Time to increase the number of Supreme Court Justices

[Papageorgio]

I was willing to take a wait and see position on the TRUMPCourt

They said they would honor Judicial precedence and not legislate from the Bench.
I expected a Conservative court but a court that would not run roughshod over individual rights

Completely discarding Roe v Wade, eroding Miranda protections, restricting states from regulating gun possession all run contrary to the Will of We the People.

Democrats have six months to abandon the Senate Filibuster and legally change the number of Supreme Court Justices

The key is to get Congress to do their jobs and make laws not have judges interpret loosely written BS where it could go either way.

Time to call on your Congress to do what they are elected to do.

 

[rightwinger]

It's fine. You just don't like the decisions they're making right now.

I was willing to give the TRUMP Court a chance

While I knew they would be Conservative, I thought they would respect the Court and moderate their shift to the right.

This TRUMPCourt has thrown out all legal precedents and become a tool for Republican Legislatures to force their agenda

 

[Papageorgio]

The Court needs to be fixed

BS! You don't want to fix a damn thing and you can't be honest. You want the ruling to side with your ideals because you believe you are superior and know better than others.

Spare us you wanting to "fix" anything, you are just being a child and wanting it all your way.

 

[hadit]

I was willing to give the TRUMP Court a chance

While I knew they would be Conservative, I thought they would respect the Court and moderate their shift to the right.

This TRUMPCourt has thrown out all legal precedents and become a tool for Republican Legislatures to force their agenda

Ah, yes, the old, "All previous decisions I agree with have to remain undisturbed because precedent and reasons and just sit down and shut up!", gambit. You do realize that your rant "thrown out all legal precedents" is based on a SINGLE ruling that gored one of your sacred cows, right? Tell us this, since you apparently think the Court should never reverse itself, why do you applaud some of the highest profile reversals?

 

[rightwinger]

Ah, yes, the old, "All previous decisions I agree with have to remain undisturbed because precedent and reasons and just sit down and shut up!", gambit. You do realize that your rant "thrown out all legal precedents" is based on a SINGLE ruling that gored one of your sacred cows, right? Tell us this, since you apparently think the Court should never reverse itself, why do you applaud some of the highest profile reversals?

They were specifically asked about Roe v Wade and declared they had no intention of changing settled law……SUCKERS

Beyond that, they have reversed precedent on School prayer, state funding of religious schools, environmental protection, gun laws

 

[hadit]

They were specifically asked about Roe v Wade and declared they had no intention of changing settled law……SUCKERS

Beyond that, they have reversed precedent on School prayer, state funding of religious schools, environmental protection, gun laws

You didn't answer why you applaud some reversals while claiming that reversals shouldn't happen because precedent, and reasons.

 

[rightwinger]

You didn't answer why you applaud some reversals while claiming that reversals shouldn't happen because precedent, and reasons.

Give some examples

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I was willing to take a wait and see position on the TRUMPCourt

They said they would honor Judicial precedence and not legislate from the Bench.
I expected a Conservative court but a court that would not run roughshod over individual rights

Completely discarding Roe v Wade, eroding Miranda protections, restricting states from regulating gun possession all run contrary to the Will of We the People.

Democrats have six months to abandon the Senate Filibuster and legally change the number of Supreme Court Justices

TRUMPcourt....
READ: they are doing things I don't like... therefore... I will marginalize their legitimacy.
As long as I like what they do - I support them, even when it is wrong.
But the moment they don't agree with me - meh!! Let's change the rules so they do!!

 

[BlackSand]

I was willing to take a wait and see position on the TRUMPCourt

They said they would honor Judicial precedence and not legislate from the Bench.
I expected a Conservative court but a court that would not run roughshod over individual rights

Completely discarding Roe v Wade, eroding Miranda protections, restricting states from regulating gun possession all run contrary to the Will of We the People.

Democrats have six months to abandon the Senate Filibuster and legally change the number of Supreme Court Justices

.

Ask Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Ried what happens when you change the rules trying to win.
Looks like his "Legacy" just came home to roost ...

.​

 

[hadit]

Give some examples

Seriously? Okay, Brown, Miranda, Obergefell. Need I go on? Are you really going to tell us you don't applaud these that overturned at least parts of previous decisions?

 

[Pellinore]

I agree that the Court has needed reform for a while, even before all of this.

The nation is much larger and more complex than when the Judiciary Act was set in 1869, meaning the Court declines to take up many cases simply due to overwork. Life expectancies are also longer, meaning a particular Justice can go for decades without having their power checked except by impeachment, which does not seem to be a serious threat. The Supreme Court also has no functional oversight; even corrective legislation can itself be overturned by a Court ruling.

