Democrats to introduce legislation to expand Supreme Court

apogee

Regular Member
Oct 9, 2004
824
442
✟41,941.00
Faith
Christian
feel free to go ahead a expound on that thought, explain exactly how they are not different.

Gladly, they are not different in their expected/intended outcomes.

A partisan senate "filling vacancies" that fortuitously arise, will likely result in those vacancies being filled by legislators that are aligned to the party.

A partisan senate "filling vacancies" that don't yet exist, will likely result in those vacancies being filled by legislators that are aligned to the party.

In both cases, the hope/expectation is that the partisan appointments will enhance the power and influence of the party, both now and long after the party has lost any democratic mandate.

Feel free to expound upon the differences.
 
Upvote 0

disciple Clint

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2018
15,258
5,991
Pacific Northwest
✟208,189.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Gladly, they are not different in their expected/intended outcomes.

A partisan senate "filling vacancies" that fortuitously arise, will likely result in those vacancies being filled by legislators that are aligned to the party.

A partisan senate "filling vacancies" that don't yet exist, will likely result in those vacancies being filled by legislators that are aligned to the party.

In both cases, the hope/expectation being that the partisan appointments will enhance the power and influence of the party, both now and long after the party has lost any democratic mandate.

Feel free to expound upon the differences.
That explanation was a little to revealing, court positions are filled with judges not legislators, truly the Dems are attempting to turn SCOTUS into another legislative branch in an obvious power grab . That is not the purpose of SCOTUS.
 
Upvote 0

apogee

Regular Member
Oct 9, 2004
824
442
✟41,941.00
Faith
Christian
That explanation was a little to revealing, court positions are filled with judges not legislators, truly the Dems are attempting to turn SCOTUS into another legislative branch in an obvious power grab . That is not the purpose of SCOTUS.

I'm not aligned to either party, so I'm not sure why you would think that 'my inaccuracy' reveals anything about either of them.

That said, I'm more than happy to take correction and refine the word to 'judges' rather than 'legislators', although I am merely attempting to describe similarities, rather than actually reform any branches of government, so you don't need to worry yourself too much.
 
Upvote 0

iarwain

Newbie
Feb 13, 2009
681
355
✟104,873.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Feel free to expound upon the differences.
In one case it is "fair play" as one party fills the vacancies as they come up.
In the other case it is one party adding justices so they can gain the majority. It is changing the number of justices that has remained the same for 150 years to gain all power, as opposed to playing the game the way it has been for that entire time - where the party in power fills the vacancies.

By the way, I do not agree with McConnell refusing to take a vote on Obama's SC nomination. I do not like the degree of partisanship that is currently being displayed in our political system.
 
Upvote 0

apogee

Regular Member
Oct 9, 2004
824
442
✟41,941.00
Faith
Christian
Firstly, thank you for taking the time to write this

In one case it is "fair play" as one party fills the vacancies as they come up.

This definitely seems reasonable, "them's the breaks" is the well used phrase that comes to mind, or maybe "you win some, you lose some".

In the other case it is one party adding justices so they can gain the majority.

Potentially, in which case that does seem rather unfair.

It is changing the number of justices that has remained the same for 150 years to gain all power, as opposed to playing the game the way it has been for that entire time - where the party in power fills the vacancies.

This sounds reasonable.

By the way, I do not agree with McConnell refusing to take a vote on Obama's SC nomination.

I would agree, it's clearly not in the spirit of the game and when contrasted with McConnell's later conduct it is very clear that he, and those who supported him, have no regard for the concept of "Fair Play"

I do not like the degree of partisanship that is currently being displayed in our political system.

I would agree completely, although I would go further and say that partisanship, though tolerable in a political system, should have absolutely no place in a judicial system, and that partisan influence over the judiciary is not a game (fair or otherwise), it is a corruption.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: iarwain
Upvote 0

9Rock9

Sinner in need of grace.
Nov 28, 2018
227
142
South Carolina
✟73,071.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
In one case it is "fair play" as one party fills the vacancies as they come up.
In the other case it is one party adding justices so they can gain the majority. It is changing the number of justices that has remained the same for 150 years to gain all power, as opposed to playing the game the way it has been for that entire time - where the party in power fills the vacancies.

By the way, I do not agree with McConnell refusing to take a vote on Obama's SC nomination. I do not like the degree of partisanship that is currently being displayed in our political system.

I'm a bit rusty with American history, but has the number of justices really remained unchanged for 150 years? Didn't FDR want to add more justices?
 
Upvote 0

iarwain

Newbie
Feb 13, 2009
681
355
✟104,873.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
I'm a bit rusty with American history, but has the number of justices really remained unchanged for 150 years? Didn't FDR want to add more justices?
The Supreme Court has had nine justices since 1869, so it's actually a bit longer than 150 years.
FDR did want to add justices, but that plan was not particularly popular and never went through.
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Site Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,534
4,827
57
Oregon
✟797,954.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
How many potential justices would there be in about a twenty years? Fifty plus?

What's wrong with that? Sure would make the death or retirement of one judge inconsequential to the balance of the court, which would be a good thing, no?

Also, it would virtually eliminate the chance the court would make most decisions on party lines, and instead would make a majority of those decisions based on merits which would be far more impartial than it is now. A 33 member court, for instance, Could also facilitate the court being able to decide many more cases by assigning them to 11 member panels, and save the most consequential cases for the full court...

