Debate Now The case for expanding the Supreme Court

[The Duke]

Why 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.

That you haven't come across a dictionary before doesn't mean you get to have your own meaning for words.

Democracy is a system of government in which people choose their rulers by voting for them in elections.​

[...]​

Synonyms: self-government, republic, commonwealth, autonomy​

I'm debating which is sharper:

You, or a bag of marbles?

 

[Desperado]

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

There is NO case for expanding the Supreme Court​

 

[The Duke]

Why 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.

There is NO case for expanding the Supreme Court​

It's just another Democrat attempt to undermine America. They're more of an anti-American political party these days.

Not sure how that's going to work out for them.

Maybe like the Whigs.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There was a ton of evidence! There was an eyewitness account!

lets see she didnt know where when or with whom it happened and NONE of her friends remembered it happening ya stellar witness.

 

[Billo_Really]

lets see she didnt know where when or with whom it happened and NONE of her friends remembered it happening ya stellar witness.

That's not true. She knows exactly who it happened with!

 

[Flash]

If there was a majority of Liberals on the Supreme Court none of the Liberals would be calling for expansion.

This calling for expansion is nothing more than Liberal butthurt.

 

[Rumpole]

There is NO case for expanding the Supreme Court​

Incompetent rebuttal, no argument provided. Opinions are not arguments.

Comment dismissed.

 

[Rumpole]

If there was a majority of Liberals on the Supreme Court none of the Liberals would be calling for expansion.

That makes sense. One reason I'm calling for it is because Republicans have unbalanced the court.
Expanding it is one way to rebalance it. I wouldn't mind if it's 5/4 with one moderate on the right, like it used to be.
But, there are other reasons to expand it, as stated in the article linked to in the OP

This calling for expansion is nothing more than Liberal butthurt.

Ad homs diminish your credibility.

 

[Rumpole]

So you want to expand the court in your favor checkmate
FYI it's not about balance it's about what is and is not constitutional

Nonsense. To assert conservatives have a monopoly on constitutionality of anything is a partisan claim.
It's about balancing judicial philosophies of conservative/liberal.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

I don't think the court needs to be expanded. I think the way the court is elected needs to be changed.

 

[Rumpole]

you have no point just because liberals abound in several states does not make those states more important than the other 47 or 48 states again the STATES elect the president not popular vote there is no imbalance and no minority rule,

a SC that is 6/3 in favor of conservatives does not reflect the will of the people, only the will of the Senate which is determined by a conservative population that is overrepresented in the Senate and a Repub President who benefitted in a distorted EC, who won the EC without winning the popular vote. Matching 50 Repub Senators to 50 Democrat senators, and Democrats have 40,000,000 more constituents.

A 6/3 conservative court disallows swing votes from moderating the court, that is minority rule because the population who vote for Republicans who appoint conservative justices are a minority in America.

The framers NEVER intended on minority rule.

 

[Oddball]

Incompetent rebuttal, no argument provided. Opinions are not arguments.

Comment dismissed.

The argument is that you have no argument...Which you don't, as usual.

 

[Oddball]

a SC that is 6/3 in favor of conservatives does not reflect the will of the people, only the will of the Senate which is determined by a conservative population that is overrepresented in the Senate and a Repub President who benefitted in a distorted EC, who won the EC without winning the popular vote. Matching 50 Repub Senators to 50 Democrat senators, and Democrats have 40,000,000 more constituents.

A 6/3 conservative court disallows swing votes from moderating the court, that is minority rule because the population who vote for Republicans who appoint conservative justices are a minority in America.

The framers NEVER intended on minority rule.

Elections have consequences.

~Barack Obama

Suck on it.

 

[The Duke]

Nonsense. To assert conservatives have a monopoly on constitutionality of anything is a partisan claim.
It's about balancing judicial philosophies of conservative/liberal.

You're not even from America, bitch. STFU.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You're not even from America, bitch. STFU.

Ahem,

• Debate Now - Structured Discussion Forum

 

[The Duke]

Ahem,

• Debate Now - Structured Discussion Forum

STFU, Leftist ShitLord shill.

Fuck You, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart.

Your boy is a foreign agent, and you can go suck a donkey dick for all IGAF.

Your boy did not post an OP within the rules for this venue.
I might be wrong about this, and if so, I'll feel the pain.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nonsense. To assert conservatives have a monopoly on constitutionality of anything is a partisan claim.
It's about balancing judicial philosophies of conservative/liberal.

Nonsense judges should not push unconstitutional mandates and agendas

 

[Grumblenuts]

STFU, Leftist ShitLord shill.

Fuck You, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart.

Your boy is a foreign agent, and you can go suck a donkey dick for all IGAF.

Your boy did not post an OP within the rules for this venue.
I might be wrong about this, and if so, I'll feel the pain.

Under any circumstance, having a cow is never a good look for John Wayne.

 

[Flash]

That makes sense. One reason I'm calling for it is because Republicans have unbalanced the court.
Expanding it is one way to rebalance it. I wouldn't mind if it's 5/4 with one moderate on the right, like it used to be.
But, there are other reasons to expand it, as stated in the article linked to in the OP


Ad homs diminish your credibility.

Making it unbalanced in favor of the Liberals will help to destroy this country more than it already is.

The only reason the Liberals want to expand it is to get their majority.

If it was leaning Left now none of them would be saying anything.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

"representatives ELECTED by the people'.

The very definition is a representative democracy. Given that every western developed nation is a representative democracy of one kind or another, the term 'democracy', being a broad term, unless qualified, can, indeed, be inclusive of how most democracies are organized. When it is said 'liberal democracies' and/or 'western democracies' (of which America is but one) we are mainly talking about representative democracies. Even Athens of antiquity wasn't a true direct democracy (women and slaves were not allowed to vote) and, as far as I can tell, a direct democracy has never existed, or is definitely not the dominant democracy type in this world.

Therefore, the terms 'democracy' and 'republic' are not necessarily mutually exclusive, which is to say, your claim of 'being the opposite' is categorically false. the opposite of democracy is not a republic, it is a Fascist dictatorship.

In my opinion, your opinion reeks of right wing hyper partisanship. That appears to be true given the logic you use.

A Republic Is a Foster Government, an Elitist Insult to Self-Determination