Who here favors expanding the Supreme Court?

[JoeB131]

/----/ "Trump didn't get the most votes in the election. "
Hey dummy, the popular vote is a meaningless statistic when it comes to voting for president.

Then his presidency is also meaningless in the obligation of the people to respect it.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

under the Constitution, the number of Supreme Court Justices is not fixed, and Congress can change it by passing an act that is then signed by the President. Article III, Section 1, starts with a broad direction to Congress to establish the court system: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

Packing the Supreme Court explained | Constitution Center

Senator Marco Rubio plans to propose a new constitutional amendment to permanently limit the Supreme Court to nine Justices. While Rubio faces a difficult task, the effort does raise some questions.

constitutioncenter.org

No reason Dems shouldn’t pack the Courts if they can.

You realize that if parties start doing this every time they don't like the court balance, it's only a matter of time until a senate and president of the same party pack the courts and use judicial activism to lock down permanent authority? When you ask for this precedent, you're begging for the fast track to an ACTUAL oligarchy, not the hipster definition of oligarchy that means "the guys I voted for didn't win".

 

[JoeB131]

You realize that if parties start doing this every time they don't like the court balance, it's only a matter of time until a senate and president of the same party pack the courts and use judicial activism to lock down permanent authority? When you ask for this precedent, you're begging for the fast track to an ACTUAL oligarchy, not the hipster definition of oligarchy that means "the guys I voted for didn't win".

Well, there isn't going to be any Republican Presidents after Trump, so I'm not worried about it. After we expand voting rights to all people, admit PR and DC as states, and old the angry old racists die off, the GOP isn't going to exist beyond a regional party.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Wow. You honestly believe that appointment games started with Garland not getting hearings?

Rewind a couple administrations, George W. Bush was the first president to have one of his judicial nominations blocked by filibuster. I'm pretty well certain that wasn't where the arms race started, either. I'm equally certain that you couldn't tell me where it did, and yet here you are telling me with all confidence that republicans started it. Lol.

I'm sorry, when did this happen?

There wasn't a filibuster for Alito. That motion was defeated 72-25. What DID happen was before Bush appointed Alito, he tried to appoint a sensible moderate in Harriet Meyers, and the Flying Monkey Right lost their ******* minds...

George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Go read up on W's nominees in general. The Dems did some GAMING during his presidency. Garland wasn't shit compared to what he had to put up with, and that's even when the Republicans had the numbers in the senate.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

You realize that if parties start doing this every time they don't like the court balance, it's only a matter of time until a senate and president of the same party pack the courts and use judicial activism to lock down permanent authority? When you ask for this precedent, you're begging for the fast track to an ACTUAL oligarchy, not the hipster definition of oligarchy that means "the guys I voted for didn't win".

Well, there isn't going to be any Republican Presidents after Trump, so I'm not worried about it. After we expand voting rights to all people, admit PR and DC as states, and old the angry old racists die off, the GOP isn't going to exist beyond a regional party.

Lol. You think you want a one party system, because you're too partisan to think clearly. Single party stagnation leads to Detroit. You don't want to live in the United States of Detroit.

Fortunately, I'm pretty sure that your confidence in the alleged momentum of leftist politics is overblown to comical degrees, so you'll likely never have to suffer the consequences of your wish being granted.

 

[rightwinger]

under the Constitution, the number of Supreme Court Justices is not fixed, and Congress can change it by passing an act that is then signed by the President. Article III, Section 1, starts with a broad direction to Congress to establish the court system: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

Packing the Supreme Court explained | Constitution Center

Senator Marco Rubio plans to propose a new constitutional amendment to permanently limit the Supreme Court to nine Justices. While Rubio faces a difficult task, the effort does raise some questions.

constitutioncenter.org

No reason Dems shouldn’t pack the Courts if they can.

You realize that if parties start doing this every time they don't like the court balance, it's only a matter of time until a senate and president of the same party pack the courts and use judicial activism to lock down permanent authority? When you ask for this precedent, you're begging for the fast track to an ACTUAL oligarchy, not the hipster definition of oligarchy that means "the guys I voted for didn't win".

Who cares?

Let the Republicans win both Houses of Congress and the Presidency and they can do it.

Seems fair

 

[rightwinger]

Wow. You honestly believe that appointment games started with Garland not getting hearings?

Rewind a couple administrations, George W. Bush was the first president to have one of his judicial nominations blocked by filibuster. I'm pretty well certain that wasn't where the arms race started, either. I'm equally certain that you couldn't tell me where it did, and yet here you are telling me with all confidence that republicans started it. Lol.

I'm sorry, when did this happen?

There wasn't a filibuster for Alito. That motion was defeated 72-25. What DID happen was before Bush appointed Alito, he tried to appoint a sensible moderate in Harriet Meyers, and the Flying Monkey Right lost their ******* minds...

George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Go read up on W's nominees in general. The Dems did some GAMING during his presidency. Garland wasn't shit compared to what he had to put up with, and that's even when the Republicans had the numbers in the senate.

Bush was allowed to fill a vacancy. Obama was not.

Pack the Courts

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ "Trump didn't get the most votes in the election. "
Hey dummy, the popular vote is a meaningless statistic when it comes to voting for president.

Then his presidency is also meaningless in the obligation of the people to respect it.

/----/ Dems never have an issue with the EC until they lose an election.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans had no objection to having 8 justices on the Court for a year.

Why should they object to 11?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

You all cheered when Obama reminded conservatives that "elections have consequences". Yet as soon as YOU don't like the consequences, you turn the game board over and scatter the checkers all over the floor.

The difference is, Trump didn't get the most votes in the election. The people said no. Loudly. Clearly.

