Ted Cruz To Introduce Constitutional Amendment To Lock Supreme Court At Nine Justices

[BackAgain]

Still shooting blanks Skippy
I knew you couldn’t back up your statement

Another whining flailing whining wail from Leftwhiner.

 

[BackAgain]

I’ve already posted what is missing in Ted Cruz’s amendment

Term Limits for Judges

The Constitution disagrees. For well thought out reasons. Do they elude you, Leftwhiner? I’ll give you a hint: to eliminate some of the pressures of politics.

A requirement for Congress to act judiciously on appointments

Oh. Cool. A “requirement.” To do something in a way that defies meaningful definition.

An end to partisan advice and consent

How stupid.

The ones that get confirmed by-pass the problem. Maybe the ones who don’t get past it don’t deserve the confirmation.

But leave it to a brain-dead lib to recommend the elimination of the advise and consent requirement.

 

[BackAgain]

So what? Those who wrote and signed the Constitution did not claim Divine Inspiration. I will not make that claim on their behalf. I do not know of any other democracy in the world where courts have the power they have in the United States.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Good

 

[Hector12]

Good thing we aren’t a “democracy.”

We are a representative democracy, and I would like our government to become more democratic. I trust the majority of the voters more than I trust the majority of nine un elected Supreme Court justices chosen for life, who may change their politics after they join the Court.

The major economic, environmental, and civil rights legislation passed during the twentieth century rest on weak Constitutional foundations. It would be easy for a reactionary Supreme Court to find that all of them violate the Tenth Amendment.

 

[Hector12]

Again, you are wrong. Congratulations!.

What did I say that is not true?

 

[candycorn]

I'm all for it.

However, in the same breath, Cruz will support keeping the number of justices at 8 or 7 or some integer of less value if a Democrat is in the White House. So therefore I propose the amendment should pass as long as the President gets to appoint a temporary justice until the Senate can convene hearings to have a permanent replacement seated.

Deal?

I'm guessing no.

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution disagrees. For well thought out reasons. Do they elude you, Leftwhiner? I’ll give you a hint: to eliminate some of the pressures of politics.

Maybe that is why we are talking about a Constitutional Amendment

Nothing in the Constitution justifies a judge staying on the bench till almost 90 after 35 years on the bench.

Cap it at 20 years

 

[rightwinger]

I'm all for it.

However, in the same breath, Cruz will support keeping the number of justices at 8 or 7 or some integer of less value if a Democrat is in the White House. So therefore I propose the amendment should pass as long as the President gets to appoint a temporary justice until the Senate can convene hearings to have a permanent replacement seated.

Deal?

I'm guessing no.

That is the biggest threat to the Court.
Senate seizing control of the process and blocking appointments from a President of the other party

Cruz had no problem with 8 justices for a year but is outraged Congress could appoint more than 9

 

[candycorn]

That is the biggest threat to the Court.
Senate seizing control of the process and blocking appointments from a President of the other party

Cruz had no problem with 8 justices for a year but is outraged Congress could appoint more than 9

I think 9 is enough. Codify it...but also codify that there has to be 9. Makes sense. And when there is a question of a President coming up on the end of their term...have a seat filler.

 

[rightwinger]

Oh. Cool. A “requirement.” To do something in a way that defies meaningful definition.

Not difficult, give the Senate 90 days to act or it becomes permanent

The ones that get confirmed by-pass the problem. Maybe the ones who don’t get past it don’t deserve the confirmation.

But leave it to a brain-dead lib to recommend the elimination of the advise and consent requirement.

Advise and Consent worked for over 200 years.
A President was given the courtesy of making court appointments without Senate interference. Most confirmations were near unanimous.
Only in rare instances were a court appointment blocked. And for a stated reason

That changed with Mitch McConnell where court appointments became purely partisan and the Senate assumed the authority to block a sitting President from making Court appointments.

The right of Advise and Consent is being abused.
Time to end the practice

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What did I say that is not true?

Those who wrote and signed the Constitution did not claim Divine Inspiration. I will not make that claim on their behalf. I do not know of any other democracy in the world where courts have the power they have in" the United States."

None of that is true, except in your opinion.

 

[BackAgain]

We are a representative democracy,

False. We are a Constitutional republic.

You may have grounds to sue your school district for failure to provide you with an education.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

It should be 11, with 9 random active chosen for each particular case.
Meaning the 9 active can change from case to case, with 2 sitting out.

There are too many old people, and they get sick and then the court only has 8 active.

I really like to hear the objections to having 11,
9 with 2 alternates.

You wouldn't be asking for 12 if a Republican President was choosing them.

 

[BackAgain]

Not difficult, give the Senate 90 days to act or it becomes permanent

That’s not an imposition or anything along the lines of what you had suggested. It’s just a time limit. Quite shallow thinking of you.

Advise and Consent worked for over 200 years.

Still does. Garland didn’t get the nod.

A President was given the courtesy of making court appointments without Senate interference. Most confirmations were near unanimous.

That’s something very different than giving advice or consent. That’s just a rubber stamp.

Only in rare instances were a court appointment blocked. And for a stated reason

So?

That changed with Mitch McConnell where court appointments became purely partisan and the Senate assumed the authority to block a sitting President from making Court appointments.

Nonsense. It changed in reaction to the selection of judges by Dumbocraps on purely partisan political bases.

The right of Advise and Consent is being abused.

No. It’s not.

Time to end the practice

Time to stop meddling efforts by silly dilettantes, like you.

 

[rightwinger]

That’s not an imposition or anything along the lines of what you had suggested. It’s just a time limit. Quite shallow thinking of you.

Still does. Garland didn’t get the nod.

That’s something very different than giving advice or consent. That’s just a rubber stamp.

So?

Nonsense. It changed in reaction to the selection of judges by Dumbocraps on purely partisan political bases.

No. It’s not.

Time to stop meddling efforts by silly dilettantes, like you.

No, it doesn’t

 

[BackAgain]

No, it doesn’t

Zzzzz

 

[FA_Q2]

The right of Advise and Consent is being abused.
Time to end the practice

How?

Simply passing it over to the executive? That would make it more partisan, not less and also be an authoritarians wet dream. What are you going to replace it with?

 

[rightwinger]

How?

Simply passing it over to the executive? That would make it more partisan, not less and also be an authoritarians wet dream. What are you going to replace it with?

Advise and Consent used to be invoked in rare cases with specific objections being raised. The President was generally given the courtesy to make court appointments.

McConnell used it as a means for the party of the opposite party to the President to block appointments

That is abuse

 

[FA_Q2]

Advise and Consent used to be invoked in rare cases with specific objections being raised. The President was generally given the courtesy to make court appointments.

McConnell used it as a means for the party of the opposite party to the President to block appointments

That is abuse

You answered the wrong question. The 'how' was not in response to you calling it abuse, it was in responce to you wanting it to end.

How do you think to achieve that without making things worse?