Public Trials and Court Expansion After Dems Take Over?

[georgephillip]

Being not MAGA is all the radical the takeover needs

Yet corporate Democrats have been supporting the ethnic cleansing in Palestine for decades before Trump reinvented MAGA.

Any radical change will require Democrats to turn away from serving the interests of rich donors and return to serving 90% of Americans who don't own voting shares of stocks.

This will require prosecuting Republicans and Democrats alike who are engaging in looting the public treasury, and there don't appear to be many politicians willing to engage such radical change.

 

[22lcidw]

Spare us the whining. Trump packed the court with help from McConnell. Republicans have been holding public trials since Clinton. So stop pretending that Republicans are poor innocent victim. It's time the lying stopped.

Progs packed everything else in the nation. They got too arrogant and lost in 2016. You even dumped a sitting judge and put in a younger one who is a moron to replace him. We now have three Progressive Socialist Communist extreme feminist shrews on the court.

 

[georgephillip]

Maybe not. But there is stunning political stupidity.

I think you are underestimating Trump's political stupidity.

 

[dblack]

I think you are underestimating Trump's political stupidity.

I was talking about the stupidity of Democrats trying to prosecute him out contention. All it did was radicalize his support and keep him in the headlines. They failed the first lesson of modern life: don't feed the trolls.

 

[candycorn]

With three years left in Trump's second pillage of America many Democrats and Independents believe it's essential to hold his family and associates responsible for their many crimes.

The current far-right SCOTUS would likely find ways to circumvent such efforts; increasing the number of justices guarantees Trump will end like Epstein.

"It's Going To Get Really Serious": Liberal Influencers Discuss Public Trials, Court Expansion After Democratic Takeover | ZeroHedge

"The blue tsunami means that Congress is going to haul Elon Musk, ‘Big Balls,’ and a bunch of other people’s a– in front and say, ‘What crimes did you commit?’

"And it’s going to get really serious.

"And the same with Trump because I believe, and this is just my opinion, that Trump and all of the bottom-feeding morons surrounding him and Elon Musk and all the bottom feeding clinger-onners that surround him, I think they commit crimes every day."

There will be a day when the blob is just a stain on our past.

 

[dblack]

There will be a day when the blob is just a stain on our past.

If he's not the end of our future.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Spare us the whining. Trump packed the court with help from McConnell. Republicans have been holding public trials since Clinton. So stop pretending that Republicans are poor innocent victim. It's time the lying stopped.

Quit lying. Rs did not pack the court. Just stop with the lies.......please. You have no credibility and you just make yourself look bad.

 

[Nostra]

What are some possible consequences of a blue tsunami breaking in 2026 and cresting in 2028?

Public trials of prominent conservatives from Elon Musk and "Big Balls" to Trump himself would require at least one precursor.

Packing SCOTUS appears to be the key to perpetuating any radical makeover Democrats might implement:

"It's Going To Get Really Serious": Liberal Influencers Discuss Public Trials, Court Expansion After Democratic Takeover | ZeroHedge

"Years ago, Harvard professor Michael Klarman laid out a radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans 'will never win another election.'

"However, he warned that 'the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described.' Therefore, the court must be packed in advance to allow these changes to occur.

This week, Democratic strategist James Carville laid out the step-by-step process of how the pack-to-power plan would work.

Awesome plan for the future of America.

This is why America has a better opinion of crotch rot than your Cult.

 

[Dekster]

Yet corporate Democrats have been supporting the ethnic cleansing in Palestine for decades before Trump reinvented MAGA.

Any radical change will require Democrats to turn away from serving the interests of rich donors and return to serving 90% of Americans who don't own voting shares of stocks.

This will require prosecuting Republicans and Democrats alike who are engaging in looting the public treasury, and there don't appear to be many politicians willing to engage such radical change.

America wants not MAGA. That's it. My 401K doesn't want radical change and doctors work just as hard as plumbers.

 

[dblack]

Quit lying. Rs did not pack the court.

Of course they didn't. But it's necessary for Dems to believe they did to justify their ambitions. This the way the two party system is ratcheting up totalitarian government.

Republicans do likewise, spinning up all kinds of egregious conspiracies about what the left has done. It doesn't matter whether it's true. It's necessary to justify all the heinous shit that Republican leaders want to do.

 

[Eman623]

Game over.

"It's Going To Get Really Serious": Liberal Influencers Discuss Public Trials, Court Expansion After Democratic Takeover | ZeroHedge

This has long been the plan among far-left figures, but it is now being embraced by establishment figures as essential to securing a radical agenda to achieve lasting power.

"Years ago, Harvard professor Michael Klarman laid out a radical agenda to change the system to guarantee 'Republicans will never win another election.'

"However, he warned that 'the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described.'

