Democrats introduce bills in Congress to add 4 Justices to the Supreme Court (laymen, retired)

[warhorse78]

Originally Posted by katharsis

If this passes and goes to the Senate and becomes law . . .

Goodbye to what was the United States of America.

They rigged the elections and a corrupt judiciary system let it happen so America is already gone.

[ABQSunseeker]

Originally Posted by katharsis

If this passes and goes to the Senate and becomes law . . .

Goodbye to what was the United States of America.

This is a silly statement. The number of seats on the Supreme Court is not enshrined in the Constitution, and it has been changed a number of times. And the Republicans stole a seat when they refused Obama to nominate to a seat in his last year. but of course ok'd Trump filling a seat in his last year.

This doesn't mean that it will be a good thing to do. It still will have some nasty consequences.

Anyway to say that we should say goodbye to what was the USA is silly. That thinking would make us go right back to the number of seats in the beginning of the US for the perfect and most American number of seats..

[Oldhag1]

Originally Posted by zeppelin171

Republicans: hey, let’s pack the Supreme Court and walk all over the grave of RBG by appointing the real life version of The Handmaids Tale!

Also Republicans: hey, you can’t use our tactics against us! That’s evil and it’s going to destroy America!

It would be helpful if you knew the definition of ‘court packing’, so...

court-pack·​ing | \ ˈkȯrt-ˌpa-kiŋ \
variants: or less commonly court packing

Definition of court-packing

: the act or practice of packing (see PACK entry 3 sense 1) a court and especially the United States Supreme Court by increasing the number of judges or justices in an attempt to change the ideological makeup of the court

It is still just NINE justices.

[BigJon3475]

So the progressives are all about keeping with tradition now?

There's really nothing left here. I don't know why we're trying to keep this abusive relationship going. We haven't loved each other for a long time and apparently we are willing to do everything including destroying society and even reality itself to try and best the other. I don't really know if there's a "divorce lawyer" for when a country breaks apart? It's typically done through pillaging, murder, death, rivalries and war. I guess technically there's still time for that.

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by Avondalist

RedShadowz, who I gather is a monarchist, is correct that democracy is a fleeting phenomenon, dependent upon economic opportunity.

Democracy was reborn after the discovery of the Americas opened up economic opportunity for the European masses. There was a lag of a couple centuries because of resistance to democracy, but it happened eventually.

We were able to invent new opportunities following the closing of the frontier, but this was a rearguard action. The land had been claimed, and freedom began to diminish after the frontier was closed. We are living in the long denouement of the lack of frontiers.

Rome, likewise, became more oppressive as it ceased being able to conquer and settle foreign lands. Democracy is not a steady state system. It depends upon forever growth to work, because human nature is to reproduce beyond what the economy can support as a safety factor for the good of the population.

Tyranny is capable of a steady state society because it oppresses the teaming masses. Absent frontiers for growth, population pressures will bring the return of tyranny.

Where RedShadowz and I differ is one of preference, not necessarily an understanding of the mechanics. I gather he wants to expedite the return of monarchy, probably because he is disgusted by the common man and wants society to take on more elite hues.

I find some things to recommend the common man, and I am content to let him be. So I would see the end of democracy as a loss and not a gain. The plight of the serfs was desperate.

The mechanics which I think we both agree on is that the common man has trouble letting his betters be. There will always be agitation for redistribution and revenge borne of envy. This is why the common man is eventually enslaved; he is greedy beyond his capabilities.

The leftists who think the common man is capable of coordinating to oppress his betters for the long haul are simply useful idiots motivated by greed beyond their capabilities.

The common man will lose control of his revolution when it becomes institutionalized, because elites can navigate institutions far better. Did you think the European aristocracy believed the meek will inherit the earth as they wrote their wills? Christianity was simply the cloak they had to wear given the vicissitudes of history. Communism or whatever system wins the future will fill the same role. It doesn't even matter what the ideology is; what matters is what you inherit, genetically and legally.

Those who pine for elite control see the expanding powers of the state, the military and surveillance apparatus being built, the dying of the middle class, the rising of tax rates, and the delegitimization of democracy as good things. They are all harbingers of the aristocracy to come, and the return to harmony.

Others may find this troubling. I do.

There is also the off chance that the game will change. The Romans did not have birth control, although depopulation did not do much good for Europe during the Dark Ages because the tools of control had outpaced the ability of commoners to resist, market forces be damned. Considering the awesome powers of our military and security apparatus, I am pessimistic. Birth rates are falling because it is so hard to make a living, not because people are enlightened. That is evidence that Leviathan is back in business.

A few things...

1) I'm a Jeffersonian, but I do think Monarchism is preferable to "Western-style Democracy".

