Democrats to introduce legislation to expand Supreme Court

[JimR-OCDS]

A very dangerous move for our country. We should all reject the leftist from packing the US Supreme Court.

Democrats to introduce legislation to expand Supreme Court

 

[thecolorsblend]

.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Rly puts the lie to their long time insistence that they don't believe in legislating from the bench.

Of course it's a lie.

What this will do if it passes, is make the judicial branch far more powerful than the other branches of government.

You can be sure, if the current bench was liberal, the democrats would not be trying to do this.

.

 

[pescador]

A very dangerous move for our country. We should all reject the leftist from packing the US Supreme Court.

Democrats to introduce legislation to expand Supreme Court

Of course it's convenient to forget how trump and the GOP put people on the court through questionable means. Specifically they made sure that Merrick Garland didn't even get appointed through political shenanigans -- it was an election year -- and then rammed through Amy Coney Barrett weeks before the election.

We should all have rejected the right's obvious attempt to deny the fair populating of the US Supreme Court.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Of course it's convenient to forget how trump and the GOP put people on the court through questionable means. Specifically they made sure that Merrick Garland didn't even get appointed through political shenanigans -- it was an election year -- and then rammed through Amy Coney Barrett weeks before the election.

We should all have rejected the right's obvious attempt to deny the fair populating of the US Supreme Court.

Whataboutism.

 

[Guinan]

Actually I'm not totally against the idea because as it is now the Supreme Court is a 6-3 conservative majority. Maybe there should be more balance of power. Biden isn't completely on board with the expansion and he created a bipartisan commission last week to study reforms to the Supreme Court.

It was pointed out in an older thread that the GOP appointed three judges to a lifetime seat in the Supreme Court within a four year span with a former president who lost the popular vote twice and he lost reelection. It's hypocritical for the anti-liberal Republicans to complain about court-packing now.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Of course it's convenient to forget how trump and the GOP put people on the court through questionable means. Specifically they made sure that Merrick Garland didn't even get appointed through political shenanigans -- it was an election year -- and then rammed through Amy Coney Barrett weeks before the election.

We should all have rejected the right's obvious attempt to deny the fair populating of the US Supreme Court.

Trump put people on the court through legitimate means.

McConnell was a snake in how he didn't give Obama's nominee a hearing, but gave Trump's a hearing just weeks before the election.

Nonetheless, the appointments were totally legitimate.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Actually I'm not totally against the idea because as it is now the Supreme Court is a 6-3 conservative majority. Maybe there should be more balance of power. Biden isn't completely on board with the expansion and he created a bipartisan commission last week to study reforms to the Supreme Court.

It was pointed out in an older thread that the GOP appointed three judges to a lifetime seat in the Supreme Court within a four year span with a former president who lost the popular vote twice and he lost reelection. It's hypocritical for the anti-liberal Republicans to complain about court-packing now.

It's part of what elections of the president are about.

Just because one side lost doesn't mean they should add seats to the court to give themselves a better advantage.

The problem with this is that the judicial branch will gain absolute power over the executive and legislative branches.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

If Democrats do it they open themselves up to an ever expansive supreme court. It won't stop at thirteen because Republicans (if they have a spine) will appoint more until their judges have a majority when they have control of the Senate and Presidency.

How many potential justices would there be in about a twenty years? Fifty plus?

 

[NotreDame]

Of course it's convenient to forget how trump and the GOP put people on the court through questionable means. Specifically they made sure that Merrick Garland didn't even get appointed through political shenanigans -- it was an election year -- and then rammed through Amy Coney Barrett weeks before the election.

We should all have rejected the right's obvious attempt to deny the fair populating of the US Supreme Court.

What are you talking about? Is there a rule book out there somewhere demonstrating whst the “right” did was to preclude a “fair” composition of the Court?

 

[NotreDame]

Actually I'm not totally against the idea because as it is now the Supreme Court is a 6-3 conservative majority. Maybe there should be more balance of power. Biden isn't completely on board with the expansion and he created a bipartisan commission last week to study reforms to the Supreme Court.

It was pointed out in an older thread that the GOP appointed three judges to a lifetime seat in the Supreme Court within a four year span with a former president who lost the popular vote twice and he lost reelection. It's hypocritical for the anti-liberal Republicans to complain about court-packing now.

