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.
No, Reagan introduced neoliberalism to America, and it's continued for years and only of late are we trying to reverse it, but Republicans won't let us, and we are still struggling to recover from it.Making it unbalanced in favor of the Liberals will help to destroy this country more than it already is.
America is better served by liberal justices, it's the will of the majority.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.
"Elections have consequences."Incompetent rebuttal. 1. Vacuous claim. 2. Cop out.
no state is more important than another.Only if you think grass is more important than people.
elected?I don't think the court needs to be expanded. I think the way the court is elected needs to be changed.
No, Reagan introduced neoliberalism to America, and it's continued for years and only of late are we trying to reverse it, but Republicans won't let us, and we are still struggling to recover from it.
Wages in the middle class flattened out when he took office, yet the rich gained superbly.
America is better served by liberal justices, it's the will of the majority.
Meaningless statement.
America is better served by liberal justices, it's the will of the majority.
I cut your argument off before you tried it.I mentioned nothing about it.
Nope a judge having to campaign for reelection is an ineffective judge.I don't think the court needs to be expanded. I think the way the court is elected needs to be changed.
No where will you find the WORD Democracy in the constitution."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.
You're a silly shill twat, you know that?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.
All Republics Go Bananas. America Is Slipping on the Peels.That argument is thoroughly eviscerated here:
Dems, don't let Repubs bamboozle you, America IS a democracy.
{Caveat: those who are weaned on soundbites, one liners and snarky quips, who have subsequent short attention spans, ignore this post] This trope has been floundering around the conservative/libertarian circles on the right for some time now, and now Trump has joined the *RNAD regurgitators...www.usmessageboard.com
Indirect Power Is WeakNo, you're whining...The court re-balanced via lawful means and you just don't like the result.
boooohoooo
Preppies' Pet Pit Bulls/——/ We don’t vote for president. We vote for the Electors who vote for president. Democracy is mob rule. A Republic protects the rights of minorities.
Thread ModeratorYou have thus violated the rule I set forth in the OP.
Souter, Kennedy, O'Connor, Roberts...All appointed by republicans.Indirect Power Is Weak
Proving how false the claims about a republic are, 3 out of the 4 Justices appointed by pro-life Nixon voted for Roe v Wade. So republicists are lying when they tell us to vote for the candidate who will appoint Justices we approve of.
Boston Had Babe Ruth and the Curse of the BambinoWas born in Houston, Texas.
"Winner-Take-All" Is the Typical Nonsense We Get From the Ruling Class's Constitutionsigh .. I'm not going to argue over semantics .. In simple terms, each state has number of electoral votes based on its population, and the majority vote of the state determines how its electoral votes will be cast (it could vary, but rare). Senators and Representatives are based on a democratic vote from the state. This also applies to state level individuals such as the governor, state representatives and state senators (.. and the typical administration: e.g. secretary of state).
There is no case for packing the Court with more liberalsRules:
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 presented the case. A vacuous denial is not a counter argument.There is no case for packing the Court with more liberals
Which is what libs want to do
