Who here favors expanding the Supreme Court?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Seriously, why even bother having a senate confirmation process if they're not meant to be able to deny appointments?

Plenty of times they have. But you keep tap dancing around the issue. first, the Senate didn't "deny" Obama's appointment. they refused even to make a decision on it, on the record.

I've conceded, in this very thread, MANY TIMES, that there is nothing explicitly forbidding court packing.

You don't have to and can't "concede" that. It's one of the first premises of our discussion.

THAT BEING THE CASE... you're cool with it? No second term appointments? How about, just none at all? Not "denials" of nominees. Just no process whatsoever to consider any pick from a President from the other party.

Cool with that?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Seriously, why even bother having a senate confirmation process if they're not meant to be able to deny appointments?

Plenty of times they have. But you keep tap dancing around the issue. first, the Senate didn't "deny" Obama's appointment. they refused even to make a decision on it, on the record.

I've conceded, in this very thread, MANY TIMES, that there is nothing explicitly forbidding court packing.

You don't have to and can't "concede" that. It's one of the first premises of our discussion.

THAT BEING THE CASE... you're cool with it? No second term appointments? How about, just none at all? Not "denials" of nominees. Just no process whatsoever to consider any pick from a President from the other party.

Cool with that?

A denial is a denial. Senate leaders keep all SORTS of shit from ever getting to the floor for a vote. When the Dem minority filibustered Bush's judicial appointments, those also didn't ever make it to the floor for a vote. Personally, I've got no problem with rules that slow down legislation. I don't judge the success of a government by their laws-passed-per-minute average.

I know I don't have to concede about the court packing. I could just tell you to go fuck yourself. My point is that you're going out of your way to explain to me something that I have, myself, pointed out many times in this very thread. Don't bother.

I would be "cool" with no second term appointments if the Dems win the senate and Trump takes a second term. No, I'm not cool with "no process whatsoever" when the parties are opposed. In those situations, there ought to be the opportunity for compromise. And there is.

Other than the fact that I would like to see the constitution amended to put some serious hurdles in the way of expanding the number of judges on a federal bench, the current rules of confirmation seem to me to be pretty well worked out.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I know I don't have to concede it. I could just tell you to go fuck yourself.

And it would still be a fact, and would still have been stated by me from the beginning. You are welcome to degenerate into a quivering little amorphous blob of impotent anger whenever you like. That's your right.

My point is that you're going out of your way to explain to me something that I have, myself, pointed out many times in this very thread.

No I haven't. I definitely had to correct a few of your bad comparisons though. Like, denying a nominee versus never even voting on one.


Anyhoo... so, at what point does it annoy you when a President's nominees won't even be considered? Do you have no threshold for this whatsoever?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I know I don't have to concede it. I could just tell you to go fuck yourself.

And it would still be a fact, and would still have been stated by me from the beginning. You are welcome to degenerate into a quivering little amorphous blob of impotent anger whenever you like. That's your right.

My point is that you're going out of your way to explain to me something that I have, myself, pointed out many times in this very thread.

No I haven't. I definitely had to correct a few of your bad comparisons though. Like, denying a nominee versus never even voting on one.


Anyhoo... so, at what point does it annoy you when a President's nominees won't even be considered? Do you have no threshold for this whatsoever?

Lol! If I'm a quivering little amorphous blob if impotent anger for firing BACK after you've intentionally misrepresented the meaning of my concession statement for the purposes of condescending me, then what sort of pathetic spineless mass of intellectual insecurity are you for artificially manufacturing opportunities to look like you're dunking on people on an internet message board?

No you haven't? Holy shit, did I imagine you telling me two posts ago about how there's no rule against packing the courts? No, I don't think I did. I think this is yet another example of you deliberately mischaracterizing what was said so that you can continue with this smug little condescension game you're playing.

The point at which it annoys me when a nominee can't get to the floor, is when a minority of the senate pulls that maneuver. See 2001.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The point at which it annoys me when a nominee can't get to the floor, is when a minority of the senate pulls that maneuver. See 2001.

Ah, gotcha. So your answer is that none of those scotus judge scenarios i gave would annoy you. Fascinating. Can't agree.

 

[candycorn]

2020 progressives open to adding justices to the Supreme Court, diminishing conservative majority

Some of the progressives vying for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination have said they’ll consider diminishing the conservative majority on the Supreme Court either by adding more justices or by imposing term limits.

www.washingtontimes.com

Long ago during the reign of FDR the nation experienced the Progressive attack on Constitutional law known as the Court Packing Scheme. Many of you probably have never even heard of it in school because schools only cast a favorable light on Progressives such as FDR, but it happened nonetheless. Essentially, SCOTUS had just struck down FDR's New Deal in many regards and he was pissed out of his mind, so he came up with a scheme to add Supreme Court Justices who would pass his legislation. Luckily, no one else wanted to go along with this blatant attempt to subvert the checks and balances set up by the Founders that stood in FDR's way. And Americans were overwhelmingly against the idea as well. This sort of corruption is what later prompted Congress to act to limit the terms of the President, with FDR who had just achieved his third term.

