Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What was done to Merrick Garland was BS! So was confirming a woman who lied during her confirmation hearing.McConnel didn't hold up anything...He refused to put on the calendar is totally within the rules...Too bad for you.
Back we go to the sniveling!
barnraisingmedia.com
ya when you all got Bork that was ok right?What was done to Merrick Garland was BS! So was confirming a woman who lied during her confirmation hearing.
No, that was not alright!ya when you all got Bork that was ok right?
and Kavanaugh?No, that was not alright!
Neither am I/---/ I'm not a lawyer,
Exactly - and I also know what the SC is supposed to - but looking onto how the USA is factually reigned/governed - e.g. 1200 Presidential executive orders (that are being implemented and then revoked by others) - I placed my sarcastic remark as to why the USA needs a SC.but I believe someone has to petition the USSC to review and judge any law or executive order. I guess no one asked the SC to review those EOs.
/——/ You could say the same with all the rules and regulations by unelected government agencies. A wetland rulings by the EPA was shot down by a unanimous USSC vote, but only because people petitioned the USSC.Neither am I
Exactly - and I also know what the SC is supposed to - but looking onto how the USA is factually reigned/governed - e.g. 1200 Presidential executive orders (that are being implemented and then revoked by others) - I placed my sarcastic remark as to why the USA needs a SC.
I agree and would add a maximum number of years on the bench. Maybe 25 years.IMO... We have enough talent on the court now. Keep it at 9 but set a maximum age. I say 75.
There was a complicated calculation made once to where if we set the term limit at 18 years and apply it to the three most senior members of the court who were currently seated, it would eventually work out to where every President would appoint 3 justices going forward if they served 2 terms. I forget the math and only glanced at the formulae. This, of course, excludes the possibility of death, impeachment or resignation/retirement.I agree and would add a maximum number of years on the bench. Maybe 25 years.
Ok we'll expand it when Republicans are in full control. I bet you would hate seeing the court expand at that point.Rules:
1. No, flaming, name calling, disingenuous, snarky retorts, ad hominem attacks, no 'kill the source/messenger' replies (critique only the text).
2. If you make a claim of fact, offer a thoughtful path of reasoning/logic, AND, if possible, links to authoritative sources that supplement (they don't have to actually prove, but proof is always preferred) your position. If you can't do this, then preface it with 'imo' (in my opinion).
3. Absolutely NO thought-terminating clichés (example; 'fake news', is the main one, but there are others).
So, the source article for this discussion is:
To Save Democracy, We Must Expand the Court
To Save Democracy, We Must Expand the Court
Read the latest by Christopher Kang.www.democracydocket.com
Summary:
So, the key takeaway from the text is a concern over the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court impacting American democracy over the past decade. Some significant actions by the Court include approving voter suppression, allowing unlimited campaign spending, and sanctioning partisan gerrymandering. Essentially, the worry is that even when Democrats win elections, their policymaking ability is being hindered by the conservative Court.
The text mentions that the current Court's conservative composition is itself a product of some anti-democratic strategies. Many of the conservative justices were appointed by Republican presidents who initially took office without winning the popular vote. Moreover, the Senate, when under Republican control, blocked a nomination from President Obama.
It's feared that this could result in a cycle where the conservative Supreme Court continues to make it easier for Republicans to maintain power even with diminishing levels of support, while the Republicans, in turn, protect their Supreme Court majority.
The proposed solution? Expanding the Supreme Court, which is a move Congress has the power to make according to the U.S. Constitution. If President Biden were allowed to nominate four more justices, it could balance the Court and potentially ensure that it respects democracy and the rule of law. Expanding the Court could also increase its diversity and functionality.
There is growing support for this idea among Congress and the progressive movement, with a bill - the Judiciary Act of 2021 - gaining more than 60 co-sponsors. Public polls indicate more Americans support the expansion than oppose it, (though I did find polls that concluded the opposite, but I think when the case is presented as it could be, more people would support the idea).
Still, some are hesitant, worrying about possible repercussions, like Republicans expanding the Court further when they are in power. Others suggest term limits as a preferred reform measure. However, the authors argue that term limits could be challenged as unconstitutional, and they see the immediate solution to be expansion.
In a nutshell, they are arguing that the only way to protect American democracy from what they see as anti-democracy forces on the Supreme Court is through expansion, and they're calling for urgent support to pass the Judiciary Act.
Not mentioned in the article, but my idea:
We got 9 justices at a stage in American history when the population was much smaller. Now the case load for the SC is much greater owing to a much bigger population, and this has resulted in an ever increasing 'shadow docket' which, imo, is not a good thing (google it or click on the link). We could create a two tiered court (9 plus 9) to handle the increased case load, and the Chief justice, on the big issues, would let both tiers rule on it, so it would only be for a much smaller number of cases, the really salient cases, that both tiers would rule on. Also, we need a way to allow both parties to equally nominate justices, and not let just one side appoint them. Also, 'advise and consent' should equal a hearing, at the minimum. What McConnel did against Garland, in my opinion, was not in the spirit of the constitution's meaning insofar a the senate shall 'advise and consent'. We need legislation to further articulate what that means.
Also, Republicans like to accuse dems of 'stacking the court'. My view is that Republicans, with a 6/3 conservative court, have, indeed, 'stacked' the court 6/3 in favor of conservatives. My view is that expanding it, not letting one side dominate the nominations, would serve to UNSTACK the court, and 'balance' it out. (This is semantics, of course, as to what 'stacking the court' means).
Let's discuss.
cheers.
Rumpole
/----/ Until democRAT presidents pack the courts with lib judges, then they repeal those term limits under the guise of original intent.There was a complicated calculation made once to where if we set the term limit at 18 years and apply it to the three most senior members of the court who were currently seated, it would eventually work out to where every President would appoint 3 justices going forward if they served 2 terms. I forget the math and only glanced at the formulae. This, of course, excludes the possibility of death, impeachment or resignation/retirement.
Which has not happened....but thanks for playing./----/ Until democRAT presidents pack the courts with lib judges, then they repeal those term limits under the guise of original intent.
/——/ Of course it hasn’t happened. I never said it did. I’m commenting on the discussion of term limits on the court which hasn’t happened either.Which has not happened....but thanks for playing.
/——/ Once again…
What about that POS racist raping drunk?and Kavanaugh?
LOL as I thought you are a moron there was absolutely NO evidence to support the claim and it was a hit job you supportedWhat about that POS racist raping drunk?
There was a ton of evidence! There was an eyewitness account!LOL as I thought you are a moron there was absolutely NO evidence to support the claim and it was a hit job you supported
Ok we'll expand it when Republicans are in full control. I bet you would hate seeing the court expand at that point.
So you want to expand the court in your favor checkmateWhy would they? They've already expanded it to 6/3 in their favor.
You're not making sense. The Entire purpose of expanding it, since we can't wait 40 years for them the die out, is to make it more balanced.