2) What we call Democracy was just a "merchant revolution". As the world is now, power comes from wealth(control of the means of production?). In the Middle Ages, pretty much all wealth came from the land itself. Thus the Kings/Lords who owned all the land, held all the power. But the Kings realized that in order to expand their influence and their territory, they needed to trade, and to have a favorable balance of trade. Foreign wars are expensive and create an outflow of gold/silver. So in order to engage in foreign wars you must engage in trade which can bring money back from the frontiers to the Kingdom. Kings would finance trade missions to bring luxury goods to Europe, largely to be sold to European nobility(IE the only people with money). And the best profits were when you had a complete monopoly on high-demand luxury goods. From that trade surplus, the Kingdoms could use the excess capital to engage in foreign influence and bribery, hire mercenaries, utilize foreign labor and resources at relatively low rates, etc.

In the beginning trade was centered around goods from the orient, but it soon expanded into production itself. Britain had the best wool in the world, and began manufacturing high-value cloths which they could exchange for lower-value commodities. Large tracts of England were transformed from traditional farming villages, to massive pastures for sheep through a process called "enclosure". The peasants had become obsolete and were thrown off the land. Moving into the cities either to become beggars or to offer their labor in shops. This influx of laborers into the shops caused an increase of the number of manufactured goods. At first it was relatively simple things, like shoes, weavers to make cloth, iron tools, but then came pots and pans, guns and cannons, etc. Much of which was sold off into European markets to create an inflow of gold/silver.

With European colonialism, the Kingdoms expanded both their markets as well as their access to the raw materials needed to feed their manufacturing. English manufactured goods could be sold to Africa in exchange for slaves, which could then be sold to the Americas for cotton and foodstuffs, which could be brought back to Britain to feed British industries and British cities. And the Industrial Revolution took this to a much higher level, because it exponentially increased productivity, and thus exponentially increased profits, while also making much of the world dependent on British/European manufacturing.

This process made Britain the most powerful country in the world, but it also transferred power from the land to manufacturing. The richest men in Britain were no longer the lords, but the merchants, the industrialists, the capitalists. These capitalists used their money to influence politics, transforming Britain from an absolute monarchy, to a semi-democratic parliamentary state where the King no longer had legislative power and acted only as executive. And finally into the Constitutional Monarchy we have today, where the King is little more than a figurehead.

The American Revolution was a merchant revolution. It was nothing more than the seizure of power by American merchants, bankers, and what you might called the "capitalist class" from the monarchy. Who restricted voting only to wealthy white men, and who used things like pamphlets and their newspapers(media) to basically propagandize the masses of people, just as they continue to do today.

Thus what we call democracy isn't really democracy of "the people", but rather democracy of "the rich". Who play a cynical game of power through influence in order to enrich themselves. But yet this capitalist class has no actual loyalty to America. They merely use America as a vehicle, a tool, a means to an end. They only have an interest in making her rich and powerful so they can use her to protect and serve their interests.

3) Rome became more oppressive as it became more diverse and unequal. Governments don't just randomly become oppressive. Government oppression is a response to disorder and "Threats to the state". But although Rome in the later period became more authoritarian, it actually expanded citizenship to all people. This was mostly to stave off rebellion. As the ruling classes became more decadent and disloyal, the masses began to hate the rich and have contempt for the government, and the military swelled with mercenaries from the frontiers who fought only for money.

4) I'm not disgusted by the common man, I'm disgusted by the elite, who use their influence over democracy to control the common man and make him do their bidding, mostly by keeping him ignorant, misinformed, and afraid. Moreover, democracy by its very nature is divisive. It must always pit half the people against the other. Unity under democracy can only occur when there is an outside threat to unify against.

5) The future isn't communism, but there is an aspect of communism that it will be, economic control. If the government owns everything, it controls everything. It can decide who will be rich or poor, who gets special privileges and who doesn't, who is favored for certain jobs/positions, who is eligible for benefits. And even if there are private businesses, not only are they regulated by the government, and penalized or subsidized by said government, but the large private businesses use their influence over the government to control the government, and in turn use the government to control other businesses.

6) If the "difficulty of making a living" was truly the cause of falling birth-rates, then poor people would have fewer children than rich people. There is an economic dynamic, but it isn't money as much as urbanization and women working outside the home. I'm sure you've heard that the way to reduce birthrates in the third-world is to educate the women. Which is true. But it isn't because education itself causes lower birthrates, but rather that women who go to school, and especially to university, tend to put off having children till later in life, and are far more likely to work outside the home(IE the purpose of education).

7) My belief is that socially, smaller is better. But for business and government, bigger is better. I believe that socially, life was best when we lived in tiny villages consisting of people we knew, and who knew us. But the modern world requires the consolidation of millions of people into dense urban areas, working in businesses, factories, shops, etc. The old world is gone forever. Replaced by a world of strangers competing with each other for jobs and status. Focused solely on the only value left, money.

Money knows no borders. Every corporation is fundamentally multinational or "global". And every government must pursue its economic interests, both for itself, and for the corporations that control it. There has been a concern about "globalism" or "globalization". Whatever you might feel about it, whether you like it or not, it is inevitable. You're not going to stop global trade, global tourism, global investment, mass migration, etc. The current borders cannot stay as they are forever. And even if they did, they will increasingly become meaningless, as people and goods continue to stream across the world.

The Leviathan in which you speak, will conquer the world. But to hold such disparate peoples together, the Leviathan will need to be stronger and more pervasive than ever.