However, FDR is a Progressive god to Progressives today, and they are wanting to follow in his footsteps by trying to do what he tried to do long ago. The difference today is that you have about half the populace ready to follow the DNC no matter what it does or says, as opposed to Americans back in the 1040's who were aghast at the corruption of FDR and his Court Packing Scheme. Mark my words, once back in power they will attempt this because their agenda is so radical, they will need to rewrite the Constitution with the help of their Supreme Court Justice stooges.

So who here agrees with it?

The reasoning in the article was this:

“We can’t go on like this where every time there’s a vacancy, there’s this apocalyptic ideological battle,” he added.

But how would the ideological battle change with more Supreme Court justices? It makes not sense. Essentially, the battles would rage even more as more and more would need to be appointed.


This sort of thing is what we have to look forward to with a Biden win

I do not.

I do favor expanding the House of Representatives. It should have been done long ago.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The point at which it annoys me when a nominee can't get to the floor, is when a minority of the senate pulls that maneuver. See 2001.

Ah, gotcha. So your answer is that none of those scotus judge scenarios i gave would annoy you. Fascinating. Can't agree.

The difference between you and I on this issue seems to be that you prefer a more active government, while I'd rather that, in times of massive division in the nation's opinions, the government does very little as opposed to taking a hard side and solidifying the divide. That's how you break a nation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The difference between you and I on this issue seems to be that you err on the side that you prefer a more active government

You are the one who is cool with 26 appointments to get the court to 35, when the senate and white house align. Not me. We have established this.

Point being, given that you are cool with all moves by the senate majority, you are begging for some active government. Lots and lots of it. Sometimes they will also have the white house.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The difference between you and I on this issue seems to be that you err on the side that you prefer a more active government

You are the one who is cool with 26 appointments to get the court to 35, when the senate and white house align. Not me. We have established this.

Point being, given that you are cool with all moves by the senate majority, you are begging for some active government. Lots and lots of it. Sometimes they will also have the white house.

I've said many times right here in this thread that I'd like to see the constitution amended to make it extremely difficult to expand federal benches and that I'm not for narrow majorities making power moves, so now you're just talking out of your ass to be argumentative.

If you've got no more actual points to make, I guess we're done here?

 

[OKTexas]

Yeah, keep pushing irrelevant crap, that's all you commies have. The most votes only have relevance in the State where they are cast. But hey at least you admit you wish to destroy the federal system established by our founders.

Yes, a bad system designed by a bunch of dead slave rapists, should always be held as sacred.

The electoral college is a bad system designed by people who never intended for the vast majority to have a say in government to start with. Less than 1% of Americans voted in elections in the time of the Founding Slave Rapists.

The people clearly and loudly said no to Trump. But 68 Million Americans had their voices snuffed out by 306 Political Hacks, and you think it is a good thing.

167,000 Dead, 40 million jobs lost, Riots in the Streets, 33% drop in GDP... the people got this right and the hacks... well, I guess they got what they wanted, but that's another discussion.

Well child, if you think the US is so flawed, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU STILL DOING HERE? Also if you want to repeal the EC, feel free to see Article 5, good fucking luck with that. Until then STFU.

.

 

[OKTexas]

I don't consider a republican senate majority implementing the same level of gridlock against a judicial appointment as a democrat senate minority exercised against multiple judicial appointments prior, to be the underhanded equivalence of shitting on the separation of powers in order to gain a political advantage, no.

You don’t consider denying a President the right to fill a vacancy to be a problem?

ROFLMFAO

Exactly where does that RIGHT exist? He has a RIGHT TO NOMINATE, not fill. That requires the consent of the senate.

.

 

[OKTexas]

You don't seem to understand. If the senate and the presidency are opposed, that means that the nation isn't all on one page, so if SCOTUS appointments don't happen during that time, I don't see that as a travesty of any sort.

Great! No more appointments for any President, if his party doesn't control the Senate. Just as the founding Fathers intended.

That being the case, if a party is fortunate enough control both the Senate and Presidency, they are only smart to expand the court to 35 judges and make 26 appointments. You cool with that?

You stupid people think the president and the senate can decide to expand or contract the court. I doesn't work that way, it takes a legislative package passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president, just like any other law.

.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't consider a republican senate majority implementing the same level of gridlock against a judicial appointment as a democrat senate minority exercised against multiple judicial appointments prior, to be the underhanded equivalence of shitting on the separation of powers in order to gain a political advantage, no.

You don’t consider denying a President the right to fill a vacancy to be a problem?

ROFLMFAO

Exactly where does that RIGHT exist? He has a RIGHT TO NOMINATE, not fill. That requires the consent of the senate.

