Supreme Court shoots itself in the foot.

[progressive hunter]

The republicans already packed the courts.

Adding to the court isn't packing it.

Packing it is filling it with only republicans or only democrats.

Right now it's packed with republicans. And the republicans violated their duty according to the constitution to get it packed as badly as it is.

there are 6 republicans and 3 democrats on the Supreme Court.

If adding to the court is packing it then all the presidents who added seats to the Supreme Court packed the court and the court we now have is a packed court.

In fact, adding seats to the court will unpack the court that the republicans packed.

Please, stop with the drama and exaggerations.

there should only be conservative constitutionalist,, not leftist or democrats and republicans,,

 

[g5000]

The republicans already packed the courts.

Nope!

Adding to the court isn't packing it.

Packing it is filling it with only republicans or only democrats.

Nope. Court packing is increasing the number of judges, like FDR tried to do.

Read your own link, Dana.

 

[Crepitus]

Same old same old butthurt cause Court doesnt do as they want,,,.....

Nope. When they do things I don't like I realize, like any grown-up, that things don't always go my way. That's why I was against the "packing the court" rhetoric. If they're gonna wipe their collective ass with my Constitution that's a completely different story.

 

[Crepitus]

there should only be conservative constitutionalist,,

There is no such thing as a conservative constitutionalist.

 

[Crepitus]

LOL!

Nothing funny about illegal court appointees.

 

[g5000]

Nope. When they do things I don't like I realize, like any grown-up, that things don't always go my way. That's why I was against the "packing the court" rhetoric. If they're gonna wipe their collective ass with my Constitution that's a completely different story.

The Constitution does not limit the number of judges. It actually grants the power to establish the number of judges to Congress. So Congressional legislation to pack the court would be completely within the bounds of the Constitution.

But it won't happen.

 

[Crepitus]

I agreed that we need ed to expand the court by 2 to provide balance. One for the justice that Obama should have been allowed to fill and the one to replace Ginsburg since Republicans lied. However two decisions tell me that we need to remove power from the far right wing fascists that inhabit the court now. One was the decisio0n on voting rights and the other on the Texas abortion law. Both were extreme positions. In addition their decisions on immigration law show a clear bias. They allowed Trump to do whatever he wanted on immigration but they are not treating Biden the same way. Clearly they treat Presidents with a R in front of their name differently than one with a D in front of them..

Bart O'kavenaugh needs to be removed for cause. He lied under oath during his confirmation hearings.

Either Goresuch or Coney-Barret are illegitimate by the republican's own reasoning so one or the other has to go.

 

[Dekster]

The supreme court has just handed out a ton of free ammunition, both for expansion of the court and limiting of it's "shadow docket".

Personally I was firmly against expanding the court. I see that leading to a never ending battle and a court with dozens of possibly even hundreds of justices that can't decide on anything. However this latest shenanigan has pushed me in the other direction. I'm still against it, but I see no alternative to it unless we want to let the current appointees, some of them blatantly illegal BTW, ignore and or circumvent the constitution and pervert our great nation into something it was never meant to be.

Supreme Court Shoot Themselves in Foot as Democrats Prepare for Battle to Expand Court

They will get it done just in time for the republicans to take over again. Very sporting of them.

 

[Crepitus]

What about the last decision do you think circumvents the constitution?

The non-decision. They refused to act on a law that any idiot who can see lightning and hear thunder knows is unconstitutional.

 

[Papageorgio]

The Court has also handed the Dems a victory in 2022 and 2024

Dems will run on “Republicans are going to end Roe v Wade”
While they have always threatened it, now it is a reality.

Dems will get out the vote

No they haven’t, by this rime next year the voters will be on to something new. Voters have no memory.

 

[22lcidw]

The supreme court has just handed out a ton of free ammunition, both for expansion of the court and limiting of it's "shadow docket".

Personally I was firmly against expanding the court. I see that leading to a never ending battle and a court with dozens of possibly even hundreds of justices that can't decide on anything. However this latest shenanigan has pushed me in the other direction. I'm still against it, but I see no alternative to it unless we want to let the current appointees, some of them blatantly illegal BTW, ignore and or circumvent the constitution and pervert our great nation into something it was never meant to be.

Supreme Court Shoot Themselves in Foot as Democrats Prepare for Battle to Expand Court

A Republic with a gold standard currency would not be what we see today. Now I tell you this without knowing my status would be and yours. What I do know is that a document written for freedom with its flaws and how people treated themselves if not good was legit. Crazy huh!

 

[Papageorgio]

The non-decision. They refused to act on a law that any idiot who can see lightning and hear thunder knows is unconstitutional.

That is one opinion, not a fact. I love how you cry when things don’t go your way. Pack it this time through and the GOP will do the same. That is the problem with the two parties.

 

[Fueri]

SC didn't act. It goes back to the lower court.

They said the law raised serious questions, but they were not in a position to act, so it goes back to a lower court. This is procedural, not a decision. Good grief.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

The problem is that it was never the intent of the Framers that the Supreme Court address such divisive issues, it was meant to be a creature of the states rarely heard from.

But when the rights and protected liberties of the people became the spoils of political war – also contrary to the original intent of the Framers – citizens disadvantaged by partisan conflict had no other recourse but to seek relief in the courts, ultimately the Supreme Court.

In essence, the Court was never designed to accommodate such a burdensome workload as to determining the rights and protected liberties of the people – the conservative justices’ act of cowardice and abdication concerning the Texas anti-choice law is the product of that systemic failure and breakdown.

Article III of the Constitution gives Congress full and sole authority to determine all manner of issues concerning the Federal courts, reflecting the will of the people.

Article 3 doesn't give Congress any power, at all...lol

The 1st Amendment gives the people the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, any grievance.

 

[g5000]

SC didn't act. It goes back to the lower court.

They said the law raised serious questions, but they were not in a position to act, so it goes back to a lower court. This is procedural, not a decision. Good grief.

The Supreme Court denied an injunction. They could have placed an injuntion on the law until it came before them for review. They chose not to.

That's what has pro-abortionists' bowels in an uproar.

I have little doubt the Supremes will ultimately strike the Texas law down.

 

[Crepitus]

A Republic with a gold standard currency would not be what we see today. Now I tell you this without knowing my status would be and yours. What I do know is that a document written for freedom with its flaws and how people treated themselves if not good was legit. Crazy huh!

Look dude, you need to either provide us with a gibberish to English translator Or stop replying to me.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

there should only be conservative constitutionalist,, not leftist or democrats and republicans,,

As already correctly noted: there’s no such thing as a ‘conservative’ constitutionalist.

Indeed, conservatives have nothing but contempt for the Constitution and its case law – the conservative justices’ failure to enjoin the Texas anti-choice law is proof of that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The republicans already packed the courts.

True.

McConnell’s wrong and reprehensible refusal to confirm President Obama’s nominee being one example.

The Court can be packed via non-appointments.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SC didn't act. It goes back to the lower court.

They said the law raised serious questions, but they were not in a position to act, so it goes back to a lower court. This is procedural, not a decision. Good grief.

Wrong.

The lower court already ruled, hence the petition for an injunction.

Judicial review has ended, the law is in full effect and being enforced.

 

[g5000]

Judicial review has ended, the law is in full effect and being enforced.

Wrong. The law had not been decided by the Supreme Court. In fact, in their denial of the injunction, they left the door open for judicial review of the Texas law.