How to Fix the Supreme Court

GOD Shines Forth!

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 6, 2019
2,615
2,061
United States
✟355,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Totalitarians always shroud themselves in claims for the common good.

From the extract you cited, quote:

"Creating a United States Constitutional Court is the big idea that has evaded Democrats looking for possible cures to the court’s politicization."

As propaganda goes, this is pretty good. However it was the Democrats who politicized the courts to begin with and creating a USCC is simply another attempt by the liberal left to seize power and institute one-party rule.

Nailed it, Sistren.
 
Upvote 0

HTacianas

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2018
8,459
8,968
Florida
✟321,876.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
They are overworked. We have the same number of justices as we did in 1869. The country is significantly larger now. The Supreme Court only hears roughly 1.5% of the cases that request to be heard from them. Even at that pace they still have to turn out two to three important decisions a week every week of the year which includes written opinions for each.

The number of justices does not affect the number of cases they decide. One court can only hear one case regardless of the number of judges. The cases they decline to hear are already decided.
 
Upvote 0

GOD Shines Forth!

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 6, 2019
2,615
2,061
United States
✟355,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
A good argument against another Constitutional Convention. We lack the virtue to convene a good one.

No kidding! I don’t wan't the DC crowd anywhere near our Constitution. Our Founders were giants. Their wisdom holds firm and angers all the right people (just as God's Word reliably does).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0

GreatLakes4Ever

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2019
3,436
4,859
38
Midwest
✟261,907.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Engaged
No kidding! I don’t wan't the DC crowd anywhere near our Constitution. Our Founders were giants. Their wisdom holds firm and angers all the right people (just as God's Word reliably does).

The Founding Fathers were mere mortals. This deification by monotheists is most bizarre.

The number of justices does not affect the number of cases they decide. One court can only hear one case regardless of the number of judges. The cases they decline to hear are already decided.

Honestly the Supreme Court should be something like tripled in size and then have random selection for places to hear each case much like our district courts do now. That way we can have more cases decided by the Supreme Court since they are the court of last resort.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iluvatar5150
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,776
17,082
✟1,389,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Suddenly the Court is politicized and needs fixing, whereas decades of legislating from the bench in terms that suited the Left was no problem.

Such as the Warren-Burger era (both, btw, were appointed by Republican Presidents)?

1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, decision prohibiting racial segregation in public schools.
1965 protect the right of married couples to use contraception.
1967 legalized interracial marriage.
1973 Roe v. Wade decision
 
  • Informative
Reactions: KCfromNC
Upvote 0

Sistrin

We are such stuff as dreams are made on...
Supporter
Jun 9, 2012
6,488
3,399
Location Location Location
✟197,980.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your response is typical of the extremist bent of the Republicans these days.

Yeah, ok. Once again the Democrats have revealed exactly who and what they are. Yesterday a woman was sworn into the Supreme Court by an African-American Justice of the Supreme Court, the epitome of the ideal the liberal left claims to promote. Yet in response to this event Democrats, the Democrat party, and the liberal left in general has amounted to nothing more than foaming at the mouth anger and hate.

And you prove that here, quote:

...just a middle finger raised to the ‘liberal left’ and an insistence on getting things all your own way.

The only one exposing themselves here is you. The President of the United States has the Constitutional authority to nominate individuals to fill vacant seats on the US Supreme Court. That is all that happened here.

In response to this event the liberal left has responded with threats to expand and pack the court exactly because they did not get their way.

No discussion, no compromise, no willingness to even discuss bipartisanship...

Please explain how one compromises with petty totalitarians?
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,654
12,107
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,977.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Only when the senate majority leader says so.

That's the power of being in the majority. Now, if that's not the way the voters want it, they can always vote to change who is in the majority. In 2016, they clearly wanted a SCOTUS justice of the conservative kind.
 
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Another of SCOTUS’s jobs is to supervise the operations of the Circuit Courts of Appeal. Way back when, it was envisioned that there would be one SCOTUS for each circuit. (Justices actually traveled to their assigned circuits to review cases.) In 1869, there were 9 circuits. So there were 9 justices. Now there are 13 circuits. Also, in 1869, the US population was around 40 million. Now, it’s 340 million. A larger federal court system, and an 8 times larger population generates many, many more cases than 150 years ago. Even with their clerks and support staff, the court could use more man (and woman) power. SCOTUS receives about 8,000 cert petitions a year. And only hears around 80 of them. I’m sure there are far more than 80 cases raising important legal questions that deserve a ruling by the highest court.

Here’s a thought: Expand the Court to 14 justices divided into 2 panels of 7. One panel is headed by the CJ—the other by the most senior associate justice. Cert petitions will be distributed equally and randomly to both panels. Cases will be heard if 3 of 7 justices agree to it. There are no witnesses at SCOTUS hearings. Just the attorneys make oral arguments and are questioned by justices. So there’s no real need for a courtroom. Each panel can hear cases by electronic conferencing. Which will save time and money and allow more cases to be heard. The opinions of 4 of 7 justices will be decisive. This effectively doubles the number of cases which can be decided.

Other than traditionalism, and ideological/political concerns (which are both spurious) there is no reason whatsoever not to bring SCOTUS into the 21st century.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Fantine
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,654
12,107
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,977.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Another of SCOTUS’s jobs is to supervise the operations of the Circuit Courts of Appeal. Way back when, it was envisioned that there would be one SCOTUS for each circuit. (Justices actually traveled to their assigned circuits to review cases.) In 1869, there were 9 circuits. So there were 9 justices. Now there are 13 circuits. Also, in 1869, the US population was around 40 million. Now, it’s 340 million. A larger federal court system, and an 8 times larger population generates many, many more cases than 150 years ago. Even with their clerks and support staff, the court could use more man (and woman) power. SCOTUS receives about 8,000 cert petitions a year. And only hears around 80 of them. I’m sure there are far more than 80 cases raising important legal questions that deserve a ruling by the highest court.

