Who here favors expanding the Supreme Court?

[rightwinger]

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 support it...but in the way Mayor Pete described doing it.

He proposes 5 justices named by each of the parties then another 5 named by the justices themselves.

Increasing the numbers of justices does NOTHING about the fact that they are still political stooges with way too much power.

We the People will decide how much political power each party has

 

[rightwinger]

You know, when you had only said it twice, I really questioned the wisdom of your claim.

Now that you've repeated that claim a third time, however, everything seems so new and different. Thank you.

I doubt it, you guys often live in your own reality. You know, the reality that Dubya Bush knew what he was doing and Democrats were being mean to him.

Democrats cooperated with Bush
Republicans haven’t cooperated since

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is no time limit that equates a senate majority stopping up a president's nominations with packing the supreme court.

Yes, I already covered that. No need to repeat my own points back to me.

Setting this precedent gives the potential, every time one party takes the presidency and the senate, for that party to completely bypass all constitutional bounds. You're talking about setting up an actual, literal oligarchy with unlimited power over the citizenry.

I sure am! No Trump appointments in his second term at all, then, when Democrats take power, expand the court to 17 and appoint 8 liberal judges.

Cool?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

So, how about 2 years? 3 years? No second term appointments? these are pretty straightforward questions.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

You know, when you had only said it twice, I really questioned the wisdom of your claim.

Now that you've repeated that claim a third time, however, everything seems so new and different. Thank you.

I doubt it, you guys often live in your own reality. You know, the reality that Dubya Bush knew what he was doing and Democrats were being mean to him.

Democrats cooperated with Bush
Republicans haven’t cooperated since

Democrats might have cooperated on Bush's SCOTUS appointments, but on his judicial appointments prior to that point, they had already established that, even though they were a minority in the senate, they'd go so far as to use the filibuster to stop up any appointments they didn't like. Bush was already hopping through hoops by the time he nominated Alito and Roberts.

As far as that filibuster. . . first time in American history a senate MINORITY stopped up the president's judicial nominations. If you think that had nothing to do with who Bush decided to nominate for SCOTUS in the first place, you're dreaming.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

So, how about 2 years? 3 years? No second term appointments? these are pretty straightforward questions.

All 4 if the conversations go that way.

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. When the nation doesn't agree on where to go, perhaps it's better that government slows down until a more solid consensus can be formed.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

There is no time limit that equates a senate majority stopping up a president's nominations with packing the supreme court.

Yes, I already covered that. No need to repeat my own points back to me.

Setting this precedent gives the potential, every time one party takes the presidency and the senate, for that party to completely bypass all constitutional bounds. You're talking about setting up an actual, literal oligarchy with unlimited power over the citizenry.

I sure am! No Trump appointments in his second term at all, then, when Democrats take power, expand the court to 17 and appoint 8 liberal judges.

Cool?

If the senate gets taken by the democrats but Trump wins a second term, I'm willing to bet that it will ABSOLUTELY go that way, and though I'll disagree with the politics of it, that will be the system working as intended. If the people don't put a senate majority in there that matches the president's views, then that president should either have to nominate someone acceptable to the opposing party, or fuck off if he doesn't like how they vote.

As far as expanding the court to create instant majorities, no that I'm not cool with. That enables any party that takes the presidency and the senate at the same time, to establish the ability to pass ANY policy. Setting the precedent of packing the court to create those instant majorities guarantees that we'll spiral into ACTUAL dictatorship, and not just some guy who you don't like getting elected.

Lastly, I wasn't repeating your point back to you. Look at the quotes you cut out of the box. You literally asked me a question and I answered it. Using selective quotes to artificially create opportunities for condescension is about as sad as it gets, man. Do better.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If the senate gets taken by the democrats but Trump wins a second term, I'm willing to bet that it will ABSOLUTELY go that way

Oh, I certainly hope so. These things only really change once the Republicans end up on the short end of the sticks they created themselves. Once the Good Old Boy crying begins, shit happens.

 

[justinacolmena]

the corruption of FDR and his Court Packing Scheme

I don't doubt it for a minute. Democrat court-packers have completely disregarded the 2nd Amendment. The National Firearms Act of 1934, still on the books of U.S. Code, enforced to the last jot and tittle, along with the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 and the Gun Control Act of 1968, especially with the heinously outrageous mental health provisions twisted far beyond the letter of the law by constructivist judges.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

If the senate gets taken by the democrats but Trump wins a second term, I'm willing to bet that it will ABSOLUTELY go that way

Oh, I certainly hope so. These things only really change once the Republicans end up on the short end of the sticks they created themselves. Once the Good Old Boy crying begins, shit happens.

