Debate Now The case for expanding the Supreme Court

[Rumpole]

/——-/ “So, we elect those who will enact laws to change it more to our liking. That is the essence of democracy.”
And that is the definition of a Republic.

We are both. the terms are not mutually exclusive.

Addressed 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

 

[progressive hunter]

We are both. the terms are not mutually exclusive.

Addressed 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

you still spamming that twisted liberal propaganda??

 

[progressive hunter]

/——-/ “So, we elect those who will enact laws to change it more to our liking. That is the essence of democracy.”
And that is the definition of a Republic.

that is the essence of a constitutional republic,,
in a democracy the people vote to change the laws,,

in a constitutional republic no one can change it if the constitutional doesnt allow it

 

[jotathought]

I agree that an age limit is probably the best way to go. Several states have this on their high courts.

Wouldn't that be age discrimination? There have been many 90+ year olds who are still mentally active and witty: Mel Brooks is an excellent example. Why would you just go by an age as opposed to more cognitive ability?

 

[Rumpole]

you still spamming that twisted liberal propaganda??

Please read the OP rules, NO AD HOMS.

NO 'kill-the-messenger/source replies', critique only the argument presented.

No disingenuous, snarky comments.

Give valid arguments with a solid path of reasoning/logic, supported by authoritative links, if possible

Do you understand?

 

[jotathought]

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

What prevents future state expansion when an opposing party takes office? In 50 years, there will be 50 Supreme Court justices because on party leader wanted complete power over the judicial system. Would Democrats feel the same way if there were a 6-3 majority that aligned with their political leaning?

 

[progressive hunter]

Please read the OP rules, NO AD HOMS.

NO 'kill-the-messenger/source replies', critique only the argument presented.

No disingenuous, snarky comments.

Give valid arguments with a solid path of reasoning/logic, supported by authoritative links, if possible

Do you understand?

spamming is against the rules,,
maybe you should read them,,

and it doesnt give valid arguments,, it give false narrative talking points to weak minded liberals that need to be told what to think,,

 

[Rumpole]

What prevents future state expansion when an opposing party takes office? In 50 years, there will be 50 Supreme Court justices because on party leader wanted complete power over the judicial system. Would Democrats feel the same way if there were a 6-3 majority that aligned with their political leaning?

I have no problem with a supreme court of any size, as long as it is balanced. WE could have legislation dictating that both sides take turns nominating justices, and 'advise and consent' at the minimum, requires a hearing. I think one side having more more justice than the other, is acceptable, but thing is, with a large court, say 29 (15/14), it would be well nigh impossible for one justice to sway the court one way or the other, with a large court, consensus would rule, which means moderate rulings would be more likely to win. Say, in a 5/4 court, one justice could get one other justice to go along, and affect the outcome. That would be much more difficult with a 15/14 court.

 

[jotathought]

I have no problem with a supreme court of any size, as long as it is balanced. WE could have legislation dictating that both sides take turns nominating justices, and 'advise and consent' at the minimum, requires a hearing.

Why would you legislate political leaning? Isn't that the same as legislating religion?

 

[progressive hunter]

I have no problem with a supreme court of any size, as long as it is balanced. WE could have legislation dictating that both sides take turns nominating justices, and 'advise and consent' at the minimum, requires a hearing.

balanced in what??

the purpose of SCOTUS is to rule on laws to if they abide the constitution,,

so because of that only a constitutional conservative can serve on the court or even take the oath in good conscience,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Why would you legislate political leaning? Isn't that the same as legislating religion?

do you even have to ask??

LOL

 

[jotathought]

do you even have to ask??

LOL

Unfortunately yes, especially with a culture that believes men are magically women because of feelings.

 

[Rumpole]

spamming is against the rules,,
maybe you should read them,,

I did not spam. I provided a link that addressed an argument you raised NOT at issue in the OP.

when you make this an argument about democracy, you are going off topic. that is not the subject of the OP.

ANd that is within the rules.

and it doesnt give valid arguments,,

That wasn't a rule set forth in the other OP. it IS the rule set forth in this OP.

it give false narrative talking points to weak minded liberals that need to be told what to think,,

so, go over to the other OP about democracy, and state your case. It is OFF TOPIC on this forum.

 

[Oddball]

Your claim of not liking a result is meaningless. Who among us hasn't seen a law enacted in which we didn't like the result? So, we elect those who will enact laws to change it more to our liking. That is the essence of democracy.

Accusing someone of 'sniveling' isn't a meaningful argument, it does nothing to move the debate forward.

Can you not see that? When I asked not to post 'disingenuous' comments, that is what I meant. Accusing someone of sniveling or whining is a kind of ad hom, it's an attack on the messenger, not the message. You have thus violated the rule I set forth in the OP.

My comment was very genuine...Billo the Clown is sniveling about losing.....The "lying whore bitch Garrett (sic)" confirmed his emotional incontinence...Well, he can suck on it.

BTW, your rules don't count for jack schitt around here, so suck on that, Skippy.

 

[Rumpole]

Unfortunately yes, especially with a culture that believes men are magically women because of feelings.

Liberals are not a monolithic group. Liberal/libertarians, such as Bill Maher, and myself, do not believe that gender and sex are different, we believe that they are one and the same. I criticize democrats who uphold this view.

 

[progressive hunter]

I did not spam. I provided a link that addressed an argument you raised NOT at issue in the OP.

when you make this an argument about democracy, you are going off topic. that is not the subject of the OP.

ANd that is within the rules.



Then go over to the other OP about democracy, and state your case. It is OFF TOPIC on this forum.

you provided it several times,, I have had them removed because of that,, guess the rules for libs are different than everyone else,,

why would I go to a cult meeting and try and convert them??

fact remains we are a constitutiona republic and not any of the things you keep claiming and because of that only constitutional cons should be on any court more so with SCOTUS..

 

[jotathought]

I did not spam. I provided a link that addressed an argument you raised NOT at issue in the OP.

when you make this an argument about democracy, you are going off topic. that is not the subject of the OP.

ANd that is within the rules.



Then go over to the other OP about democracy, and state your case. It is OFF TOPIC on this forum.

Sure it is .. Democracy is what votes a presidential candidate into office and the will of the people, majority of individual state voters ... provides a president that is able to nominate Supreme Court justices. In addition, it is Democracy that provides the review process by Senators that represent each state, that provides a positive or negative response.

 

[progressive hunter]

Sure it is .. Democracy is what votes a presidential candidate into office and the will of the people, majority of individual state voters ... provides a president that is able to nominate Supreme Court justices. In addition, it is Democracy that provides the review process by Senators that represent each state, that provides a positive or negative response.

thats not democracy,, the states elect POTUS not the will of the people,,

 

[jotathought]

Liberals are not a monolithic group. Liberal/libertarians, such as Bill Maher, and myself, do not believe that gender and sex are different, we believe that they are one and the same. I criticize democrats who uphold this view.

Your view is trumped by the social contagion we call transgender-ism -- and politicians, advocates, activities and corporate America don't care about your feelings on the topic.

 

[jotathought]

thats not democracy,, the states elect POTUS not the will of the people,,

It's a democratic republic (representative democracy)- individual states and their corresponding population that determine the success or failure of a presidential candidate .