Sorry, but the claim of hypocrisy is lost on me. The Republicans did not engage in “court-packing” during those four years. Rather, openings occurred naturally and the openings were filled without any adjustment to the total number.

Let’s talk plainly as to some of the reasons for court packing and the hypocrisy of the left.

The left welcomed a 9 seat bench for many decades as the Court issued decisions they found palatable, since the decisions coincided with their political ideology. Miranda Rights, created out of thin air. Exclusionary rule, created out of thin air. Expansion of the federal government’s power under the commerce clause, courtesy of Wickard v Filburn. Roe v Wade, despite the fact the text of the 14th Amendment doesn’t protect a right to abortion in the manner described by the decision. Same sex marriage, same sex sodomy, right to use birth control, all created by the Court as not one line in the 14th Amendment supports the manner the Court protected these rights.

Now, suddenly, when the liberal leaning Court vanishes and the Court leans right, the left loses its mind, and in an act of bigotry and hypocrisy, demands the number of justices on the Court be expanded and filled with moderate to left leaning appointees because it’s only acceptable if the Court tilts left.

 

[disciple Clint]

Of course it's convenient to forget how trump and the GOP put people on the court through questionable means. Specifically they made sure that Merrick Garland didn't even get appointed through political shenanigans -- it was an election year -- and then rammed through Amy Coney Barrett weeks before the election.

We should all have rejected the right's obvious attempt to deny the fair populating of the US Supreme Court.

Nothing at all wrong with what was done, it was all legal. The Dems need to stop with the false narratives. What they are trying to do is going to cost them at the election again but they never learn.

 

[Hank77]

Sorry, but the claim of hypocrisy is lost on me. The Republicans did not engage in “court-packing” during those four years. Rather, openings occurred naturally and the openings were filled without any adjustment to the total number.

Openings occurred naturally in both the Garland and the Coney-Barrett nominations but either Garland wasn't filled naturally or Coney-Barrett wasn't filled naturally. Republicans can't have it both ways.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Openings occurred naturally in both the Garland and the Coney-Barrett nominations but either Garland wasn't filled naturally or Coney-Barrett wasn't filled naturally.

Yes they were.

 

[Derek1234]

Yes they were.

way to win an argument.

 

[KarateCowboy]

way to win an argument.

Arbitrary rules may be arbitrarily denied.

 

[iarwain]

Actually I'm not totally against the idea because as it is now the Supreme Court is a 6-3 conservative majority. Maybe there should be more balance of power.

Balance of power? This is a move to give the left control of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This is a move designed to take complete power, not a move to create balance. This is a move that destroys the system of checks and balances.

 

[NotreDame]

Openings occurred naturally in both the Garland and the Coney-Barrett nominations but either Garland wasn't filled naturally or Coney-Barrett wasn't filled naturally. Republicans can't have it both ways.

You’re equivocating increasing the number of seats to the bench for the purpose of attaining some degeee of ideological tilt, with attaining the ideological tilt within the established number of seats as those seats were vacated by retirement and filled.

The two aren’t the same, and because they aren’t the same, Republicans absolutely can “have it both ways.”

 

[civilwarbuff]

Of course it's convenient to forget how trump and the GOP put people on the court through questionable means.

You mean using Harry Reid's 'nuclear option'?

 

[apogee]

Just to set everyones’ mind at ease. No one needs to worry about the number of Supreme Court judges, or their political preferences, because neither of these things are relevant.

A good judge lays aside their preferences and personal prejudices and instead opts to make themselves a vessel of pure reason, weighing each and every case, on the basis of its own merit and that alone.

So naturally, how much more then does a great judge do this? And surely there can be no greater judges than those that have been appointed to the greatest of courts.

I mean really anything else would be tantamount to saying that the Supreme Court was nothing more than a kangaroo one and that voting in national elections was primarily about selecting the person best suited to rig the kangaroo court for future generations.

Naturally there is nothing despicable about trying to get your guys and gals in the driving seat for the next 40 years - if you are on the correct side - which of course you are, all of the time, it’s the other ‘idiots’ that are the problem.