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.
All the Democrats need to do is play the long game. Start winning a few Senate races here and there, continue holding the House, string together a couple of Democrat Presidencies and boom, new make up in the Court. That's why the attack on the EC, is important to them. Adding new citizens to voting rolls, under their watch.
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.
1. The forefathers didn't do everything right. Their decisions led to the Civil War. That's just for starters. And what they did, they did for the times of the 1700s. It's now the 2000s.
2. I do agree that the court should not be packed. That is not the same as saying things are right with the court. There shouldn't be blatant conservatives on the court. There shouldn't be blatant liberals on the court. The court should be relatively neutral. How we fix that, I don't know. But that's a good example of how the court is broken.
3. Are there leftist loonies out there? Yup. And on the other side there are rightist loonies.
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..."
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.
Oh, please! If they didn't want to confirm the nomination, all they had to do was take a vote. But instead, they refused to hold a vote, claiming that approving a nominee to the Court in an election year simply is not done. Oh, how they've changed their tune! It's so easy to flip-flop on "principle", when you control the Senate.
In case some people have short memories, here's a segment of an article on the issue, from Time:
Quote:
For the GOP, it’s a sharp departure from the precedent they set in 2016. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of that year, nearly nine months before that year’s election. With President Barack Obama set to nominate a replacement who would pull the court to the left, Senate Republicans said that the seat should not be filled in an election year, and refused to hold hearings to consider Obama’s eventual nominee, Judge Merrick Garland. McConnell argued that not since 1888 had the Senate confirmed a Supreme Court nominee by an opposing party’s President to fill a vacancy that arose in an election year.
I do not like the idea of expanding the Supreme Court and adding additional justices with the goal of changing the trajectory of court decisions.
I also believe this problem though cannot be laid at the doorstep of the democratic party. It is the result of a long term plan deliberately implemented by conservative groups within the GOP. The following justicies were relatively moderate in their views and served this country well: Lewis Powell (appointed by Nixon); Harry Blackmun (appointed by Nixon); Warren Burger (appointed by Nixon); Sandra Day O'Connor (appointed by Reagan); Anthony Kennedy (appointed by Reagan); David Souter (appointed by George H. W. Bush); and John Roberts (appointed by George W. Bush). All of these men and women approached the job in a respectful fashion and undercut the notion that the court was political in its decisions. Sadly, all but one of these people is gone from the court now.
Republican presidents have increasingly picked ultra-conservatives to sit on the court in recent years. The last two appointments by Trump were Neil Gorsuch and Brent Kavanaugh who have never showed anything, but extraordinarily conservative views of American jurisprudence. They are simply out of touch with how the majority of Americans view law, social policy, and the role of the Supreme Court.
Conservative groups like the Federalist Society have persuaded republican presidents to abandon processes that were established years ago in picking justices. In the past, appointees were screened by a neutral organization--the American Bar Association--to rate their fitness to serve on the Supreme Court or any of the nation's federal courts. This was changed by conservative groups who's sole goal was to "push the judiciary to the right". These were nakedly political processes that were deliberately aimed at getting highly conservative judges on the bench. This was done by groups angry about abortion rights, angry about gay rights, and angry about the idea of universal health insurance. Now, republican presidents no longer cooperate with the ABA. Instead, nominees are "screened" (if you would call it that) by the Federalist Society.
Because this was a political process, I see little else to do other than respond in a political fashion. If the GOP is determined to put highly conservative judges on the court, than the response should be to expand the Supreme Court. That is why I reluctantly believe it will be necessary to increase the number of judges on the US Supreme Court to eleven.
Last edited by markg91359; 10-01-2020 at 01:04 PM..
I do not like the idea of expanding the Supreme Court and adding additional justices with the goal of changing the trajectory of court decisions.
I also believe this problem though cannot be laid at the doorstep of the democratic party. It is the result of a long term plan deliberately implemented by conservative groups within the GOP. The following justicies were relatively moderate in their views and served this country well: Lewis Powell (appointed by Nixon); Harry Blackmun (appointed by Nixon); Warren Burger (appointed by Nixon); Sandra Day O'Connor (appointed by Reagan); Anthony Kennedy (appointed by Reagan); David Souter (appointed by George H. W. Bush); and John Roberts (appointed by George W. Bush). All of these men and women approached the job in a respectful fashion and undercut the notion that the court was political in its decisions. Sadly, all but one of these people is gone from the court now.
Republican presidents have increasingly picked ultra-conservatives to sit on the court in recent years. The last two appointments by Trump were Neil Gorsuch and Brent Kavanaugh who have never showed anything, but extraordinarily conservative views of American jurisprudence. They are simply out of touch with how the majority of Americans view law, social policy, and the role of the Supreme Court.
Conservative groups like the Federalist Society have persuaded republican presidents to abandon processes that were established years ago in picking justices. In the past, appointees were screened by a neutral organization--the American Bar Association--to rate their fitness to serve on the Supreme Court or any of the nation's federal courts. The sole goal was to "push the judiciary to the right". These were nakedly political processes that were deliberately aimed at getting highly conservative judges on the bench. This was done by groups angry about abortion rights, angry about gay rights, and angry about the idea of universal health insurance. Now, republican presidents no longer cooperate with the ABA. Instead, nominees are "screened" (if you would call it that) by the Federalist Society.
Because this was a political process, I see little else to do other than respond in a political fashion. If the GOP is determined to put highly conservative judges on the court, than the response should be to expand the Supreme Court. That is why I reluctantly believe it will be necessary to increase the number of judges on the US Supreme Court to eleven.
Excellent post, although I am unconvinced that the court should be increased in number.
Excellent post, although I am unconvinced that the court should be increased in number.
I guess I would ask how will you feel if and when the Court does the following:
1. Rules whether or not gay people can marry is up to each state.
2. Rules there is no constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment to an abortion at any stage of a pregnancy.
3. Rules that the ACA is unconstitutional and strongly suggests that ANY attempt by Congress to enact such a law cannot be justified under powers to regulate interstate commerce or to tax.
I hope it doesn't come to this. However, this is the jurisprudence that I see taking shape. I think the majority of Americans would disagree with all these rulings.
Additionally, there is nothing preventing the expansion of the size of the Supreme Court by Congress.
1. The forefathers didn't do everything right. Their decisions led to the Civil War. That's just for starters. And what they did, they did for the times of the 1700s. It's now the 2000s.
The year doesn’t matter. Morals are morals. Just because people today want no rules, kill babies, marry same sex partners, etc, doesn’t mean any of it is ok. That’s liKe the church saying, well, everyone steals or cheats on their spouse these days so we’ll wipe those from the Ten Commandments. After a while, anything goes. Anyone can go out and do anything they want, like forming a crowd and telling a homeowner that they want their house. Hand it over. Things are different now than in 1776.
Nothing needs to change. Aside from slavery and women voting, not much else was done wrong over the past couple of hundred years.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 10-02-2020 at 07:18 AM..
Reason: Fixed quote tags.
If the D's have the ability to do it next year, on SCOTUS, by adding seats, should they?
Much though I despise Mitch, my instinct was don't do it, it'll rebound.
Then I read this:
and felt that horse*had already bolted, and for better or worse it will be open season.
I think - Why do we keep electing the same idiots to the same positions year after year? We need to pick our representatives like we do our jurors; that is, if you meet the minimum qualifications, you serve if randomly selected. I think a person off the street can do better than any career politician. Career politician. Just think about that term.
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.
