How to Fix the Supreme Court

Fantine said:

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.

Click to expand...

Good luck with that. We the People are not going to allow either CA or NY to set up anti-America-as-founded fiefdoms on our coasts.

HTacianas said:

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.

Click to expand...

The thing that limits the amount of cases they hear is the writing of opinions, not the actual hearings. They have clerks who can summarize the briefs for them, and the actual hearings are only an hour long. But it takes a long time to write an opinion, which is where the bottleneck is.

KCfromNC said:

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?

Click to expand...

Just winning every single Senate Race up for grabs next week would more than be enough.

FiveThirtyEight last I saw had the Democrats at a 51-49 lead after this election. Getting DC and US territories full representation would give the Democrats 2 more for DC. Puerto Rico might be a split. American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marina Islands, and Virgin Islands getting statehood probably might go as well as 7-1 Senators for Democrats. Now this is assuming they all want to be states which should absolutely be their decision. That only gets a 61-51 Senate split so not enough to kick someone off the Supreme Court. This would also change the old requirement that a territory have 60,000 residents before being granted statehood (Northern Marina Islands and American Samoa were both less than 10,000 short at last census).

hislegacy said:

The Supreme Court has not needed 'fixing' for more than 150 years. It is only when the left has lost their majority (out of balance to the left) that there is call for packing the courts.

However the term 'packing the courts' did not poll well with the general population, so in typical fashion, the term was changed to 'fixing'.

The Supreme Court is not broken - it doesn't need fixing.

Click to expand...

The left hasn't had a majority in the Supreme Court for almost my entire life. That the court does not rule the way you wanted did not make it a liberal court.

As I have pointed out, Republicans changed some long standing rules to get this particularly partisan majority on the court, one that Republicans have been working towards for at least three decades (it is something I can remember being talked about when I was a delegate for a Republican State Convention). It is hypocritical for Republicans now to complain that Democrats might change the rules to try and get a balanced court.

I found it interesting when it was pointed out how Republicans have won the popular vote only a single time in the last seven Presidential elections, but they have put 6 of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court in that time. I'm not talking about the Electoral College here, so please don't bring it up -- instead I'm talking about the hubris of what Republicans have done and how they may be paying for it in future elections.

One of the things I'm really interested in this year is what happens in Texas. As of Sunday, 80% as many votes had been cast already this year compared to the entire vote count in 2016. It has been claimed Texas will become a Democratic state within this decade (prior to 2030) -- I'm curious if the increased voter registrations and turnout this year will be the start of a "Blue" Texas. It will be very interesting (in the Chinese curse "may you live in interesting time" way) to see what happens.

GOD Shines Forth! said:

Good luck with that. We the People are not going to allow either CA or NY to set up anti-America-as-founded fiefdoms on our coasts.

Click to expand...

Okay. So NY stays. But CA will be turned over to Spain.

Fantine said:

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.

Click to expand...

How do you balance a court with 9 justices? There will always be a majority.

To the left and it's media army fair and balanced means skewed in their favor, always. That is why there was no outcry about fairness nor balance until they lost the majority.

This is nothing more than a power grab by liberals who can not make the changes they want through the established methods and systems.

The words of Ruth Bader Ginsburg are only held in esteem when they side with the narrative.

hislegacy said:

How do you balance a court with 9 justices? There will always be a majority.

To the left and it's media army fair and balanced means skewed in their favor, always. That is why there was no outcry about fairness nor balance until they lost the majority.

This is nothing more than a power grab by liberals who can not make the changes they want through the established methods and systems.

The words of Ruth Bader Ginsburg are only held in esteem when they side with the narrative.

Click to expand...

Yeah who cares about "balance". Dominance is the goal of the R's, as it should be of the D's.

hislegacy said:

The Supreme Court has not needed 'fixing' for more than 150 years. It is only when the left has lost their majority (out of balance to the left) that there is call for packing the courts.

However the term 'packing the courts' did not poll well with the general population, so in typical fashion, the term was changed to 'fixing'.

The Supreme Court is not broken - it doesn't need fixing.

Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%. Court is not broken, nor it needs fixing. 9 justices are enough. Republican didn’t break the law or bent constitution to put Judge Amy to the SCOTUS. They followed the law perfectly. As a lifelong conservative, I wish that was the end of the story. But we all know that is not the whole story. Republican were hypocrite and robbed a SCOTUS nomination from President Obama. Evangelical were hypocrite, in the name of supreme court, evangelical Christian supports a guy who represent everything opposite of Christianity. So there has to be consequence for hypocrisy. If Biden win the election and Senate moved to democrat control, Democrat should add another 5-7 more judges, just for the hack of it to make a point that “ it can be done, if they want to” and nothing would be violated. Constitution doesn’t say how many judges should be in SOCTUS.

It is plain and simple .. republican needs to learn a lesson that when they are hypocrites or leave the norm , there is consequence. My only fear is Biden is a too nice of a guy to give republican a lesson.

I am a conservatives and I always will be , but for me to support another conservatives party , current republican party has to be dissolved 100%. Trumpism and current republican party can’t be part of the future of this country ever again!

Fantine said:

When the Court becomes imbalanced through chicanery and dishonesty, maybe the dissenters are right.