The reform idea I like the best is that on every odd-numbered year, if there is an opening, the Justice with the longest time served has their appointment come to an end, and the current President then appoints a replacement. This can also work in conjunction with expanding the size of the court to thirteen (to match the number of Courts of Appeals) without gifting the current President with four free picks. The Court would then sometimes have fewer than thirteen filled seats, but it will give every President the chance to appoint exactly two seats per term.

It'd likely take an Amendment, though, meaning that a lot of elected officials will have to put long-term health over their short-term interests, which they're not exactly known for doing. Sigh.

 

[hadit]

I agree that the Court has needed reform for a while, even before all of this.

The nation is much larger and more complex than when the Judiciary Act was set in 1869, meaning the Court declines to take up many cases simply due to overwork. Life expectancies are also longer, meaning a particular Justice can go for decades without having their power checked except by impeachment, which does not seem to be a serious threat. The Supreme Court also has no functional oversight; even corrective legislation can itself be overturned by a Court ruling.

The reform idea I like the best is that on every odd-numbered year, if there is an opening, the Justice with the longest time served has their appointment come to an end, and the current President then appoints a replacement. This can also work in conjunction with expanding the size of the court to thirteen (to match the number of Courts of Appeals) without gifting the current President with four free picks. The Court would then sometimes have fewer than thirteen filled seats, but it will give every President the chance to appoint exactly two seats per term.

It'd likely take an Amendment, though, meaning that a lot of elected officials will have to put long-term health over their short-term interests, which they're not exactly known for doing. Sigh.

Actually, Congress does have the authority to place laws outside the jurisdiction of the Court, and I would think any laws dealing with the makeup of the Court would be candidates for such treatment.

 

[rightwinger]

TRUMPcourt....
READ: they are doing things I don't like... therefore... I will marginalize their legitimacy.
As long as I like what they do - I support them, even when it is wrong.
But the moment they don't agree with me - meh!! Let's change the rules so they do!!

I used to consider them the SUPREME Court

This partisan court is illegitimate and anything but Supreme

They are the TRUMPCourt
They share his values

 

[GHook20]

I was willing to take a wait and see position on the TRUMPCourt

They said they would honor Judicial precedence and not legislate from the Bench.
I expected a Conservative court but a court that would not run roughshod over individual rights

Completely discarding Roe v Wade, eroding Miranda protections, restricting states from regulating gun possession all run contrary to the Will of We the People.

Democrats have six months to abandon the Senate Filibuster and legally change the number of Supreme Court Justices

Says every 3rd world dictator!!! Glad the left finally openly admits they embrace and endorse tyranny.

Rig the courts like they rig elections… you would make Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot proud.


Much better solution is appoint Justices for set terms. Say 10 yr terms. With terms set so that every 2 years 2 justice come up for reappoint (with one year being 1 justice). 2 appointments max. If a Justice steps down, is impeached or dies, then the new person only finishes out the previous term.


Much better solution… but then again your party is the party of tyranny!

 

[hadit]

I used to consider them the SUPREME Court

This partisan court is illegitimate and anything but Supreme

They are the TRUMPCourt
They share his values

And yet they have the exact same authority and privileges of every other SC. Amazing, isn't it?

 

[Oldestyle]

Very true

Let’s get it done

So you're admitting that you know the "will of the people" isn't backing your liberal agenda and that you need to get things done BEFORE the midterm election removes the majorities that you have in the House and Senate? So who's REALLY going against the will of the people, Winger? You on the left say that you're for saving Democracy but you're really not. You're for saving your agenda and you don't care a bit about the will of the people!

 

[Oldestyle]

The Court needs to be fixed

So win elections and "fix" it! Don't screw with what's worked admirably for hundreds of years just because you're not getting your way for a couple of years! That's short sighted.

 

[rightwinger]

Says every 3rd world dictator!!! Glad the left finally openly admits they embrace and endorse tyranny.

Rig the courts like they rig elections… you would make Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot proud.


Much better solution is appoint Justices for set terms. Say 10 yr terms. With terms set so that every 2 years 2 justice come up for reappoint (with one year being 1 justice). 2 appointments max. If a Justice steps down, is impeached or dies, then the new person only finishes out the previous term.


Much better solution… but then again your party is the party of tyranny!

3rd World Dictators refuse to leave office when defeated in an election

Trump

 

[rightwinger]

So win elections and "fix" it! Don't screw with what's worked admirably for hundreds of years just because you're not getting your way for a couple of years! That's short sighted.

We did

Obama won

 

[hadit]

3rd World Dictators refuse to leave office when defeated in an election

Trump

No, he left. He's not there now, is he? Or are you one of the democrats that likes to pretend the election didn't happen and Quid Pro is not in charge?