice mini-boot camp.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Biden was right not to comment. The Republicans have already packed the Federal courts with conservative corporate lawyers and conservatives. Biden wanted to, but didn’t do a very good job of, keeping the issue where it should be, centered on the Republican’s disgraceful hypocrisy, obstruction and prior and present partisan court packing.

If Trump wins and appoints a few more young Supreme Court Conservatives — especially if they are activist and obstructionist Conservatives — he will be making a fundamental change in the Supreme Court almost inevitable, once Democrats reacquire the Senate.

This is not something anybody should want, but if the votes were found for it in Congress, it would be absolutely Constitutional.

Funny Tom, I see no sign so far that either Gorsuch nor Kavanaugh are acting either as "activist" or "obstructionist," nor is there anything in Barrett's history.

Indeed, if you want to look for activist justices, you need look no farther than Obama's picks of Kagan and Sotomayor, who along with Ginsburg before she died had all three veered to the extreme end of judicial decisions every time always trying to reinterpret the law to their ends rather than faithfully uphold it!

At present public attention is centered on court cases dealing with matters of culture, religion, women’s rights, etc. The big issues I expect will wrack the nation in the future — fundamental issues of war making power, economic and corporate rights, international treaty making, and constitutional change itself — here is where I see corporate Republicans dragging their heals and obstructing necessary reforms.

Recent Republican appointees, bad as they are, are not nearly so bad as future ones are likely to be. Democratic appointees in recent years have mostly been milquetoast corporate lawyers themselves.

I think we see the future unfolding in very different ways ...

 

[bendog]

Biden was right not to comment. The Republicans have already packed the Federal courts with conservative corporate lawyers and conservatives. Biden wanted to, but didn’t do a very good job of, keeping the issue where it should be, centered on the Republican’s disgraceful hypocrisy, obstruction and prior and present partisan court packing.

If Trump wins and appoints a few more young Supreme Court Conservatives — especially if they are activist and obstructionist Conservatives — he will be making a fundamental change in the Supreme Court almost inevitable, once Democrats reacquire the Senate.

This is not something anybody should want, but if the votes were found for it in Congress, it would be absolutely Constitutional.

Funny Tom, I see no sign so far that either Gorsuch nor Kavanaugh are acting either as "activist" or "obstructionist," nor is there anything in Barrett's history.

Indeed, if you want to look for activist justices, you need look no farther than Obama's picks of Kagan and Sotomayor, who along with Ginsburg before she died had all three veered to the extreme end of judicial decisions every time always trying to reinterpret the law to their ends rather than faithfully uphold it!

At present public attention is centered on court cases dealing with matters of culture, religion, women’s rights, etc. The big issues I expect will wrack the nation in the future — fundamental issues of war making power, economic and corporate rights, international treaty making, and constitutional change itself — here is where I see corporate Republicans dragging their heals and obstructing necessary reforms. Recent Republican appointees, bad as they are, are not nearly so bad as future ones are likely to be. Democratic appointees in recent years have mostly been milquetoast corporate lawyers themselves.

I think we see the future unfolding in very different ways ...

imo it will be on what regulatory powers congress can delegate to executive agencies. And whether this Court has any appetite for limiting a Republican president's plenary power. Barr says plenary power is pretty much unlimited …. unless there's a dem in office.
Whether the dems pack the Court probably depends on the "gang of six."

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Biden was right not to comment. The Republicans have already packed the Federal courts with conservative corporate lawyers and conservatives. Biden wanted to, but didn’t do a very good job of, keeping the issue where it should be, centered on the Republican’s disgraceful hypocrisy, obstruction and prior and present partisan court packing.

If Trump wins and appoints a few more young Supreme Court Conservatives — especially if they are activist and obstructionist Conservatives — he will be making a fundamental change in the Supreme Court almost inevitable, once Democrats reacquire the Senate.

This is not something anybody should want, but if the votes were found for it in Congress, it would be absolutely Constitutional.

Funny Tom, I see no sign so far that either Gorsuch nor Kavanaugh are acting either as "activist" or "obstructionist," nor is there anything in Barrett's history.

