Who here favors expanding the Supreme Court?

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
43,499
Reaction score
4,837
Points
1,870

Nosmo King

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
25,553
Reaction score
6,639
Points
290
Location
Buckle of the Rust Belt
No... and no more lifetime appointments. 8 years max.
Do you support the constitution?
The constitution that has been amended several times? That constitution?
So the constitution is a document you could take or leave.
I clearly implied it is a document we can change, through due process. No need to immediately go full dishonest creeper.
Doesn't the constitution provide explicitly life time appointments for Supreme Court justices?
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
43,499
Reaction score
4,837
Points
1,870
No... and no more lifetime appointments. 8 years max.
Do you support the constitution?
The constitution that has been amended several times? That constitution?
So the constitution is a document you could take or leave.
I clearly implied it is a document we can change, through due process. No need to immediately go full dishonest creeper.
Doesn't the constitution provide explicitly life time appointments for Supreme Court justices?
I am not your assistant. If you have a point, make it.
 

Nosmo King

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
25,553
Reaction score
6,639
Points
290
Location
Buckle of the Rust Belt
No... and no more lifetime appointments. 8 years max.
Do you support the constitution?
The constitution that has been amended several times? That constitution?
So the constitution is a document you could take or leave.
I clearly implied it is a document we can change, through due process. No need to immediately go full dishonest creeper.
Doesn't the constitution provide explicitly life time appointments for Supreme Court justices?
I am not your assistant. If you have a point, make it.
You jumped into my response to 007. He said no life time appointments to SCOTUS. He wants an eight year term.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
43,499
Reaction score
4,837
Points
1,870
No... and no more lifetime appointments. 8 years max.
Do you support the constitution?
The constitution that has been amended several times? That constitution?
So the constitution is a document you could take or leave.
I clearly implied it is a document we can change, through due process. No need to immediately go full dishonest creeper.
Doesn't the constitution provide explicitly life time appointments for Supreme Court justices?
I am not your assistant. If you have a point, make it.
You jumped into my response to 007. He said no life time appointments to SCOTUS. He wants an eight year term.
Right. He wants to change the rules.
 

22lcidw

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
12,943
Reaction score
3,099
Points
275
the Biden Plan.
Now the Biden Plan is to Stack the Courts
Whatever works, that is our new court system
Whether people admit it or not most of them are right of center. That is a fair assessment. Unfortunately there has been shenanigans in the Court system for many decades. A died in the wool Prog will be that. A so called conservative seems to be a roll of the dice. I believe we have been snookered as voters if you are a true Dem and not a Prog, or a Republican.
 

Nosmo King

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
25,553
Reaction score
6,639
Points
290
Location
Buckle of the Rust Belt
No... and no more lifetime appointments. 8 years max.
Do you support the constitution?
The constitution that has been amended several times? That constitution?
So the constitution is a document you could take or leave.
I clearly implied it is a document we can change, through due process. No need to immediately go full dishonest creeper.
Doesn't the constitution provide explicitly life time appointments for Supreme Court justices?
I am not your assistant. If you have a point, make it.
You jumped into my response to 007. He said no life time appointments to SCOTUS. He wants an eight year term.
Right. He wants to change the rules.
President for life? One term senators? What’s next in the power grab?
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
43,499
Reaction score
4,837
Points
1,870
No... and no more lifetime appointments. 8 years max.
Do you support the constitution?
The constitution that has been amended several times? That constitution?
So the constitution is a document you could take or leave.
I clearly implied it is a document we can change, through due process. No need to immediately go full dishonest creeper.
Doesn't the constitution provide explicitly life time appointments for Supreme Court justices?
I am not your assistant. If you have a point, make it.
You jumped into my response to 007. He said no life time appointments to SCOTUS. He wants an eight year term.
Right. He wants to change the rules.
President for life? One term senators? What’s next in the power grab?
How is it a power grab? Everyone would play by the same rules. The power grab was refusing to let a sitting president appoint a scotus judge, knowing it is a lifetime appointment.
 
OP
Votto

Votto

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
24,759
Reaction score
6,838
Points
280

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
No keep it at nine. almost 3/4 of the senate in 1937 was Democrat and FDR ran into a brick wall.
But this is not 1937. This is a Congress full of radical, hateful brain dead Left wing demagogues like AOC who will vote for it.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
210,313
Reaction score
36,879
Points
2,190
How is it a power grab? Everyone would play by the same rules. The power grab was refusing to let a sitting president appoint a scotus judge, knowing it is a lifetime appointment.
Outstanding
Conservatives panicked after controlling SCOTUS for 30 years
They would do anything to keep Liberals from controlling the court
 

Dick Foster

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2018
Messages
7,272
Reaction score
3,651
Points
1,065
Location
The People's Republic of the Californicated

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
Im n9t. We have e enough gubberment assholes sucking the taxpayer tit as it is. In fact we have too damn many of em now. Adding more just adds more idiocy to an already idiotic situation.
 

Not2BSubjugated

Callous Individualist
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
3,236
Reaction score
1,175
Points
200
Location
In a mysanthropic malaise
I want it expanded by one (1, liberals) so long as the new Justice is ME! Yeah, I know an even number produces a tie which equates to gridlock. Remember Rule #1 of minimizing government: A gridlocked government can't do any further harm.
Our system is designed around the three branches of government checking and balancing each other. If you leave two branches alone and cripple the third branch, you haven't minimized opportunity for corruption, you've expanded it.
 

