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.
Not happening. The court is exactly as it should be. The forefathers did everything right. No need to change anything. They shot down FDR when he suggested it. The leftist loonies want to fix a system that is not broken.
Except the Supreme Court started with six justices.
It has also had a full complement of seven, nine and ten at various times. There is nothing sacrosanct about the current count of nine. The Constitution allows for the number to be changed by the legislature along with the signature of the president, like any other law.
There appears to be a long history of "loonies" fixing things that aren't broken.
Republicans are(were) under absolutely *NO* obligation to confirm any of Obama's or any other Democratic Party nominees. They were, IN FACT, elected by their own constituents to stop the progressive judicial agenda! Republicans already did Obama a favor by confirming two of his nominees while Democrats didnt even control the Senate during his second pick. You're Welcome
Now when Democrats control both chambers of Congress again AND the Executive Branch...they can expand the courts as much as they want. But, the pendulum always swings back. When Rs are running the show, they will also add seats to their own advantage and overturn the rulings of the previously expanded SCOTUS.
Given this argument, then the democrats would be perfectly within the norm to pack the court. Indeed, they will use this argument, so there should be no complaining if the court is packed.
But then the courts would cease to be, as Hamilton wrote: " ...an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society..."
Given this argument, then the democrats would be perfectly within the norm to pack the court. Indeed, they will use this argument, so there should be no complaining if the court is packed.
But then the courts would cease to be, as Hamilton wrote: " ...an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society..."
Yes, I acknowledged Democrats right to pack it. Enjoy it while it lasts, the Republicans WILL add twice as many next time. And, overturn many of the previous rulings.
Yes, I acknowledged Democrats right to pack it. Enjoy it while it lasts, the Republicans WILL add twice as many next time. And, overturn many of the previous rulings.
Exactly, you would think the Dems would learn from fools like Harry Reid and his stupid nuclear option
It always gets used against them in the end.
I would say 90%+ chance they will not pack the courts. If the Dems do take the Senate, it'll be by a thin margin, either 50-50, 51-49 or, maybe 52-48. Manchin, a [moderator cut] from W Virginia, has already said he's against adding seats. Sinema of Arizona is also a conservative Dem. It's questionable if Schumer will have the votes to push it through even if the filibuster is eliminated.
Now if the 6-3 conservative court were to overturn Roe v Wade, kill Obamacare, and end gay marriage, and if the resulting backlash in the 2022 election widens the Democratic majority in the Senate, maybe then the Dems would look at court packing because they would have a popular mandate to do it.
We will have to disagree on that point, because I think as soon as they have the opportunity, they will push it through. There is an election in 30 days and the Democrats are downplaying this issue. Biden wouldn’t even answer the question. Also, if they need Manchin’s vote, they’ll get it. Sinema too.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 10-01-2020 at 05:48 AM..
Note to all: The terms DINO and RINO are both pejorative terms and are unacceptable in the Great Debates forum.
Use of these terms violate the Great Debates forum rules against "personal attacks on politicians or others" and "charged language."
The court is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of law. Selecting judges based on their political ideology seems inherently wrong to me, since that is not supposed to play into their roles on the bench. People catterwauled about John Roberts being conservative and he interpreted the law as he saw it (whether your like his decisions or not). We need to get control of this damn country or we are going to pick up some serious speed on this downhill slide. Why is everything with our government a nasty cat fight?
Last edited by Riley.; 10-01-2020 at 06:04 AM..
Reason: spelling
There are now litmus tests as campaign issues. Of course, folks don't always get what they want. Going forward, Gorsuch might be a disappointment to conservatives. He is a member of St. John's Episcopal Church in Boulder. Boulder has two Episcopal churches and St. John's is the very liberal one and that is putting it mildly.
I recall reading a study/paper, alas I can't find it now, that Justices who are not from the east coast tend to get more liberal. There are also some studies which say they get more liberal as they age. Not sure about the latter, some of us old folks myself included get more entrenched in some things, in others we don't worry not having much time left on this side of the ground. An interesting hypothesis.
Of course the Democrats want to pack the court because time after time the Left leaning justices make their decisions well within their parties agenda whereas the Right leaning justices have been more flexible ruling within the Constitution.
If the Democrats pack the courts is there any doubt that the Second amendment will be shredded?
Some can see into the future, I can't. I've only known one Justice. I use to cycle by Justice Powells's home after his retirement. He liked yard work and over time the hellos turned to garden talk. Just an honorable man who was a listener and open minded. He came to regret his vote on Bowers. I can only hope that I might have helped him change his mind.
The current situation on the Court was in part caused by Justice Powell's retirement. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia sought to rollback the decisions of the Warren Court. (Earl Warren was a republican...an example that you don't always get what you ask for.)
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.
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.