Indeed, if you want to look for activist justices, you need look no farther than Obama's picks of Kagan and Sotomayor, who along with Ginsburg before she died had all three veered to the extreme end of judicial decisions every time always trying to reinterpret the law to their ends rather than faithfully uphold it!

At present public attention is centered on court cases dealing with matters of culture, religion, women’s rights, etc. The big issues I expect will wrack the nation in the future — fundamental issues of war making power, economic and corporate rights, international treaty making, and constitutional change itself — here is where I see corporate Republicans dragging their heals and obstructing necessary reforms. Recent Republican appointees, bad as they are, are not nearly so bad as future ones are likely to be. Democratic appointees in recent years have mostly been milquetoast corporate lawyers themselves.

I think we see the future unfolding in very different ways ...

imo it will be on what regulatory powers congress can delegate to executive agencies. And whether this Court has any appetite for limiting a Republican president's plenary power. Barr says plenary power is pretty much unlimited …. unless there's a dem in office.
Whether the dems pack the Court probably depends on the "gang of six."

I really don't think it's the job of the court to reign in an out of control President. That power goes to Congress who has clearly screwed the pooch in that department.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I really have to respect Roberts. He's not playing Politics at all. He may have been put in that job by a Republican but he doesn't play the part that the party of the rumpers demand he does. And from the looks of things, he tries to impress that on the other Justices.

Then you have to respect Kavanaugh too. It was estimated that so far, he went 50/50 in his decisions.

Actually, he has surprised the hell out of me. Guess they sent him to Alkie Rehab just before sending him through the Justice mini-boot camp.

Especially given what the Democrats put him through to get the seat. I thought he would retaliate which he should have.

But the point is when Republicans nominate justices, each side gets something. When Democrats nominate justices, only their side benefits.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

How hard is it to answer this? Let the people decide, why not say that for every issue then?

HE won't answer because it will become the issue.....isn't that was a campaign is for?

Joe Biden is a clown....more like a marionette...who is pulling the strings?

I think the answer was already give by Pelosi. No Packing done. It's not up to the President to determine the number of Justices. That's up to the Congress. And since Pelosi already answered the question, Biden was not going to say yay or nay on it because it's not his place. If the House will not pass a Bill to that effect them it's not going to happen. And no President can change that. It's called the Separation of Powers. Rump believes that HE is king. Biden doesn't believe that he will ever be king nor does he believe that Rump can be the king either.

Why didn't he say that?

 

[bendog]

Biden was right not to comment. The Republicans have already packed the Federal courts with conservative corporate lawyers and conservatives. Biden wanted to, but didn’t do a very good job of, keeping the issue where it should be, centered on the Republican’s disgraceful hypocrisy, obstruction and prior and present partisan court packing.

If Trump wins and appoints a few more young Supreme Court Conservatives — especially if they are activist and obstructionist Conservatives — he will be making a fundamental change in the Supreme Court almost inevitable, once Democrats reacquire the Senate.

This is not something anybody should want, but if the votes were found for it in Congress, it would be absolutely Constitutional.

Funny Tom, I see no sign so far that either Gorsuch nor Kavanaugh are acting either as "activist" or "obstructionist," nor is there anything in Barrett's history.

Indeed, if you want to look for activist justices, you need look no farther than Obama's picks of Kagan and Sotomayor, who along with Ginsburg before she died had all three veered to the extreme end of judicial decisions every time always trying to reinterpret the law to their ends rather than faithfully uphold it!

At present public attention is centered on court cases dealing with matters of culture, religion, women’s rights, etc. The big issues I expect will wrack the nation in the future — fundamental issues of war making power, economic and corporate rights, international treaty making, and constitutional change itself — here is where I see corporate Republicans dragging their heals and obstructing necessary reforms. Recent Republican appointees, bad as they are, are not nearly so bad as future ones are likely to be. Democratic appointees in recent years have mostly been milquetoast corporate lawyers themselves.

I think we see the future unfolding in very different ways ...

imo it will be on what regulatory powers congress can delegate to executive agencies. And whether this Court has any appetite for limiting a Republican president's plenary power. Barr says plenary power is pretty much unlimited …. unless there's a dem in office.
Whether the dems pack the Court probably depends on the "gang of six."