Not2BSubjugated

Callous Individualist
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
3,236
Reaction score
1,175
Points
200
Location
In a mysanthropic malaise
No... and no more lifetime appointments. 8 years max.
Do you support the constitution?
The constitution that has been amended several times? That constitution?
So the constitution is a document you could take or leave.
I clearly implied it is a document we can change, through due process. No need to immediately go full dishonest creeper.
Doesn't the constitution provide explicitly life time appointments for Supreme Court justices?
I am not your assistant. If you have a point, make it.
You jumped into my response to 007. He said no life time appointments to SCOTUS. He wants an eight year term.
Right. He wants to change the rules.
President for life? One term senators? What’s next in the power grab?
How is it a power grab? Everyone would play by the same rules. The power grab was refusing to let a sitting president appoint a scotus judge, knowing it is a lifetime appointment.
That wasn't a power grab. The constitution already granted the senate the power to confirm or deny, and the voters put a republican majority in the senate. The power that they exercised was given to them by those two entities in the traditional manner, and represented no new increase in the senate's potential influence.

A power grab is when an entity grants themselves NEW powers, not when they simply exercise the ones they've always had.
 

Natural Citizen

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
11,513
Reaction score
4,275
Points
390
I'd rather see the state justice departments assume jurisdiction.
Not a bad idea. Why do we need a federal SC when states already have their own?
Because there are federal laws and a federal government. We're a single nation, not a collection of nations.
We are a compound Republic. A federated system of Republics. See Federalist #51. And #45 for further clarity. The Federalist is widely understood to be the blueprint and authority for the Constitution for the United States.



Additionally...


Greater Quantity of Power Retained by Each State...

By far the greater quantity and variety of power was retained by the government of each State when the United States Constitution was framed and adopted in 1787-1788. Only a comparatively small part of each State's power was delegated by its people to the new central, or Federal, government--chiefly the powers concerning "war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce" (per The Federalist, number 45 by Madison). This delegated-power government--the central Republic--was granted few and limited powers; while each State's government is a full-power Republic under the State Constitution, subject to its restrictions, also to that grant, and to the few restrictions specified expressly in the United States Constitution as applying to the governments of the States.

Snipped from my digital copy of
The American Ideal of 1776 (The Twelve Basic American Principles)


 

Not2BSubjugated

Callous Individualist
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
3,236
Reaction score
1,175
Points
200
Location
In a mysanthropic malaise
That wasn't a power grab.
It, of course, was. The power they grabbed was a SCOTUS judge that should have been appointed by Obama.
Okay, I see what you did there.

Normally, when people say "power grab", they're talking about some underhanded way of consolidating power. When you say it here, you're simply referring to ANY maneuver that gains an advantage for one party or the other.

Fair enough, but that means that you're trying to draw an equivalency between a power grab done according to existing rules and tradition, and a power grab that involves underhanded bullshit. You're strongly implying that you place importance only on the power gained or lost, and no importance on the methods used to gain it.

I gotta hand it to you, that's progressive AF.
 

Not2BSubjugated

Callous Individualist
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
3,236
Reaction score
1,175
Points
200
Location
In a mysanthropic malaise
I'd rather see the state justice departments assume jurisdiction.
Not a bad idea. Why do we need a federal SC when states already have their own?
Because there are federal laws and a federal government. We're a single nation, not a collection of nations.
We are a compound Republic. A federated system of Republics. See Federalist #51. And #45 for further clarity. The Federalist is widely understood to be the blueprint and authority for the Constitution for the United States.



Additionally...


Greater Quantity of Power Retained by Each State...

By far the greater quantity and variety of power was retained by the government of each State when the United States Constitution was framed and adopted in 1787-1788. Only a comparatively small part of each State's power was delegated by its people to the new central, or Federal, government--chiefly the powers concerning "war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce" (per The Federalist, number 45 by Madison). This delegated-power government--the central Republic--was granted few and limited powers; while each State's government is a full-power Republic under the State Constitution, subject to its restrictions, also to that grant, and to the few restrictions specified expressly in the United States Constitution as applying to the governments of the States.

Snipped from my digital copy of
The American Ideal of 1776 (The Twelve Basic American Principles)


So we agree. Good.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
210,313
Reaction score
36,879
Points
2,190
That wasn't a power grab. The constitution already granted the senate the power to confirm or deny, and the voters put a republican majority in the senate.
if that is the case, then a Democratically elected Congress that adds seats to the courts is not a power grab
 

Not2BSubjugated

Callous Individualist
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
3,236
Reaction score
1,175
Points
200
Location
In a mysanthropic malaise
That wasn't a power grab. The constitution already granted the senate the power to confirm or deny, and the voters put a republican majority in the senate.
if that is the case, then a Democratically elected Congress that adds seats to the courts is not a power grab
I won't deny that you have an argument, there, as there's no law explicitly forbidding it.

Whether or not one buys that argument depends on the importance that one places on the tradition of not resorting to breaking the system in order to gain advantage therein, in the absence of rules preventing such a move, and in comparison to breaking those actual rules.

Admittedly, this does expose a bit of a hole in my logic, and I appreciate that. Clearly this doesn't all fit as neatly into my own moral framework as I'd previously figured. Thanks for pointing that out.
 
Last edited:

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top