U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-18-2019, 08:24 AM
 
Location: The Woodlands, TX
1,298 posts, read 665,536 times
Reputation: 857

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by remco67 View Post
This it reminds me of when i was a kid I used to play board games. There was alway one person who wanted to argue to change a rule when it would benefit them, even though we had played that way for years. Nobody liked playing with that guy and they just couldn't understand why.
Good analogy.

Hey... when ya aren't winning, change the rules!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-18-2019, 08:28 AM
 
1,293 posts, read 259,056 times
Reputation: 1152
Only if they do it now and all the new justices are seated before the 2020 election.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2019, 08:44 AM
 
8,644 posts, read 4,660,272 times
Reputation: 2007
Would less ne better then more or more better then less

Because someone did mention an interesting Statement. With less does the law become an individuals own personal opinion and laws are more susceptible to bias. With more is the law less susceptible to personal bias and personal opinions are pushed back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2019, 08:52 AM
Status: "It is the nature of grotesque things you canít look away" (set 29 days ago)
 
Location: Old Hippie Heaven
17,994 posts, read 8,120,965 times
Reputation: 10436
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunD1987 View Post
Agree or disagree?

Would you be in favor of this: Currently 9 Justices on the Supreme Court.

Expanding it to 15 the 6 would be picked by 2 of the President's choice and go through the same rigamaroo as they have now. Republicans represented by Republicans from House and Senate would pick 2. The Democrats would pick 2.

Then pass a new law that there has to be 11, 13, or 15 Justices on the Supreme Court.
Actually, I wouldn't be in favor. There's room for a sufficiently wide range of opinions on the court as it is. And when it comes to collegiality, I think that expanding the court would make it harder. Anyone who's ever tried to get something done by committee knows exactly what I'm talking bout.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2019, 09:15 AM
 
4,207 posts, read 823,033 times
Reputation: 1829
Since I often associate courts with the 12-person jury even though I know that not all courts will have that many, I think maybe 12 might be a better number.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2019, 09:30 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
4,760 posts, read 6,409,050 times
Reputation: 5237
There is no need to expand the Supreme Court, it is only desire to change a political leaning of the court to suit a particular agenda. To take a phrase from a former President; elections have consequences.



Anyone who can't see this is nothing more than an attempt to advance a political agenda is blind or willfully ignoring what this is about. The same with abolishing the Electoral College. A certain group is not happy with the way an election turned out, so they want to change the rules to benefit themselves. You'd think they would learn from their rule-changing in the past and realize it might not be such a good idea. Harry Reid comes to mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2019, 10:30 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,168 posts, read 33,583,941 times
Reputation: 14144
A constitutional court not based upon the words and sentences in the constitution. The Supreme Courts since 1916, have based rulings off Precedence Law, instead of Constitutional Law. Additional language has been added to the Constitution through legislation that has been allowed to stand under Marxist Judges as a majority on the bench in the past.


Rarely is a previous ruling overturned by future decisions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2019, 07:47 AM
 
Location: Whereever we have our RV parked
8,668 posts, read 7,634,820 times
Reputation: 14830
If the OP thinks this is such a good idea, I wonder if they would like the law changed in time for Trump to appoint all the new justices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2019, 08:02 AM
 
Location: alexandria, VA
9,169 posts, read 4,266,135 times
Reputation: 5151
FDR already tried it. It was a non-starter then. It's a non-starter now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:27 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top