I really don't think it's the job of the court to reign in an out of control President. That power goes to Congress who has clearly screwed the pooch in that department.

Well, we'll have to see how events play out, but constitutional textualists criticize the concept of any plenary power because it is not specifically mentioned in the constitution.

As for congress's ability to regulate, things like the EPA and Medicaid/Medicare cost setting are based upon interstate commerce ….. and taxing. But in a sense the EPA and Medicare cost setting is legislative. They make rules.

Some talking heads say Gorsuch Kegs and Roberts don't have any interest in returning to what the SC deemed unconstitutional before FDR threatened to pack the Court the last time.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Biden was right not to comment. The Republicans have already packed the Federal courts with conservative corporate lawyers and conservatives. Biden wanted to — though he didn’t do a very good job of it — keep the issue where it should be, centered on the Republican’s disgraceful hypocrisy, obstruction and prior and present partisan court packing.

Absolute bullshit!
First of all get the nomenclature straight..."packing" the court was a term coined in the thirties when FDR tried to increase the number of Supreme Court justices so he run the court as a socialist rubber stamp for his policies.
Obama left office with nearly 100 vacancies on all levels of federal judicial appointments so if crackpots like you want to bitch and whine like little cranky children about Trump appointing judges you'd better go ask
Barry Obama why he was so remiss and negligent in putting judges in place like he was supposed to.

Trump thanks Obama for leaving so many judicial vacancies

President Trump mockingly thanked his predecessor former President Obama for leaving so many judicial posts vacant despite a Republican-controlled Senate slowing down confirmations during the last …

thehill.com

Elections have consequences. Biden refuses to deny he would pack the court, if he could, so we must assume this is a case of sour grapes from a political loser.

Trump may win and appoint a few more young Supreme Court Conservatives. If they are radical activist and obstructionist corporate conservatives — he will be making a fundamental change in the Supreme Court almost inevitable, if populist Democrats ever reacquire the Senate.

This is something nobody should want, especially in this period when the country is tearing itself apart on partisan lines. If the votes were found for it in Congress, it would be absolutely Constitutional. Of course Trump himself, if he were to win a sweeping Congressional victory, is precisely the kind of person who himself might break from tradition and increase the number of Supremes to better meet his personal goals.

Why would Trump go to the trouble of trying to increase the number of conservative friendly
judges when he already has that advantage, assuming Amy Coney Barrett takes her place on the court.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Biden was right not to comment. The Republicans have already packed the Federal courts with conservative corporate lawyers and conservatives. Biden wanted to — though he didn’t do a very good job of it — keep the issue where it should be, centered on the Republican’s disgraceful hypocrisy, obstruction and prior and present partisan court packing.

Absolute bullshit!
First of all get the nomenclature straight..."packing" the court was a term coined in the thirties when FDR tried to increase the number of Supreme Court justices so he run the court as a socialist rubber stamp for his policies.
Obama left office with nearly 100 vacancies on all levels of federal judicial appointments so if crackpots like you want to bitch and whine like little cranky children about Trump appointing judges you'd better go ask
Barry Obama why he was so remiss and negligent in putting judges in place like he was supposed to....

Trump thanks Obama for leaving so many judicial vacancies

President Trump mockingly thanked his predecessor former President Obama for leaving so many judicial posts vacant despite a Republican-controlled Senate slowing down confirmations during the last …

thehill.com

Elections have consequences. Biden refuses to deny he would pack the court, if he could, so we must assume this is a case of sour grapes from a political loser.

Trump may win and appoint a few more young Supreme Court Conservatives. If they are radical activist and obstructionist corporate conservatives — he will be making a fundamental change in the Supreme Court almost inevitable, if populist Democrats ever reacquire the Senate.

This is something nobody should want, especially in this period when the country is tearing itself apart on partisan lines. If the votes were found for it in Congress, it would be absolutely Constitutional. Of course Trump himself, if he were to win a sweeping Congressional victory, is precisely the kind of person who himself might break from tradition and increase the number of Supremes to better meet his personal goals.

Why would Trump go to the trouble of trying to increase the number of conservative friendly
judges when he already has that advantage, assuming Amy Coney Barrett takes her place on the court.

