Debate Now The case for expanding the Supreme Court

[hadit]

That is true for any justice's vote and ruling. But here is the point you are not grasping, a 6/3 conservative court is a court whose collective judicial philosophy is not according to the will of the people. Proof of that fact is that if the majority had elected the president in 2016, representing the will of the people, the court would not be 6/3 conservative, it would be 5/4 liberal, with probably a moderate, Merrick Garland, as the swing vote (or it would be 6/3 liberal then you'd be making the same argument I'm making). But a 5/4 court with a swing vote, That would best reflect the will of the people.

Do not pettifog on how they rule individually.

It simply doesn't matter how the president was elected. Every single Justice was appointed by a duly elected president, and whether he won the popular vote or not is irrelevant. And as I said, the "will of the people" is irrelevant to the job the Justices are supposed to do. They are supposed to directly counter that "will" if it is not Constitutional.

 

[hadit]

But you fail to grasp this fundamental point: the Collective judicial philosophy of a 6/3 conservative leaning court does not reflect the will of the people, given the simple fact that the court is was appointed by someone who wasn't elected by the will of the people.

As for your 'constitutionality', that's subject to judicial philosophy. Conservatives do not have a monopoly on what 'constitutionality' means.

It would be nice if liberals demonstrated that they understood it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sorry, typo.
But your willingness to go apeshit over a type shows both your lack of intellect and lack of self control

No I don't believe it was a typo what was the need to quote the only?

I agree the court needs to be expanded but because there are 13 judicial districts and "only" 8 justices.
In addition I'd like legislation calling for the movement of the 2 longest serving justices to an emeritus status where they could advise the court and assist with work not requiring the entire court thus allowing every president to nominate at least 2 justices to the court. The president, if desired, could renominate an emeritus justice back to the court.

Under this no justice would serve more than 24 consecutive years without being renominated.

Also, a code of conduct for the SCOTUS along with annual audits of their personal finances.

Also, laws forbidding the spouses of justices from being involved in politics in any way.

The integrity of the SCOTUS should never be questioned. Unfortunately, the actions of the spouses of Justice Thomas and and Chief Justice Roberts have given the impression, rightly or not, of possible ethics issues. If we are to honor the decisions of the SCOTUS then the integrity of the justices must be above reproach.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It simply doesn't matter how the president was elected. Every single Justice was appointed by a duly elected president, and whether he won the popular vote or not is irrelevant. And as I said, the "will of the people" is irrelevant to the job the Justices are supposed to do. They are supposed to directly counter that "will" if it is not Constitutional.

He just can't grasp that

 

[Dadoalex]

No I don't believe it was a typo what was the need to quote the only?

What you believe and what is are almost always different.

Perhaps when you lose the "liar" attitude we can discuss "only"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What you believe and what is are almost always different.

Perhaps when you lose the "liar" attitude we can discuss "only"

You made a mistake then lied and said it was a typo. ONE typo in that whole word salad. How hard is it to push the number 9 key?

 

[The Duke]

But you fail to grasp this fundamental point: the Collective judicial philosophy of a 6/3 conservative leaning court does not reflect the will of the people, given the simple fact that the court is was appointed by someone who wasn't elected by the will of the people.

As for your 'constitutionality', that's subject to judicial philosophy. Conservatives do not have a monopoly on what 'constitutionality' means.

The Constitution was written in clear and plain language on purpose.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Constitution was written in clear and plain language on purpose.

If the will of the people said slavery should exist he, sure and hell would hope the supreme court would rule by the guidance of the Constitution and not the will of the people.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I'll file that in the 'Wishful Thinking and assorted Unicorn Dreams' file.

Congratulations! You've earned it.

/——-/ Where in the Constitution does it mention democracy? Link please.

 

[Dadoalex]

You made a mistake then lied and said it was a typo. ONE typo in that whole word salad. How hard is it to push the number 9 key?

I had both shoulders replaced this year. The right hand tends to drift because of it.
But that's irrelevant to your fixation on a type and your total inability to discuss the actual thread.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I had both shoulders replaced this year. The right hand tends to drift because of it.
But that's irrelevant to your fixation on a type and your total inability to discuss the actual thread.

/——/ I had a knee placement last year, so I understand the symptoms. Feel better.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I had both shoulders replaced this year. The right hand tends to drift because of it.
But that's irrelevant to your fixation on a type and your total inability to discuss the actual thread.

Really? You were able to type that word salad without a typo anf typed an 8 for a 9 lol

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Yes he does

Without a Coup, America Goes Cuckoo

It will take a revolution or secession to take away the unearned right to vote from the fairies, ferals, and foreigners. Only then can we have majority rule and get back on track.

 

[Dadoalex]

Really? You were able to type that word salad without a typo anf typed an 8 for a 9 lol

I can use spell check. Apparently you can't.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I can use spell check. Apparently you can't.

You're pathetic my mistake was auto spell checker there is no spell checker for numbers

 

[Dadoalex]

You're pathetic my mistake was auto spell checker there is no spell checker for numbers

Exactly, if there were I would have corrected it.
You didn't.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You wouldn't know logic if it fell on you.

I have about 50 ponds worth of logic I've saved up in a box sitting in my garage.

Would you like to borrow it?

 

[Rumpole]

The Senate currently consists of 2 reps per state.


How would you increase that fairly?

One senator per 5 million people. 2 per state minimum.

One county in California has more representatives than 8 midwest states.

Should one county in California have more say in national decisions than 8 states?

People are people. One person, one vote. It doesn't get more fairer than that.

 

[hadit]

One senator per 5 million people. 2 per state minimum.

Again trying to give more populated areas undue power over less populated areas. There's no good reason let LA dictate policy for rural Alabama.

People are people. One person, one vote. It doesn't get more fairer than that.

The ONLY office that's not true for is the president.

 

[Rumpole]

Again trying to give more populated areas undue power over less populated areas. There's no good reason let LA dictate policy for rural Alabama.

dirt doesn't elect people, people do. One person, one vote, it doesn't get more equitable than that.

The ONLY office that's not true for is the president.

Let's not forget that the framers NEVER intended for a minority to win any election.

"... the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail" --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #22.