.

And the Senate refused to allow him to present any candidate.
If they wanted to reject Garland, Obama could have presented another candidate.
Just because they can do something doesn’t mean they should.

Just like packing the court. You realize that Congress CAN do that. Doesnt mean they should.

To me, I would say they shouldn’t. However, if RBG dies and Republicans rush through a replacement as lame ducks.

Do what you gotta do Dems

 

[rightwinger]

it takes a legislative package passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president, just like any other law.

If Biden wins and Dems take the Senate, Dems can change the rules and pack the court.
Republicans would not be allowed to filibuster.

 

[LeftofLeft]

If RBG dies and McConnell rushes an appointment before the election in contradiction of the excuse he used in 2016 the first order of business should be to add two more justices.

Waiting to see what would happen if she dies after Trump has lost the election and Republicans lose the Senate.

I can see Republicans rushing a confirmation in 60 days in a lame duck Congress.

If it happens.......anything goes

What Party - Democrat or Republican - would NOT rush a confirmation in a 60 Day Lame Duck Congress? Please don’t insinuate that Democrats would be the party to concede that “Elections have consequences” and extend the privilege of a SCOTUS nominee to the incoming President.

One need only to review how Democrats act in a SCOTUS nominee process when Republicans are in charge. Democrats pull out all the stops to smear and destroy the nominee’s wife and children if they need to. Democrats are obstructionists.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't consider a republican senate majority implementing the same level of gridlock against a judicial appointment as a democrat senate minority exercised against multiple judicial appointments prior, to be the underhanded equivalence of shitting on the separation of powers in order to gain a political advantage, no.

You don’t consider denying a President the right to fill a vacancy to be a problem?

The president doesn't have the right to "fill vacancies". He has the right and the duty to nominate people for those vacancies, and the senate has the right and duty to confirm or deny those nominations.

Thus, I don't view it as a problem when that president is denied by a senate majority, elected by the American people, who is opposed to his appointments. That's the system working as intended.

In this case, the Republican Senate forced the Supreme Court to function with eight justices for one year. They did not seem that concerned with the magical number 9 then.

So, If Dems decide to up the ante and raise the number to 11, it should be no big deal.

 

[rightwinger]

If RBG dies and McConnell rushes an appointment before the election in contradiction of the excuse he used in 2016 the first order of business should be to add two more justices.

Waiting to see what would happen if she dies after Trump has lost the election and Republicans lose the Senate.

I can see Republicans rushing a confirmation in 60 days in a lame duck Congress.

If it happens.......anything goes

What Party - Democrat or Republican - would NOT rush a confirmation in a 60 Day Lame Duck Congress? Please don’t insinuate that Democrats would be the party to concede that “Elections have consequences” and extend the privilege of a SCOTUS nominee to the incoming President.

One need only to review how Democrats act in a SCOTUS nominee process when Republicans are in charge. Democrats pull out all the stops to smear and destroy the nominee’s wife and children if they need to. Democrats are obstructionists.

Under Obama, the Republicans already declared it inappropriate for a lame duck President to make appointments to SCOTUS for one year.....not just 60 days.

If they reversed themselves, I would support adding additional judges.......just because they can

After all, Elections do have consequences

 

[LeftofLeft]

If RBG dies and McConnell rushes an appointment before the election in contradiction of the excuse he used in 2016 the first order of business should be to add two more justices.

Waiting to see what would happen if she dies after Trump has lost the election and Republicans lose the Senate.

I can see Republicans rushing a confirmation in 60 days in a lame duck Congress.

If it happens.......anything goes

What Party - Democrat or Republican - would NOT rush a confirmation in a 60 Day Lame Duck Congress? Please don’t insinuate that Democrats would be the party to concede that “Elections have consequences” and extend the privilege of a SCOTUS nominee to the incoming President.

One need only to review how Democrats act in a SCOTUS nominee process when Republicans are in charge. Democrats pull out all the stops to smear and destroy the nominee’s wife and children if they need to. Democrats are obstructionists.

Under Obama, the Republicans already declared it inappropriate for a lame duck President to make appointments to SCOTUS for one year.....not just 60 days.

If they reversed themselves, I would support adding additional judges.......just because they can

After all, Elections do have consequences

Like Democrats, Republicans are not without doing what is politically convenient. But, Republicans will cede Court nominee approval in the spirit of “Elections have consequences” way before Democrats will. Further, you don’t see Republicans trying to radically change the rules expeditiously like watering down by expanding the size of the court.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans will eventually get over the Dems packing the courts.
Just like Democrats forgive and forgot Merrick Garland

 

[rightwinger]

you don’t see Republicans trying to radically change the rules expeditiously like watering down by expanding the size of the court.

Republicans did radically change the rules by leaving the Court with a vacant seat for a year and expanding the Nuclear Option to the Supreme Court.

Packing the Court is just the next step in Tit for Tat