That is the future, there is no stopping it. But that is not what I want, and I would rather burn the whole world down than continue in that direction. And you fools who believe in democracy are too busy squabbling among yourselves to do anything about it. While obeying every dictate of this government, as it is impossible to resist since it calls itself "democracy".

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by Du Ma

Oh wow! You are a history student??? That is very impressive! I am truly impressed. Being a history student provides you the knowledge that cops and US troops will not turn their guns on ten of million of Americans?

How about if it’s coming from a (former) US Army Captain and 14 year veteran in law enforcement? Is that good enough for your “student of history” standard?

A Civil War happens when multiple factions within a territory are fighting for control of the government. Individuals fighting against the government does not constitute a Civil War.

A Civil War requires leaders, people who will organize thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of people. To do that not only requires people capable of doing it, but also money, lots of money, and lots of supplies.

This is why Civil Wars don't really happen without corporate or state-sponsorship. What we call Civil Wars are almost always proxy wars. Where foreign governments are providing support for their preferred faction.

Thus in order for there to be a Civil War in America, it would require the intervention of China or Russia on some level, even if covert(funding, training, intelligence, etc). And certainly, both of those governments are interested in the destabilization if not dissolution of the United States.

As for Army and police, they will do their job up, but there are limits. If there was a situation where they had to actually turn their guns on "tens of millions of Americans", the country would already be lost.

All they have to do is shut down protests as they already do, make some mass arrests, issue fines and penalties, hold show trials, and turn the media into state propaganda. You might have a couple weeks of unrest, but eventually people will get tired and go home, go back to work, etc. It just isn't worth the fight, and their "leaders" won't actually fight them.

[Kavalier]

Originally Posted by katharsis

If this passes and goes to the Senate and becomes law . . .

Goodbye to what was the United States of America.

Hey there are BLM signs in 90% of the homes in my major City.


That is blatant support and celebration of a system that produced the corpses of 100 MILLION souls - Marxism.


So nothing surprises me in this once-decent nation anymore going forward.


I expect things to just deteriorate in rapid speed going forward. It's why I cashed out one of my IRAs - because I know this isn't even a nation anymore, it's just a giant ponzi scheme that is being looted.

[uggabugga]

Originally Posted by Oldhag1

It would be helpful if you knew the definition of ‘court packing’, so...

court-pack·​ing | \ ˈkȯrt-ˌpa-kiŋ \
variants: or less commonly court packing

Definition of court-packing

: the act or practice of packing (see PACK entry 3 sense 1) a court and especially the United States Supreme Court by increasing the number of judges or justices in an attempt to change the ideological makeup of the court

It is still just NINE justices.

thanks for educating that poster. leftists suddenly decided to try to change the meaning of this word for political reasons, just as they've done with so many others.

[villageidiot1]

Originally Posted by katharsis

If this passes and goes to the Senate and becomes law . . .

Goodbye to what was the United States of America.

Two thoughts to this post:

1. What is the likelihood that this would pass the Senate?Obviously slim to none.
2. Why would you say increasing the number of Supreme Court justices mean "goodbye to the USA?" What difference does it really mean if there are nine, eleven, or thirteen justices? The number is not even set in the Constitution.

Originally Posted by Enough_Already

The Democrats supported by the biased media and enough voters who are being bought by "programs" are in the process of creating a one party dictatorship.

This wouldn't happen if the Republican Party had not damaged itself by aligning with DT.

Originally Posted by Enough_Already

The Democrat plan is to make it impossible for the Republicans to ever be in power again. That is TREASON!

Don't we have a two party system or are you worried the Republicans are going to go the way of the Whigs and the Federalist parties?

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

That could quite possibly be the final straw that leads to our country breaking up.

Seriously? Breading over the number of Supreme Court justices? Did you ever learn about an event in our history called the Civil War. It was fought over breaking up the country and much more serious issues. BTW, in 1863, the Court had 10 justices.

[HendrixStyle]

Originally Posted by villageidiot1

Two thoughts to this post:

1. What is the likelihood that this would pass the Senate?Obviously slim to none.

Slim to none is correct - as long as 60 votes is needed. If that changes...

Originally Posted by villageidiot1

2. Why would you say increasing the number of Supreme Court justices mean "goodbye to the USA?" What difference does it really mean if there are nine, eleven, or thirteen justices?

It's not the number. It's the fact that Biden will nominate four justices, and if they get confirmed (I think it's a simple maj) that gives the maj to the dems/left. Which in olden times (just a few years ago) would be fine. SCOTUS dem/left maj or SCOTUS rep/right maj; not that big a deal. Maybe on a few issues/cases here and there, but overall, no. Balance is a good thing.


But now, with this radical left-wing dem party we have - which is not the same dem part we used to have - the fear is that the dems will pass legislation, which will then be approved by SCOTUS.


Repealing the 2nd A, repealing right-to-work laws, cutting/defunding police (we already see what affect this has had), reparations for slavery, open borders, DC statehood, giving people who are here illegally the right to vote, and on. Some of these things can/will lead to one-party rule, and there is the problem. Goodbye to balance.