Debate Now The case for expanding the Supreme Court

[cnm]

since a democracy does exist and is on the opposite side of the scale as a constitutional republic, to say we are a democracy is a flat out lie

Yeah right. Merriam Webster are known fabulists, of course.

 

[Auld Phart]

Of course. Only grass thinks prairie more important than people.

so, screw flyover country?

Only allow reps from democrat controlled areas?

 

[progressive hunter]

Yeah right. Merriam Webster are known fabulists, of course.

youre leaving out that a true democracy exists and since a constitutional republic is as far as you can get from that its just gaslighting and dishonest to claim we are a democracy,,

 

[Oddball]

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

No.

Get back in your own lane.

 

[progressive hunter]

so, screw flyover country?

Only allow reps from democrat controlled areas?

thats the exact reason they say we are a democracy instead of a constitutional republic that protects the smaller states from the big ones,,

 

[cnm]

so, screw flyover country?

Only if you think grass is more important than people.

 

[Rumpole]

since a democracy does exist and is on the opposite side of the scale as a constitutional republic, to say we are a democracy is a flat out lie,,,

A constitutional republic and a representative democracy are essentially the same thing in America. This has been debated extensively.

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

and considering the constitution, only constitutional conservatives should be on the supreme court,,

liberals should be banned since their goals are not to protect and defend the constitution and cant take an oath to do so,,

You just made wild claims of fact which you did not support, violating the rule in the OP.

But, imo, if there were ever an example of tyrannical logic, you just provided it.

 

[Oddball]

thats the exact reason they say we are a democracy instead of a constitutional republic that protects the smaller states from the big ones,,

And it protects the rural citizens from the urban dwelling mobsters.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You brought up some interesting points, so let's dive into them.

Firstly, it seems there's some confusion about the intent behind expanding the Supreme Court. The argument isn't about "gerrymandering" the Court, but about rebalancing it. The aim is to counteract the appointments made during the Republican presidencies that some believe have tilted the Court in a direction not representative of the broader population.

Now, you've pointed out that gerrymandering has also been carried out by Democrats, which is true. Gerrymandering is a bipartisan issue. However, it's crucial to recognize that the original discussion is about the Supreme Court's stance on gerrymandering and the impacts it might have on our democracy, irrespective of the party carrying out the act.
About voter suppression, it's a serious and complex issue. It's not about cheating but about ensuring that all eligible voters can exercise their right to vote. Different states have enacted laws that some argue disproportionately affect specific demographics. The concern is that the Court has given these laws the green light.

The argument about the Senate wasn't that gerrymandering directly influences it but rather that it contributes to a political climate that might affect Senate control indirectly. You're absolutely right that states themselves can't be gerrymandered.

On the topic of the electoral system, first thing you must understand is that the framers NEVER intended for 'minority rule', it so states this in Federalist #22. Sure, they had concerns about majority rule, which they tempered with the three co-equal branches of government and a bicameral legislature. But they never intended on minority rule. Now then, the popular vote point is not about the validity of the presidents elected but the representativeness of the Supreme Court justices they appoint. The current system gives equal weight to states, regardless of population size, and this can sometimes lead to a president who didn't win the popular vote. This isn't a question of legality; it's a question of whether the Supreme Court, appointed by these presidents, is reflective of the majority of Americans' views.

All of these arguments are really about how to be`st uphold and preserve democracy. It's not about Democrats or Republicans winning or losing, but about ensuring that our institutions best represent and serve the American people.

Cheers,
Rumpole

the senate confirms the choices of the President and again it not gerrymandered so your argument it is unfairly biased is a no go from the start. And yes the argument is to gerrymander the Court because democrats couldn't win in the election of President and senate. When Republicans were not in power to select supreme Court justices they did not later claim the Court was unbalanced and demand to gerrymander it back to their temporary control.

As for voter suppression name a single state that did so and then back it up with PROVEN facts and figures that support the claim.

 

[progressive hunter]

Only if you think grass is more important than people.

grass has nothing to do with it so stop trolling,,

 

[cnm]

just gaslighting and dishonest to claim we are a democracy,,

That's Merriam Webster for you, off with the fairies all right.

 

[cnm]

And it protects the rural citizens from the urban dwelling mobsters.

Ah, the joy of minority rule reflected in the courts.

 

[Oddball]

A constitutional republic and a representative democracy are essentially the same thing in America. This has been debated extensively.

An oft-repeated lie doesn't become truth through volume.

so, if there were ever an example of tyrannical logic, you just provided it.

Familiarize yourself with the non-aggression principle...Progressive leftists are the ultimate in aggressors, and as such total tyrants.

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

 

[progressive hunter]

That's Merriam Webster for you, off with the fairies all right.

why are you selectively picking out the part that supports your POV

 

[Oddball]

Ah, the joy of minority rule reflected in the courts.

The minority is to be protected from overbearing mobster goons like you.

 

[Auld Phart]

Only if you think grass is more important than people.

I think the people in those 8 states have as much rights as the people in that one county

don't you?

BTW

when did any of those states send grass to DC?

 

[cnm]

grass has nothing to do with it so stop trolling,,

Grass is what many states with uneven representation are composed of.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You brought up some interesting points, so let's dive into them.

Firstly, it seems there's some confusion about the intent behind expanding the Supreme Court. The argument isn't about "gerrymandering" the Court, but about rebalancing it. The aim is to counteract the appointments made during the Republican presidencies that some believe have tilted the Court in a direction not representative of the broader population.

Now, you've pointed out that gerrymandering has also been carried out by Democrats, which is true. Gerrymandering is a bipartisan issue. However, it's crucial to recognize that the original discussion is about the Supreme Court's stance on gerrymandering and the impacts it might have on our democracy, irrespective of the party carrying out the act.
About voter suppression, it's a serious and complex issue. It's not about cheating but about ensuring that all eligible voters can exercise their right to vote. Different states have enacted laws that some argue disproportionately affect specific demographics. The concern is that the Court has given these laws the green light.

The argument about the Senate wasn't that gerrymandering directly influences it but rather that it contributes to a political climate that might affect Senate control indirectly. You're absolutely right that states themselves can't be gerrymandered.

On the topic of the electoral system, first thing you must understand is that the framers NEVER intended for 'minority rule', it so states this in Federalist #22 "...the sense of the majority must prevail." Sure, they had concerns about majority rule, which they tempered with the three co-equal branches of government and a bicameral legislature embodying a representative democracy. But they never intended on minority rule. Now then, the popular vote point is not about the validity of the presidents elected but the representativeness of the Supreme Court justices they appoint. The current system gives equal weight to states, regardless of population size, and this can sometimes lead to a president who didn't win the popular vote. This isn't a question of legality; it's a question of whether the Supreme Court, appointed by these presidents, is reflective of the majority of Americans' views.

All of these arguments are really about how to best uphold and preserve democracy. It's not about Democrats or Republicans winning or losing, but about ensuring that our institutions best represent and serve the American people.

Cheers,
Rumpole

it is not minority rule it is state rule. Until such time as the democrats control enough states to elected a President just because they have millions more voters in 2 states does not equate to an unfair election.

 

[cnm]

why are you selectively picking out the part that supports your POV

Because it still applies no matter what other parts may also apply.

 

[progressive hunter]

Grass is what many states with uneven representation are composed of.

so??