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.
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:
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.
The original SCOTUS was six members. In 1807, the number was increased to seven, in 1837 it was increased to nine, in 1863, it was increased to 10, in 1866 it was reduced back to seven and in 1869 it went back up to nine.
The duties were more limited, the case load lighter when the Court was first established. A case can be made for increasing its size. In the end, all norms are falling by the wayside. To think we can have hearings on a new Justice with public input right before an election is not realistic. In short, its being pushed through.
The Court receives over 10,000 requests a year to review cases, but selects about 80. When the Court first sat, its case load was much more limited since they interpreted their jurisdiction much more narrowly. It wasn't until Cohens v. Virginia in 1821, that it really started to expand its caseload which was reflected in the Eighth and Ninth Circuits Act of 1837. That act allowed President Jackson to pack the court and it was recognized at the time as just that.
The Eighth and Ninth Circuits Act of 1837 can be seen as meeting the needs of a geographically growing nation. Of course, we are not growing geographically, but in population we are.
If the Democrats take the Senate and the White House, and then keep the House, it’s game over. They will 100% pack the courts.
Here is the game plan:
1) Kill the Senate filibuster
2) Pack SCOTUS to 15 members, also pack the lower courts.
3) DC and Puerto Rico statehood, extra 4 Senators to ensure the Senate stays blue
4) Kill the electoral college, opening up true mob rule
5) Give all non citizens residing in the US the right to vote, open the borders. They may be happy with the first 4, so they may hold off on this one for awhile.
I don’t think most Trump supporters understand how close they are to a complete and lasting defeat.
I don’t think most Democrats understand what Schumer, Pelosi, the Clinton Foundation, and Harris/Biden are really striving for. They keep saying that the US won’t fundamentally change, so either they don’t get it, or they are being disengenuous and trying to downplay those real objectives.
At least Biden didn’t lie and deny he wouldn’t pack the courts. He knows what they will do, he just doesn’t want us all to know it too.
Is it ethical? Not sure, but I think it makes us look like Venezuela as Hugo Chavez used this same tactic.
Politically smart? It’s very politically smart for the party that does it. Good for the nation? Not hardly. Completely disenfranchising 60 million voters is a recipe for disaster.
If it happens, the GOP only has itself to blame. They could make a circus act on their contortions to justify pushing through this nomination given what happened to Garland.
On the right to vote, it was't always limited to citizens. Virginia was one of the first states to limit voting to citizens with the VA 1830 Constitution, but non-citizens who were voting under the VA 1776 Constitution were grandfathered in (Article III/14). Some states did not limit voting to citizens until the 20th century.
If the Democrats take the Senate and the White House, and then keep the House, it’s game over. They will 100% pack the courts.
Here is the game plan:
1) Kill the Senate filibuster
2) Pack SCOTUS to 15 members, also pack the lower courts. 3) DC and Puerto Rico statehood, extra 4 Senators to ensure the Senate stays blue
4) Kill the electoral college, opening up true mob rule
5) Give all non citizens residing in the US the right to vote, open the borders. They may be happy with the first 4, so they may hold off on this one for awhile.
I don’t think most Trump supporters understand how close they are to a complete and lasting defeat.
I don’t think most Democrats understand what Schumer, Pelosi, the Clinton Foundation, and Harris/Biden are really striving for. They keep saying that the US won’t fundamentally change, so either they don’t get it, or they are being disengenuous and trying to downplay those real objectives.
At least Biden didn’t lie and deny he wouldn’t pack the courts. He knows what they will do, he just doesn’t want us all to know it too.
Is it ethical? Not sure, but I think it makes us look like Venezuela as Hugo Chavez used this same tactic.
Politically smart? It’s very politically smart for the party that does it. Good for the nation? Not hardly. Completely disenfranchising 60 million voters is a recipe for disaster.
Why stop at DC & Puerto Rico? Guam, Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands would feel discriminated against.
The EC will become irrelevant once the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact reaches its goal. Currently it's 73% of the way there, with just 15 states*+ DC signed up. Needs 74 more votes. Decisions on 64 votes in 5 states are pending. Then any one of 10 states could take it over the top, or a combination of smaller states.
The original SCOTUS was six members. In 1807, the number was increased to seven, in 1837 it was increased to nine, in 1863, it was increased to 10, in 1866 it was reduced back to seven and in 1869 it went back up to nine.
The duties were more limited, the case load lighter when the Court was first established. A case can be made for increasing its size. In the end, all norms are falling by the wayside. To think we can have hearings on a new Justice with public input right before an election is not realistic. In short, its being pushed through.
The Court receives over 10,000 requests a year to review cases, but selects about 80. When the Court first sat, its case load was much more limited since they interpreted their jurisdiction much more narrowly. It wasn't until Cohens v. Virginia in 1821, that it really started to expand its caseload which was reflected in the Eighth and Ninth Circuits Act of 1837. That act allowed President Jackson to pack the court and it was recognized at the time as just that.
The Eighth and Ninth Circuits Act of 1837 can be seen as meeting the needs of a geographically growing nation. Of course, we are not growing geographically, but in population we are.
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.
Quoted from linked site: "In recent years, Republican-led legislatures have been adding state supreme court seats and working to change nominating rules, aiming to bolster conservative majorities."
I was unaware of this! Whether court packing is ethical or not, I want to thank you for starting this topic. I'm learning much from it (and no doubt others here are, as well).
It has nothing to do with ethics or law.
It has to do with morality and the unintended consequences of judicial over reach.
Although I am a radical feminist, I am not a liberal feminist.
The horrible divisiveness that now plagues our nation is the direct result of legislating from the bench, rather than from the legislatures. The left has been hoisted by it's own petard and wants revenge, not justice.
The most egregious example in recent memory has been Roe v Wade, which should have used the same principle of states rights that was used to support gay marriage (a power reserved to states) to oppose the imposition of abortion on the country as a whole. This would have been the right path despite my support for a woman's right to choose while also finding gay marriage laughable.
Constant appeals to courts of three, five, nine or more unelected individuals in order to ram thru 'laws' that ought rightfully be passed by publicly elected representatives will exacerbate the hatred and tear this nation apart!
And my heart would break.
The high court should be packed -- by justices who believe in the Constitution as written and not in "reinterpreting" it to justify whatever is politically popular. The founding fathers were very smart -- the realized the dangers we are facing today with mob rule. That's why we have an electoral college to ensure a few populous areas don't run roughshod over the rest of the country. That's why we have a republic rather than a pure democracy. Because in a pure democracy, you could convince enough people to vote to cut their own throats if there wasn't some from of damper put on it.
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.