Plenty of countries have 30+ member supreme courts.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: apogee
Upvote 0

civilwarbuff

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 28, 2015
14,595
7,106
✟611,873.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
What's wrong with that? Sure would make the death or retirement of one judge inconsequential to the balance of the court, which would be a good thing, no?

Also, it would virtually eliminate the chance the court would make most decisions on party lines, and instead would make a majority of those decisions based on merits which would be far more impartial than it is now. A 33 member court, for instance, Could also facilitate the court being able to decide many more cases by assigning them to 11 member panels, and save the most consequential cases for the full court...

Plenty of countries have 30+ member supreme courts.
Did you ever hear the homily that nothing ever gets decided by committee?......LOL
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Site Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,534
4,827
57
Oregon
✟797,954.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Did you ever hear the homily that nothing ever gets decided by committee?......LOL

I understand the anti-democratic sentiment of the right. It's been around since the nation's founding.

Central to American right wing political philosophy since it's inception is the notion that average people [what Alexander Hamilton and John Adams called the "Rabble"] can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves and as such require a strong armed, historically rich, white and male, ruling class to do make decisions for them.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: apogee
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

jgarden

Senior Veteran
Jan 1, 2004
10,695
3,181
✟106,405.00
Faith
Methodist
nwpagvl3ey431.jpg


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
That "very dangerous move" can be traced back to McConnell's refusal to hold Senate confirmation hearings for Obama's Supreme Court Justice nominee Merrick Garland, based on the premise that it was occurring during an election year!

Fast-forward 4 years where McConnell and congressional Republicans are all too willing t ignore their own precedent and confirm President Trump's Supreme Court nominee days before the 2020 Election!

For 4 years, Republicans either supported or remained silent as President Trump violated all the norms, including reckless behavior that resulted in 2 Impeachments - its far too late for conservatives to start crying "FOUL!"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
11,151
7,511
✟346,504.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Did you ever hear the homily that nothing ever gets decided by committee?......LOL
That would be funny if things weren't already being decided by committee. I think there are plenty of non-partisan reasons to expand the Court.
 
Upvote 0

civilwarbuff

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 28, 2015
14,595
7,106
✟611,873.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
I understand the anti-democratic sentiment of the right. It's been around since the nation's founding.
I always saw that as a symptom of democrats as they attempted to manipulate the south into mimicking the feudalism of Europe......or the caste system of India.....
Central to American right wing political philosophy since it's inception is the notion that average people [what Alexander Hamilton and John Adams called the "Rabble"] can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves and as such require a strong armed, historically rich, white and male, ruling class to do make decisions for them.
See above response.......
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DragonFox91
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

civilwarbuff

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 28, 2015
14,595
7,106
✟611,873.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Bill proposing DC be named Washington Douglass Commonwealth & become the 51st state passes the House, & heads to the Senate.
And that has what to do with the OP?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DragonFox91
Upvote 0

2BeholdHisGlory

Still on vacation!
Mar 20, 2021
823
414
Outer Space
✟11,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And here we are arguing Left vs Right on a forum in the corner of the internet just like "they" want. Distracted while the agenda moves forward and freedom dies.

I can't agree more.

Although sometimes such places (even online) can remind you of little honey traps/ honey pots too which work to draw "certain together" into a specific location where things are also controlled at another level from where they target opposition within that enviroment (while calling themselves by a name that appears freindly to the cause). Bait and switch sort of thing.

Draw them in, keep the flow of certain topics going (even when certain areas be dead) keep the in- fighting between them (and plants in place) set for provocations and to target individuals in an arena-like enviroment where you are really just being thrown to the lions.

I did not put that as correctly as I should have, I should have just agreed with you lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: GraceBro
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Site Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,534
4,827
57
Oregon
✟797,954.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I always saw that as a symptom of democrats as they attempted to manipulate the south into mimicking the feudalism of Europe......or the caste system of India.....

circa? when do you say this took place?

All the historical evidence points to the opposite being true.

And by "democrats" do You mean all the pre 1970's democrats that turned into republicans because the Democratic Party writ large embraced desegregation and Civil Rights?

See above response.......

Pretty weak response IYAM.

The modern-day conservative movement began with Federalists Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, who argued that for a society to be stable it must have a governing elite, and this elite must be separate both in power and privilege from what Adams referred to as "the rabble." Their Federalist party imploded in the early 19th Century, in large part because of public revulsion over Federalist elitism.

Destroyed by their embrace of this early form of despotism, the Federalists were replaced first in the early 1800s by the short-lived Whigs and then, starting with Lincoln, by the modern-day Republicans, who, after Lincoln's death, firmly staked out their ancestral Federalist/Feudalist position as the party of wealthy corporate and private interests.

The Right wing, since the nations founding, has had a preferred worldview that is decidedly anti-democratic. What conservatives are really arguing for is a return to the three historic forms of tyranny that the Founders and Framers identified, declared war against, and fought and died to keep out of our land. Those tyrants were kings, theocrats, and noble feudal lords.

You yourself appear to have espoused such a worldview in your previous anti democratic comments.... do you likewise claim your personal anti-democratic views are "a symptom of democrat's (turned Republicans) actions in the south", or do you take sole responsibility for them?
 
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

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Site Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,534
4,827
57
Oregon
✟797,954.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And here we are arguing Left vs Right on a forum in the corner of the internet just like "they" want. Distracted while the agenda moves forward and freedom dies.
Who's They, and what Freedoms have died?

Please be as specific as possible.
 
Upvote 0