It appears you think I am an idiot who does not know about FDR court packing proposals. Though rather unpopular they did do quite a bit to chasten and convince the court to back down from opposing his legislative agenda. As for the rest, you don’t seem to have read your own link, important parts of which I quote here:

“President Trump mockingly thanked his predecessor former President Obama for leaving so many judicial posts vacant despite a Republican-controlled Senate slowing down confirmations during the last two years of the Obama administration...

“Republicans took control of the Senate in 2014 during Obama’s last two years in office and did not confirm many of his nominees.

“The Senate’s top Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitchel McConnell (Ky.), teamed up to block Democratic efforts to push forward Obama’s nominees, slowing down confirmations by the most in six decades.

“Most notably, McConnell refused to hold a confirmation hearing on Obama’s nominee for Supreme Court justice, Merrick Garland. Trump went on to nominate Neil Gorsuch to the high court, a conservative victory.

“Social media users were quick to remind Trump that the vacancies left behind by the Obama administration were not by choice.“

 

[Orangecat]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If he had any integrity, he'd answer the question honestly instead of pulling a Pelosi (you have to pass the bill to see what's in it).

 

[bendog]

Biden was right not to comment. The Republicans have already packed the Federal courts with conservative corporate lawyers and conservatives. Biden wanted to — though he didn’t do a very good job of it — keep the issue where it should be, centered on the Republican’s disgraceful hypocrisy, obstruction and prior and present partisan court packing.

Absolute bullshit!
First of all get the nomenclature straight..."packing" the court was a term coined in the thirties when FDR tried to increase the number of Supreme Court justices so he run the court as a socialist rubber stamp for his policies.
Obama left office with nearly 100 vacancies on all levels of federal judicial appointments so if crackpots like you want to bitch and whine like little cranky children about Trump appointing judges you'd better go ask
Barry Obama why he was so remiss and negligent in putting judges in place like he was supposed to....

Trump thanks Obama for leaving so many judicial vacancies

President Trump mockingly thanked his predecessor former President Obama for leaving so many judicial posts vacant despite a Republican-controlled Senate slowing down confirmations during the last …

thehill.com

Elections have consequences. Biden refuses to deny he would pack the court, if he could, so we must assume this is a case of sour grapes from a political loser.

Trump may win and appoint a few more young Supreme Court Conservatives. If they are radical activist and obstructionist corporate conservatives — he will be making a fundamental change in the Supreme Court almost inevitable, if populist Democrats ever reacquire the Senate.

This is something nobody should want, especially in this period when the country is tearing itself apart on partisan lines. If the votes were found for it in Congress, it would be absolutely Constitutional. Of course Trump himself, if he were to win a sweeping Congressional victory, is precisely the kind of person who himself might break from tradition and increase the number of Supremes to better meet his personal goals.

Why would Trump go to the trouble of trying to increase the number of conservative friendly
judges when he already has that advantage, assuming Amy Coney Barrett takes her place on the court.

It appears you think I am an idiot who does not know about FDR court packing proposals. Though rather unpopular they did do quite a bit to chasten and convince the court to back down from opposing his legislative agenda. As for the rest, you don’t seem to have read your own link, important parts of which I quote here:

“President Trump mockingly thanked his predecessor former President Obama for leaving so many judicial posts vacant despite a Republican-controlled Senate slowing down confirmations during the last two years of the Obama administration...

“Republicans took control of the Senate in 2014 during Obama’s last two years in office and did not confirm many of his nominees.

“The Senate’s top Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitchel McConnell (Ky.), teamed up to block Democratic efforts to push forward Obama’s nominees, slowing down confirmations by the most in six decades.

“Most notably, McConnell refused to hold a confirmation hearing on Obama’s nominee for Supreme Court justice, Merrick Garland. Trump went on to nominate Neil Gorsuch to the high court, a conservative victory.

“Social media users were quick to remind Trump that the vacancies left behind by the Obama administration were not by choice.“

Yes, my two posts focused on the SC. And McConnell was not going to fill RBG's seat if she retired in Obama's second term. So it was not just Garland. And if it was just about filling the sudden vacancy left by Scalia, imo the dems should not get too bent out of shape. Replacing Scalai would either maintain, or FLIP, the 5-4 gop advantage. But McConnell threw away all civility and norms in forcing a 5-4 gop court into the 16 elections, with RBG deathly ill. It was ghoulish, and inhumane. Nixon made 4. Reagan made 3. There's no rule for twos. And now Trump's made 3.

