• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Democrats to introduce legislation to expand Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Current News & Events (Articles Required)' started by JimR-OCDS, Apr 17, 2021.

  1. JimR-OCDS

    JimR-OCDS God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love

    +1,885
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. thecolorsblend

    thecolorsblend If God is your Father, who is your Mother? Supporter

    +8,091
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    .
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2021
  3. JimR-OCDS

    JimR-OCDS God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love

    +1,885
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    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.

    .
     
  4. pescador

    pescador Newbie Supporter

    +3,247
    Christian
    Married
    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  5. KarateCowboy

    KarateCowboy Classical liberal Supporter

    +1,990
    United States
    Catholic
    Private
    Whataboutism.
     
  6. Guinan

    Guinan Countdown to the government's report on UFO/UAP.

    883
    +1,542
    United States
    Christian Seeker
    Married
    US-Republican
    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2021
  7. JimR-OCDS

    JimR-OCDS God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love

    +1,885
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    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.
     
  8. JimR-OCDS

    JimR-OCDS God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love

    +1,885
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    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.
     
  9. Ignatius the Kiwi

    Ignatius the Kiwi Newbie

    +2,344
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single
    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?
     
  10. NotreDame

    NotreDame Domer Supporter

    +2,384
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Others
    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?
     
  11. NotreDame

    NotreDame Domer Supporter

    +2,384
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Others
    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  12. disciple Clint

    disciple Clint Well-Known Member

    +3,243
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    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.
     
  13. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +13,207
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    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.
     
  14. KarateCowboy

    KarateCowboy Classical liberal Supporter

    +1,990
    United States
    Catholic
    Private
    Yes they were.
     
  15. Derek1234

    Derek1234 New Member

    57
    +21
    United Kingdom
    Protestant
    Married
    way to win an argument.
     
  16. KarateCowboy

    KarateCowboy Classical liberal Supporter

    +1,990
    United States
    Catholic
    Private
    Arbitrary rules may be arbitrarily denied.
     
  17. iarwain

    iarwain Newbie

    106
    +31
    Christian
    In Relationship
    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.
     
  18. NotreDame

    NotreDame Domer Supporter

    +2,384
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Others
    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.”
     
  19. civilwarbuff

    civilwarbuff Well-Known Member Supporter

    +6,351
    Christian
    Single
    US-Constitution
    You mean using Harry Reid's 'nuclear option'?
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2021
  20. apogee

    apogee Regular Member

    743
    +396
    Christian
    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2021
Loading...