So, yeah, maybe it's time to scatter the checkers all over the floor when you realize the other side has been cheating all along.

Trump won the EC, which is how our nation's laws dictate that we elect presidents. It's not cheating just because you don't like the rules.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Wow. You honestly believe that appointment games started with Garland not getting hearings?

Rewind a couple administrations, George W. Bush was the first president to have one of his judicial nominations blocked by filibuster. I'm pretty well certain that wasn't where the arms race started, either. I'm equally certain that you couldn't tell me where it did, and yet here you are telling me with all confidence that republicans started it. Lol.

I'm sorry, when did this happen?

There wasn't a filibuster for Alito. That motion was defeated 72-25. What DID happen was before Bush appointed Alito, he tried to appoint a sensible moderate in Harriet Meyers, and the Flying Monkey Right lost their ******* minds...

George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Go read up on W's nominees in general. The Dems did some GAMING during his presidency. Garland wasn't shit compared to what he had to put up with, and that's even when the Republicans had the numbers in the senate.

Bush was allowed to fill a vacancy. Obama was not.

Pack the Courts

Translation: Your argument is inconvenient. I'm going to ignore it.

 

[CowboyTed]

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 is a unique situation because Trump was an illegitimate President who got two appointments he didn't deserve...

Of course, we could just wait for Uncle Thomas to retire, and then it will be 5-4 liberals (assuming that Ginsburg survives long enough to get Trump out of office.)

I do think we should do additional reforms. When the Constitution was written, nobody thought we'd have a court with 2/3rds of its members past retirement age.

So we should limit these guys to a 20 year term, with forced retirements of one a year until we get everyone under 20 years. (That means, force the retirements of Uncle Thomas in 2021, Ginsburg in 2022, Bryer in 2023, before we have Roberts retire in 2025, and then everyone else, 20 years after they were first appointed.

We should also require a 2/3rd majority in the Senate to appoint a Supreme Court Justice so we don't get hyper-partisans.

I would increase to 10 with one sitting out at any time....

20 year terms with one appointment every 2 years or 2 every 4 years...

 

[rightwinger]

Wow. You honestly believe that appointment games started with Garland not getting hearings?

Rewind a couple administrations, George W. Bush was the first president to have one of his judicial nominations blocked by filibuster. I'm pretty well certain that wasn't where the arms race started, either. I'm equally certain that you couldn't tell me where it did, and yet here you are telling me with all confidence that republicans started it. Lol.

I'm sorry, when did this happen?

There wasn't a filibuster for Alito. That motion was defeated 72-25. What DID happen was before Bush appointed Alito, he tried to appoint a sensible moderate in Harriet Meyers, and the Flying Monkey Right lost their ******* minds...

George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Go read up on W's nominees in general. The Dems did some GAMING during his presidency. Garland wasn't shit compared to what he had to put up with, and that's even when the Republicans had the numbers in the senate.

Bush was allowed to fill a vacancy. Obama was not.

Pack the Courts

Translation: Your argument is inconvenient. I'm going to ignore it.

The process worked. Bush offered a candidate that was rejected and he was allowed to pick another.

Republicans refused to vote up or down on Garland and Obama was not allowed to fill the seat

 

[rightwinger]

Let Dems increase the number of seats to 11 if they want to.
If Republicans think there should be 9, they can change it back when they are in power.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems tried to lynch Clarence Thomas then Biden and Kennedy made Anita Hill make up phony sexual harassment charges, they lied about Bork, lied about Kavanuagh and implemented the Biden, Schumer, Reid strategies on SCOTUS and have reaped the whirlwind; Schumer even threatened SCOTUS with violence.

If you cannot live by the rules set forth in the Constitution maybe you need to find another country

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let Dems increase the number of seats to 11 if they want to.
If Republicans think there should be 9, they can change it back when they are in power.

Trump should increase it to 11 today, right?

 

[easyt65]

Expanding? No.

 

[rightwinger]

Let Dems increase the number of seats to 11 if they want to.
If Republicans think there should be 9, they can change it back when they are in power.

Trump should increase it to 11 today, right?

If he has the House and Senate, he should try
Takes all of Congress

 

[JoeB131]

Go read up on W's nominees in general. The Dems did some GAMING during his presidency. Garland wasn't shit compared to what he had to put up with, and that's even when the Republicans had the numbers in the senate.

I lived through it. Bush got both of his nominees, and the only pushback he got was on Harriet Meyers, FROM HIS OWN PARTY.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Wow. You honestly believe that appointment games started with Garland not getting hearings?

Rewind a couple administrations, George W. Bush was the first president to have one of his judicial nominations blocked by filibuster. I'm pretty well certain that wasn't where the arms race started, either. I'm equally certain that you couldn't tell me where it did, and yet here you are telling me with all confidence that republicans started it. Lol.

I'm sorry, when did this happen?

There wasn't a filibuster for Alito. That motion was defeated 72-25. What DID happen was before Bush appointed Alito, he tried to appoint a sensible moderate in Harriet Meyers, and the Flying Monkey Right lost their ******* minds...

George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Go read up on W's nominees in general. The Dems did some GAMING during his presidency. Garland wasn't shit compared to what he had to put up with, and that's even when the Republicans had the numbers in the senate.

Bush was allowed to fill a vacancy. Obama was not.

Pack the Courts

Translation: Your argument is inconvenient. I'm going to ignore it.

The process worked. Bush offered a candidate that was rejected and he was allowed to pick another.

Republicans refused to vote up or down on Garland and Obama was not allowed to fill the seat

When they filibustered Bush's appointments, they never came up for vote. Votes that they had the numbers to win, confirmed. Those were the rules at the time, so yeah, the process worked.

Just like those were the rules with Garland, and the process worked there, too.