Here’s a thought: Expand the Court to 14 justices divided into 2 panels of 7. One panel is headed by the CJ—the other by the most senior associate justice. Cert petitions will be distributed equally and randomly to both panels. Cases will be heard if 3 of 7 justices agree to it. There are no witnesses at SCOTUS hearings. Just the attorneys make oral arguments and are questioned by justices. So there’s no real need for a courtroom. Each panel can hear cases by electronic conferencing. Which will save time and money and allow more cases to be heard. The opinions of 4 of 7 justices will be decisive. This effectively doubles the number of cases which can be decided.

Other than traditionalism, and ideological/political concerns (which are both spurious) there is no reason whatsoever not to bring SCOTUS into the 21st century.

No need to "fix" what ain't broken either.
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,039
13,063
✟1,077,460.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
From your link:
The United States should join scores of other nations, including Germany and France, and create a specialized court to decide constitutional questions.
That is what the Supreme Court is designed to do.

About the Supreme Court

Quote: Therefore, the Court has the final say over when a right is protected by the Constitution or when a Constitutional right is violated.

The Supreme Court plays a very important role in our constitutional system of government. First, as the highest court in the land, it is the court of last resort for those looking for justice. Second, due to its power of judicial review, it plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power. Third, it protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution. Finally, it sets appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities. In essence, it serves to ensure that the changing views of a majority do not undermine the fundamental values common to all Americans, i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law.
The Democrats are supporting changing that when they become the majority and can impose their will. Removing the Supreme Courts ability to set limits, removes that protection.

This is just a power grab - plain and simple. The Democrats cannot get their agenda through the legislature, so they are attempting to change the rules.
The difference is in the
Fair
And balanced
Way it would be structured.
I realize that those words are completely foreign to Republican Senators and the president-- but it's about time they crack open a dictionary.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: KCfromNC
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟428,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
That's the power of being in the majority. Now, if that's not the way the voters want it, they can always vote to change who is in the majority. In 2016, they clearly wanted a SCOTUS justice of the conservative kind.
Exactly. Its not about whats in the constitution, as sistrin claimed. Its about power, what you can get away with.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: KCfromNC
Upvote 0

KarateCowboy

Classical liberal
Supporter
Aug 6, 2004
13,390
2,109
✟140,932.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Aside from "I don't think the Supreme Court will vote my way" what are all the reasons why we should expand the court?
I know right? It's basically "the current make-up of the court is largely faithful to the Constitution and will fulfill the role of checks and balances intended by the founders, even if the other branches are in agreement!"

Like Biden's and BLMs racism, they're not even hiding it anymore. They're spelling it out, plain as day.
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,039
13,063
✟1,077,460.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Did you know California has considered secession?
Look at the West coast states.
Look at the East Coast states from Maine to Virginia.
They pay most of the taxes. They control finance, fashion, entertainment, government, aerospace industries.
They have a president who abandons them in forest fires and viral spirals.
They have a court shaping the country into one that violates all their principles.

Exactly why should they support the freeloading stayes who are running the country? The country is becoming a place they want no part of.

The progressive Midwest states near Canada could join Canada.

One of the Times articles said that Dems should "threaten" to pack the courts and hold it over the justices' heads to force them into moderation...

And see if it works.

You have gone too far. America will revolt.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KarateCowboy

Classical liberal
Supporter
Aug 6, 2004
13,390
2,109
✟140,932.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Did you know California has considered secession?
Look at the West coast states.
Look at the East Coast states from Maine to Virginia.
They pay most of the taxes. They control finance, fashion, entertainment, government, aerospace industries.
They have a president who abandons them in forest fires and viral spirals.
They have a court shaping the country into one that violates all their principles.

Exactly why should they support the freeloading stayes who are running the country? The country is becoming a place they want no part of.

One of the Times articles said that Dems should "threaten" to pack the courts and hold it over the justices' heads to force them into moderation...

And see if it works.

You have gone too far. America will revolt.
LoL

Save the drama for Tumblr.

If fixing the court by putting someone faithful to the Constitution in it ruffles your feathers then you have abandoned the basic principles of our republic. Time to check yourself
 
Upvote 0

KarateCowboy

Classical liberal
Supporter
Aug 6, 2004
13,390
2,109
✟140,932.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Or perhaps their "republic" abandoned them.
Ok sure. We'll try it on.

If putting a justice faithful to the constitution ruffles your feathers then perhaps your republic has abandoned you, because you didn't actually buy into it's principles, because you abandoned them.

You need to check yourself.

I recommend reading the Federalist Papers.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,211.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Way more work than is necessary. Just introduce a bill in Congress to expand the Supreme Court. Pass both houses, signed by the President, and then fill those new empty seats with new justices.
Also, how many states do we need to add / remove to get Democrats to 2/3rds of the seats needed to impeach Donald's pet justices?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,211.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Suddenly the Court is politicized and needs fixing, whereas decades of legislating from the bench in terms that suited the Left was no problem. I don't recall any mainstream Republican calls for court packing during those many long, frustrating decades.
No, just the GOP Senate refusing to consider judicial appointments when the president was the wrong party and/or race.

But now forget court packing, it seems the whole thing is up for grabs by the Left.

Nothing illegal about it, elections have consequences, blah blah blah. Don't like it? Perhaps the GOP shouldn't have made "whatever we can get away with" the standard for governing the country knowing how much of a minority their views are.
 
Upvote 0