Lol! You live in a f'in fantasy world if you think it's one sided.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You live in a f'in fantasy world if you think it's one sided.

I didn't say or imply it was one sided. I said that, once it happens to Republicans and they start whining, that's when the shit gets changed. trust me, I am encouraging the Democrats to use every underhanded tactic possible. If the republicans get swept out on their lily white asses, THEN you will start to see changes on gerrymandering, SCOTUS judges, etc. And that can only be good.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If the senate gets taken by the democrats but Trump wins a second term, I'm willing to bet that it will ABSOLUTELY go that way

Oh, I certainly hope so. These things only really change once the Republicans end up on the short end of the sticks they created themselves. Once the Good Old Boy crying begins, shit happens.

Lol! You live in a f'in fantasy world if you think it's one sided.

And I am pleased to hear you say you are totally cool with the Dems allowing no more Trump SCOTUS appointments.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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?

I think that actually WAS the intention. The reason that we have a constitution at all and not just a pure democratic system is ostensibly because the founders were aware that tyranny can come from a majority vote.

You remember how you lefties loved it when SCOTUS declared gay marriage legal? Do you recall how you democrats defended using the courts to move that along despite a number of democratic votes in various states going against it? Try to keep in mind that there are plenty of times when just carrying out the will of the narrow majority would lead to horrific oppression, and not just against evil right wingers.

If the people put a senate in office that doesn't agree with the president, then that president should absolutely have to nominate people acceptable to that opposition. This isn't an autocracy.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

You live in a f'in fantasy world if you think it's one sided.

I didn't say or imply it was one sided. I said that, once it happens to Republicans and they start whining, that's when the shit gets changed. trust me, I am encouraging the Democrats to use every underhanded tactic possible. If the republicans get swept out on their lily white asses, THEN you will start to see changes on gerrymandering, SCOTUS judges, etc. And that can only be good.

Oh yeah, one party shoring things up so that the other party can never get elected again would be GREAT. Long term single party rule does wonders everywhere you have it! You're not just making politically rabid, horrifically shortsighted proposals out of partisan frustration and barefaced tribalism at all!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I think that actually WAS the intention. The reason that we have a constitution at all and not just a pure democratic system is ostensibly because the founders were aware that tyranny can come from a majority vote.

That doesn't make sense, since the majority Senate control, coupled with a same party president, could do exactly the tyranny you were just complaining about.

If the people put a senate in office that doesn't agree with the president, then that president should absolutely have to nominate people acceptable to that opposition.

This isn't about nominating someone acceptable to the Senate. Every SCOTUS appointment in history has been that. So you are saying virtually nothing relevant whatsoever. This is about letting the President event truly nominate a judge.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh yeah, one party shoring things up so that the other party can never get elected again would be GREAT.

It would not be great.

But it would break no rules. Gerrymandering so that republicans have to get, on average, about 60% more votes to win an individual election? Legal. Expanding the court to 35 judges? Legal.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I think that actually WAS the intention. The reason that we have a constitution at all and not just a pure democratic system is ostensibly because the founders were aware that tyranny can come from a majority vote.

That doesn't make sense, since the majority Senate control, coupled with a same party president, could do exactly the tyranny you were just complaining about.

If the people put a senate in office that doesn't agree with the president, then that president should absolutely have to nominate people acceptable to that opposition.

This isn't about nominating someone acceptable to the Senate. Every SCOTUS appointment in history has been that. So you are saying virtually nothing relevant whatsoever. This is about letting the President event truly nominate a judge.

Nuance, kid, nuance. Of course you're not going to completely stop tyranny with a check and balance system, but it's obviously designed to mitigate the opportunity for it. Seriously, why even bother having a senate confirmation process if they're not meant to be able to deny appointments? The idea is OBVIOUSLY to force the executive and legislative branches to cooperate on those appointments for them to happen.

And this IS about nominating someone acceptable to the senate. Every judge that's actually been confirmed has been that, because they HAVE to be that to be confirmed. The president being able to nominate whoever they want was NEVER the intent, and would be a stupid ass idea. It would make create a situation where the executive branch had de facto control over the judicial. You don't want that.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Oh yeah, one party shoring things up so that the other party can never get elected again would be GREAT.

It would not be great.

But it would break no rules. Gerrymandering so that republicans have to get, on average, about 60% more votes to win an individual election? Legal. Expanding the court to 35 judges? Legal.

I've conceded, in this very thread, MANY TIMES, that there is nothing explicitly forbidding court packing. I'll do it three more times, and then I'm simply going to ignore you every time you repeat this point.

There is nothing explicitly forbidding court packing.

There is nothing explicitly forbidding court packing.

There is nothing explicitly forbidding court packing.

There. Move on.