Click to expand...

Please list what rules were broken in the process of Justice Barrett.

Tiberius Lee said:

I agree with you 100%. Court is not broken, nor it needs fixing. 9 justices are enough. Republican didn’t break the law or bent constitution to put Judge Amy to the SCOTUS.....

Click to expand...

Barret was nominated thanks to the McConnell principle (previously applied then selectively ignored) that a president cannot nominate a justice in the last year of his term. Thats blatantly unconstitutional. Remember, McConnell didnt reject Garland per se. He rejected any final year nominee on that explicitly stated and unconstitutional principle.

GreatLakes4Ever said:

Just winning every single Senate Race up for grabs next week would more than be enough.

FiveThirtyEight last I saw had the Democrats at a 51-49 lead after this election. Getting DC and US territories full representation would give the Democrats 2 more for DC. Puerto Rico might be a split. American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marina Islands, and Virgin Islands getting statehood probably might go as well as 7-1 Senators for Democrats. Now this is assuming they all want to be states which should absolutely be their decision. That only gets a 61-51 Senate split so not enough to kick someone off the Supreme Court. This would also change the old requirement that a territory have 60,000 residents before being granted statehood (Northern Marina Islands and American Samoa were both less than 10,000 short at last census).

Click to expand...

I'll return to my idea of finding ways - very legal ways, so no one could possibly object - of removing some of the empty Red states from the Union. That should help move things along as well. I mean, the rules established by the GOP are now "whatever we can get away with", so no one has any reason to complain.

That, or just go with "let's ignore what the courts say". I mean, the executive controls law enforcement, right? What happens if we just stop listening to what the court says? What are they gonna do, sue?

KCfromNC said:

I'll return to my idea of finding ways - very legal ways, so no one could possibly object - of removing some of the empty Red states from the Union. That should help move things along as well. I mean, the rules established by the GOP are now "whatever we can get away with", so no one has any reason to complain.

Click to expand...

Gosh I wonder if San Francisco could secede from CA and split into 4 or 5 states each with its own set of senators?

As a bonus these states could each be named for prominent tech companies headquartered there. The great state of Twitter. The great state of Pinterest. The most greatest of all states: Uber.

hislegacy said:

How do you balance a court with 9 justices? There will always be a majority.

To the left and it's media army fair and balanced means skewed in their favor, always. That is why there was no outcry about fairness nor balance until they lost the majority.

This is nothing more than a power grab by liberals who can not make the changes they want through the established methods and systems.

The words of Ruth Bader Ginsburg are only held in esteem when they side with the narrative.

Click to expand...

Legal court packing is an "established method and system" the same way that McConnell has employed "established methods and systems" to obstruct Obama's judicial nominations and rush through Trump's. Neither violates any rules; they only violate unwritten norms that make people feel uncomfortable.

durangodawood said:

Gosh I wonder if San Francisco could secede from CA and split into 4 or 5 states each with its own set of senators?

Click to expand...

I prefer the idea of the new states of North, South, East, Mid East, Mid West and West District(s) of Columbia.

durangodawood said:

Barret was nominated thanks to the McConnell principle (previously applied then selectively ignored) that a president cannot nominate a justice in the last year of his term. Thats blatantly unconstitutional. Remember, McConnell didnt reject Garland per se. He rejected any final year nominee on that explicitly stated and unconstitutional principle.

Click to expand...

Nothing McConnell did was unconstitutional.

KCfromNC said:

That, or just go with "let's ignore what the courts say". I mean, the executive controls law enforcement, right? What happens if we just stop listening to what the court says? What are they gonna do, sue?

Click to expand...

This might be the most fun alternative and one that doesn’t get talked about enough. There’s no reason we can’t all just agree to ignore what the Supreme Court says. They have literally no power to force us to listen to them. It’s really just us agreeing to listen to what they have to say. If we don’t give them that power and the executive branch doesn’t force us to acknowledge that power, they have none.

iluvatar5150 said:

Nothing McConnell did was unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

McConnell's senate can reject any particular nominee. But it cant deny that the president is entitled to nominate justices during this or that portion of his term. Thats precisely what McC did. It wasnt a rejection of Garland. It was a statement than no nominee would be considered, and the senate would decline its constitutionally mandated advise and consent role during that time.

Anyway, "constitutional" is getting kind of old fashioned. Its just a word people throw out when it seems to suit their interests. So who even cares anymore.

durangodawood said:

Yeah who cares about "balance". Dominance is the goal of the R's, as it should be of the D's.

Click to expand...

How do you balance a 9 member panel?

durangodawood said:

McConnell's senate can reject any particular nominee. But it cant deny that the president is entitled to nominate justices during this or that portion of his term. Thats precisely what McC did. It wasnt a rejection of Garland. It was a statement than no nominee would be considered, and the senate would decline its constitutionally mandated advise and consent role during that time.

Anyway, "constitutional" is getting kind of old fashioned. Its just a word people throw out when it seems to suit their interests. So who even cares anymore.

Click to expand...

The Senate can also refuse to consider a nominee.

I don't like McConnell any more than anybody, but he didn't violate any rules and shrieking about things that are demonstrably untrue doesn't help.