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.
Now that the Dems have the Senate and the Reps have Implemented the 50 vote option, do you support expanding the court to compensate for McConnell's unconventional stacking of the Supreme court?
At the very least Amy Comey Barrett should resign as her appointment was not justified, and a prime example of stacking the court in an election year. This goes against the republicans own president when Obama selected Merritt Garland to replace Antonin Scalia.
Nobody stacked the Supreme Court. Barrett was nominated because the Republicans had the Senate and every legal and ethical right to confirm her.
Obama did not have the Senate which is why Garland was not confirmed. What part of that is so hard to understand?
Nobody is going to resign because something was out of the liberal's control and they perceive it as some injustice. Not everything goes your way. Get over it.
Expanding the Supreme Court is a terrible idea because it will never end.
Nah, FDR already tried that back when. It didn't fly then, it won't fly now.
We can hope that Garland will simply outperform the Supremes. Perhaps they'll wilt from embarrassment? Perhaps they'll feel a twinge of remorse when the Justice Department argues before the court?
Time will tell. As for the GOP - @ this point, they may be headed for history's dungheap - where, perhaps, they'll finally @ least help fertilize Nature - which they've mostly denied during their political careers these last few decades - since Nixon, certainly.
There is no reason to do either. I opposed the manner in which Barrett's appointment was handled, but that was a political issue, not a legal one. She was nominated and confirmed legally. There is no reason for her to resign - the manner of her appointment was not her doing.
As for the number of justices, I think 9 is a good number. You need an uneven number, and 11 seems to be getting unwieldy. And as a previous poster pointed out, where does it stop? Do we see every incoming administration add a few just to be able to appoint some justices?
History shows us how FDR was able to commit his crimes in broad daylight with just the threat of stacking the court.
No one should be expecting any great integrity from those robe wearing politicians
No, the Dems aren't going to try and pack the USSC. Both the Dem and Rep. leadership want a return to "normal" which means now that Trump will be gone expect Nancy P. to go after AOC and her ink.
For all the talk about Trump using the Rep leadership it was they who used Trump. Trump did what they could never do which is stand up to MSM pressure and push the courts to the far right.
There's no one in the Rep leadership that would have stood up to the MSM 24/7 onslaught to destroy Brent K. Yet because Trump did and won the Dem leadership was quick to fold during the ACB hearings.
Say goodbye or good riddance to Trump if you like...but hello to a conservative USSC for the next 30 years.
There is no reason to do either. I opposed the manner in which Barrett's appointment was handled, but that was a political issue, not a legal one. She was nominated and confirmed legally. There is no reason for her to resign - the manner of her appointment was not her doing.
As for the number of justices, I think 9 is a good number. You need an uneven number, and 11 seems to be getting unwieldy. And as a previous poster pointed out, where does it stop? Do we see every incoming administration add a few just to be able to appoint some justices?
Leave it.
There is no way to say it better than CrowGirl has!
Nobody stacked the Supreme Court. Barrett was nominated because the Republicans had the Senate and every legal and ethical right to confirm her.
Obama did not have the Senate which is why Garland was not confirmed. What part of that is so hard to understand?
Nobody is going to resign because something was out of the liberal's control and they perceive it as some injustice. Not everything goes your way. Get over it.
Expanding the Supreme Court is a terrible idea because it will never end.
Actually, there is a very good argument to expand SCOtUS. Each SC justice is assigned to a circuit court. Currently there are essentially 13 circuits and 9 justices. As population has grown, so has the caseloads for circuit courts. Cases can now wait years in line in circuit courts, and IMO, this is not a good situation - justice delayed is justice denied.
So I'd support expanding SCOtUS as part of a plan to reorganize and increase the number of circuits. And of course, there should always be an odd number of justices.
I don't support it as a way to obtain a presumed ideological balance.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,619,501 times
Reputation: 9169
I do, tRump's picks have to be neutralized
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.
Ashes to ashes ...
