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.
There is nothing to ask forgiveness for.
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.
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).
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.
Suddenly the Court is politicized and needs fixing, whereas decades of legislating from the bench in terms that suited the Left was no problem.
Your response is typical of the extremist bent of the Republicans these days.
...just a middle finger raised to the ‘liberal left’ and an insistence on getting things all your own way.
No discussion, no compromise, no willingness to even discuss bipartisanship...
Only when the senate majority leader says so.....The President of the United States has the Constitutional authority to nominate individuals to fill vacant seats on the US Supreme Court....
Only when the senate majority leader says so.
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.
The difference is in theFrom 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 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.
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.
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.
Exactly. Its not about whats in the constitution, as sistrin claimed. Its about power, what you can get away with.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.
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!"Aside from "I don't think the Supreme Court will vote my way" what are all the reasons why we should expand the court?
LoLDid 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.
Ok sure. We'll try it on.Or perhaps their "republic" abandoned them.
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?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.
No, just the GOP Senate refusing to consider judicial appointments when the president was the wrong party and/or race.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.
But now forget court packing, it seems the whole thing is up for grabs by the Left.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?