But like you say, McConnell pretty much without precedent stopped confirming just about ALL federal judges in Obama's years. THAT is NOT what the const is about. Advice and consent, not flat out obstruct qualified nominees to not allow a president to nominate judges who share a philosophy of the constitution. The dems eventually will get to play pay back. But not if Biden wins. And they have to take the senate. And if Biden has a gop senate, and they continue McConnell's obstruction …. I don't know what will happen. It will be bad though

 

[bendog]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If he had any integrity, he'd answer the question honestly instead of pulling a Pelosi (you have to pass the bill to see what's in it).

The decision won't be made unless the dems win it all and unless the SC obstructs like it has not in the past.

 

[toobfreak]

I think we see the future unfolding in very different ways ...

Yeah, Trump's appointments Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been pretty down the middle with Roberts and Kennedy. Barrett is historically an originalist, meaning, she sticks with the meaning of the documents as written by those who created them. No problems there. That's the roll of a Justice, to APPLY the laws, not remake them to suit you.

The Constitution is like an anchor, it is the star, the reference standard by which a ship or a nation steers itself. If you keep picking up your anchor and moving it with you as you drift, then the anchor becomes meaningless, useless, that is how ships and nations get lost, by having no idea where they started from.

You have NO IDEA of future republican appointees, nor democrat one, unless you can prove your clairvoyance.

Obama's Kagan and Sotomayor along with Breyer and Ginsberg have been heading down off the charts for years away from what the writers of our laws had intended. That problem will now be largely corrected.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's not up to him to support it or not.

Of course it is, you dishonest dip shit. He's running for president.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Biden was right not to comment. The Republicans have already packed the Federal courts with conservative corporate lawyers. Biden wanted to — though he didn’t do a very good job of it — keep the issue where it should be, centered on the Republican’s disgraceful hypocrisy, obstruction and prior and present partisan court packing.

Trump may win and appoint a few more young Supreme Court Conservatives. If they are radical activist and obstructionist corporate conservatives — he will be making a fundamental change in the Supreme Court almost inevitable, if populist Democrats ever reacquire the Senate.

This is something nobody should want, especially in this period when the country is tearing itself apart on partisan lines. If the votes were found for it in Congress, it would be absolutely Constitutional. Of course Trump himself, if he were to win a sweeping Congressional victory, is precisely the kind of person who himself might break from tradition and increase the number of Supremes to better meet his personal goals.

What happened to "elections have consequences"? Clearly, Progressives want and need to be relocated to a One Party Rule country of their choosing. Far cheaper than the helicopter rides and a Civil War.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

... an originalist, meaning ... sticks with the meaning of the documents as written by those who created them. No problems there. That's the roll of a Justice, to APPLY the laws, not remake them to suit you.

Catchphrases like “originalist” mean ... just about anything, when Republicans (or Democrats) use them to make partisan points. You define it poorly, yourself. There are many definitions and meanings of “originalism.”

By the way, executive organs are supposed to “APPLY the laws.”

The Constitution, as amended and interpreted, as court precedent and legal notions of fairness and due process have changed over hundreds of years of changing reality, changing legislation (and Civil War) — this is in reality what we discuss when the subject is raised in the courts or scholarly debate.

Your metaphorical “anchor” has to be occasionally pulled up so the ship of state can sail and avoid storms, or it will be thrown unto the rocks. In peaceful times it is often set back down again, as it should be. But if we are ending Jim Crow, providing new rights for women, or just dealing with new reality, the Constitution must often be interpreted in ways the writers of our founding documents could not have imagined, and would never have countenanced.

For example, corporations are not even mentioned in the Constitution, yet the overwhelming majority of federal and Supreme Court rulings involve their rights. “Originalism” is a joke if you really define it rigorously.

 

[blackhawk]

I don’t know if the Democrats will try and pack the Court or not what I do know is what politicians say today but do tomorrow is not always the same.