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 Today, 11:33 AM
 
Location: Sonoran Desert
29,505 posts, read 39,978,544 times
Reputation: 18908

Advertisements

We need a bigger court - 15 justices at least to minimize the ability of one party to politicize the court during a brief period of power.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 11:36 AM
 
1,129 posts, read 198,140 times
Reputation: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judici...m_Bill_of_1937
The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 (frequently called the "court-packing plan") was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Roosevelt's purpose was to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the court had ruled unconstitutional.

The leftist fanatics always try the same tactics.

When their batter swings at three pitches and misses them all, the Leftists don't simply agree that he's out and return him to the dugout.

They don't even try to change the rules to say that a batter is allowed five strikes instead of three. This would at least provide lipservice to the concept of "The Rule of Law". Or it would if they weren't trying to do it in the middle of the game, as they always do.

Instead, they try to replace the umpire with one who will rule that the first strike wasn't really a strike because the ball was outside the strike zone even though their batter swung at it, and the second was thrown by a white pitcher and so wasn't a legitimate pitch or something. In other words, they will replace the umpire with a complete loon who doesn't care what the rule book says, and will rule in their favor no matter what actually happens on the field.

It's exactly what FDR tried to do, pretending some of the justices couldn't make rational decisions because they were too old.

But the Leftists don't dare use this argument (justices too old) with Ruth Bader Ginsburg sleeping her way through hearing after hearing. All they can come up with now, is "We don't like your decisions so we want to throw you out or overrule them regardless of what the Constitution says!"
You post is literally explaining how Republicans approach the situation, change the umpires when you don't like the calls, regardless of the validity of the ruling. Just lie, cheat, and steal your way to the change. And change the rules as you go to make it happen. I find both distasteful and always ends the same regardless of which party attempts it.

One party will get a minor SINGLE victory (Don't have to make cakes for gay folks) and cheer while we get 5 Citizen United type rulings that jerk over the American people. Your both doing it wrong political parties.


It is clear to me the Justices (Thomas, he goes party line even if its not constitutionally sound and maybe Ginsburg) are swayed by public sentiment much more than political sentiment, look at gay marriage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:15 PM
 
Location: Starting a walkabout
1,949 posts, read 952,929 times
Reputation: 2077
Quote:
Originally Posted by camaro69 View Post
Is it me or does it sound like the Dems are threatening the SCOTUS?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~

Several high-profile Senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court in pointed terms this week that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to "heal" the court in the near future.

The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court's conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction which must be remedied.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sen...-restructuring

So 5 idiots with no power over the SC justices are writing a letter with no teeth. I doubt those justices would even use the paper as TP.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:18 PM
 
11,687 posts, read 2,885,432 times
Reputation: 5399
Demwits never learned how to lose gracefully
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:19 PM
 
Location: Upstate NY 🇺🇸
36,080 posts, read 10,710,516 times
Reputation: 34283
Quote:
Originally Posted by camaro69 View Post
Is it me or does it sound like the Dems are threatening the SCOTUS?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~

Several high-profile Senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court in pointed terms this week that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to "heal" the court in the near future.

The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court's conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction which must be remedied.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sen...-restructuring

LMAO They're "high profile" Democrats?

Okay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:20 PM
 
Location: Upstate NY 🇺🇸
36,080 posts, read 10,710,516 times
Reputation: 34283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa View Post
We need a bigger court - 15 justices at least to minimize the ability of one party to politicize the court during a brief period of power.

That's ridiculous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:22 PM
 
11,687 posts, read 2,885,432 times
Reputation: 5399
I've noticed that whenever Demwits try to rig the system to favor themselves it always backfires on them. They can't think long term.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:24 PM
 
Location: under the bridge
3,985 posts, read 1,681,672 times
Reputation: 4752
Pack.

The.

Court.



Look at all these right-wingers crying because they don't understand checks and balances
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:28 PM
 
Location: East Lansing, MI
9,089 posts, read 8,043,628 times
Reputation: 3868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delahanty View Post
That's ridiculous.


Why is it ridiculous?


What about 11? 13?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:30 PM
 
24,573 posts, read 12,125,766 times
Reputation: 10463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa View Post
We need a bigger court - 15 justices at least to minimize the ability of one party to politicize the court during a brief period of power.
RBG just said nine is a good number.
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

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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 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