Debate Now The case for expanding the Supreme Court

[progressive hunter]

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

not when you consider our constitutional republic,,

why are you guys so afraid of it??

 

[Auld Phart]

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

he recieved an email from DNC.com stating that years ago.

never stopped to think about it.

 

[cnm]

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

Currently the people in that one county have no right to appoint a Justice. Those 8 states have about 16 rights at least when it comes to the crunch.

 

[cnm]

not when you consider our constitutional republic,,

Yeah, Merriam Webster hasn't a clue. Fair enough.

Oops. Sorry. It's Collins Dictionary that doesn't have a clue. My bad.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There should be 11 justices on the Supreme Court, one for each circuit court of appeals, in accordance with the Judiciary Act of 1869.

 

[Rumpole]

of course you and the OP have to leave out all the definitions that prove you wrong,,

Constitutional Republic - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

Constitutional Republic defined and explained with examples. Constitutional Republic is a form of government in which representatives are elected by the people.

legaldictionary.net

"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.

 

[cnm]

The Senate currently consists of 2 reps per state.


How would you increase that fairly?

By population, which would mean increasing the size of the Senate so it could be done fairly, so that USSC appointees would more accurately represent the USA.

 

[Auld Phart]

Currently the people in that one county have no right to appoint a Justice. Those 8 states have about 16 rights at least when it comes to the crunch.

that one county also doesnt' elect a senator.

 

[Billo_Really]

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

We have to expand the SCOTUS after what Trump and McConnell did to it.

 

[Oddball]

There should be 11 justices on the Supreme Court, one for each circuit court of appeals, in accordance with the Judiciary Act of 1869.

no

 

[Oddball]

We have to expand the SCOTUS after what Trump and McConnell did to it.

 

[cnm]

that one county also doesnt' elect a senator.

That's the whole point. Ffs.

 

[ReinyDays]

Amend the Constitution if we don't like the court's rulings ... SCOTUS overturned Congress' right to set voter age in State elections on December 21st, 1970 ... the 26th Amendment was ratified on July 5th, 1971 ... just over six months and SCOTUS is overturned ... easy peasy ...

The problem is getting 2/3's of either house of Congress to agree on anything ... we're a nation dividing, this isn't supposed to be pretty ...

 

[progressive hunter]

Yeah, Merriam Webster hasn't a clue. Fair enough.

Oops. Sorry. It's Collins Dictionary that doesn't have a clue. My bad.

your comment about grass show why you claim we are a democracy instead of a constitutional republic,, the constitution makes the grass meaningless and the state itself the factor,,

 

[progressive hunter]

"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.

we arent a representative democracy,, we are a constitutional republic,,,

 

[Auld Phart]

By population, which would mean increasing the size of the Senate so it could be done fairly, so that USSC appointees would more accurately represent the USA.

Sente is decided by state, 2 each,
Largest state only has 2, smallest only has 2.

as it should be.

House is decided by population.

 

[cnm]

your comment about grass show why you claim we are a democracy

No, dictionaries state you are a democracy.

 

[Rumpole]

There should be 11 justices on the Supreme Court, one for each circuit court of appeals, in accordance with the Judiciary Act of 1869.

That's an improvement, though I think 15-29 would be better, and a tiered system to handle the greater caseload, to remove the burden of the shadow docket which is now taking too many cases.

 

[cnm]

Sente is decided by state, 2 each,
Largest state only has 2, smallest only has 2.

as it should be.

That's why your government and Court are dysfunctional. Proper representation is the key to fixing your Court and government.

 

[progressive hunter]

No, dictionaries state you are a democracy.

thats a scale that puts our constitutional republic on the opposite side of a true democracys,,