"Therefore, the court must be packed in advance to allow these changes to occur."

An influencer you say? This changes everything.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Of course they didn't. But it's necessary for Dems to believe they did to justify their ambitions. This the way the two party system is ratcheting up totalitarian government.

Republicans do likewise, spinning up all kinds of egregious conspiracies about what the left has done. It doesn't matter whether it's true. It's necessary to justify all the heinous shit that Republican leaders want to do.

Of course they do. They're just as worthless. Look no further than the repubs agreeing with dems on a car kill switch. Both of these parties are antithetical to the US constitution. They are both enemies of the state.

 

[sartre play]

Two questions.
Do you have any examples of personable, sane centrists?
Do you believe Bernie Sanders would have won in 2016, 2020, or 2024?

Bernie is/was not a Centrist. no to winning, he needs to stay in his own state.
That is my opinion.

 

[sartre play]

OUR government is a mess, Politicians Very few work for the Majority of AMERICANS.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

FDR

FDR announces “court-packing” plan | February 5, 1937 | HISTORY

On February 5, 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt announces a plan to expand the Supreme Court to as many as 15 judge...

www.history.com

Roosevelt’s reorganization plan was thus unnecessary, and in July the Senate struck it down by a vote of 70 to 22. Soon after, Roosevelt had the opportunity to nominate his first Supreme Court justice, and by 1942 all but two of the justices were his appointees.

This is the closest we ever came to stacking the court. FDR chose every justice except 2. How many did orange man choose? Yeah, thats what I thought............... IM2 type liars. No one has ever gotten close to getting even with the filthy fdr.

 

[georgephillip]

Bernie is/was not a Centrist. no to winning, he needs to stay in his own state.
That is my opinion.

I did not mean to suggest Bernie was ever a centrist Democrat since he favors issues like paid family leave and raising the SS tax cap that are very popular with a majority of Democratic voters but highly unpopular with rich Dem donors.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Democrats have long supported Israeli war crimes, but the current genocide in Gaza has convinced younger Dems to reconsider. Primaries in 2026 may elect a substantial numbers of Democrats who won't vote Israel First.

Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations - Office of the Historian

There is no genocide in Gaza silly.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

That's what commitment to an ideology does to people.

Your commitment to TDS is obviously an exception.

 

[georgephillip]

FDR

FDR announces “court-packing” plan | February 5, 1937 | HISTORY

On February 5, 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt announces a plan to expand the Supreme Court to as many as 15 judge...

www.history.com

Roosevelt’s reorganization plan was thus unnecessary, and in July the Senate struck it down by a vote of 70 to 22. Soon after, Roosevelt had the opportunity to nominate his first Supreme Court justice, and by 1942 all but two of the justices were his appointees.

This is the closest we ever came to stacking the court. FDR chose every justice except 2. How many did orange man choose? Yeah, thats what I thought............... IM2 type liars. No one has ever gotten close to getting even with the filthy fdr.

FDR's "court-packing" relied on mandatory retirement for all justices at age 70.

Sound like a good idea?

FDR announces “court-packing” plan | February 5, 1937 | HISTORY

"During the previous two years, the high court had struck down several key pieces of New Deal legislation on the grounds that the laws delegated an unconstitutional amount of authority to the executive branch and the federal government.

"Flushed with his landslide reelection in 1936, President Roosevelt issued a proposal in February 1937 to provide retirement at full pay for all members of the court over 70.

"If a justice refused to retire, an 'assistant' with full voting rights was to be appointed, thus ensuring Roosevelt a liberal majority.

"Most Republicans and many Democrats in Congress opposed the so-called 'court-packing' plan."

 

[Eman623]

FDR's "court-packing" relied on mandatory retirement for all justices at age 70.

Sound like a good idea?

FDR announces “court-packing” plan | February 5, 1937 | HISTORY

"During the previous two years, the high court had struck down several key pieces of New Deal legislation on the grounds that the laws delegated an unconstitutional amount of authority to the executive branch and the federal government.

"Flushed with his landslide reelection in 1936, President Roosevelt issued a proposal in February 1937 to provide retirement at full pay for all members of the court over 70.

"If a justice refused to retire, an 'assistant' with full voting rights was to be appointed, thus ensuring Roosevelt a liberal majority.

"Most Republicans and many Democrats in Congress opposed the so-called 'court-packing' plan."

The sad part is that expanding (NOT packing) the SCOTUS kinda makes sense. IF it was done in a bipartisan way.

Let the senate majority and minority leader present a short list of candidates to the president. He nominates 2 from each list. They all get hearings and then they all get voted up or down together. The court would expand to be able to handle the challenges of a more complex world, the power of each individual justice would be reduced, and the court would keep the same D-R balance, actually moving a little towards the middle.

But it doesn't help the Dems grab power so no one ever even suggests this.